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)

• It's possible to be 100% accurate and within policy and yet still be entirely disruptive in the process. When you're basically arguing your defense on the basis of the ends justify the means, it's time to stop and ask yourself some pointed questions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There's that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment - I would be amenable to an even more severe restriction on Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, topic banning him from dealing with files at all. Get thee to Commons. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Legitimate gripes about HW's style notwithstanding, he is correct per WMF policy. A disputed non-free image should never be reinserted until it's been independently reviewed, nless there is a broad agreement that a specific class of image (low res version of album cover art on album articles, for example) is appropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And yet, as I mentioned above, it's that style that is the problem here. If he's 100% correct and policy-compliant but is so abrasive in that correctness that other editors would rather not cross his path, then we need to ask if it's better to ignore the cost because "the results are perfect" or to attempt to moderate the disruptiveness and avoid potentially driving editors away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This notion that an image must be removed over any disputed FUR by default was strongly rejected both as a matter of opinion and a matter of fact above. What you're saying quite simply isn't true, and rather than respond above, you're simply repeating the same misinformation further down the thread. It's not surprising when an established editor is over-reactionary in their approach to copyright, but it is disappointing to see one repeat misinformation after being corrected. Swarm ♠ 17:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Feel free to ask for a change in the policy wording, but until then as it is currently written if there is not a valid FUR non-free media is removed and stays removed until either valid one is provided or consensus is that the existing FUR is acceptable. Do not continue to mis-represent this policy as saying something else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017

The idea that local consensus can somehow overrule copyright law and foundation copyright policy is quaint, but unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's clear that policy supports the results of HW's editing here. So do our terms of use and the determination by the WMF to enforce a stricter standard than just U.S. copyright law. All of the rest of the stuff are the result of personal dissatisfaction with HW's style. If we follow the dictum "focus on the edits, not the editor", the answer is obvious. This thread should be shut down without any action. David in DC (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, I'm sorry, that's incorrect, it's far from "clear", and saying that it is doesn't make it so. You could profitably review the entire discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• So, as I mentioned above, the ends justify the means? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Codename Lisa

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

---

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

Hey there,

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

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

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

Other details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're probably looking for WP:HOTHEADS. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment is a gross misrepresentation of status quo. Ahecht's sole comment met with unanimous acclaim; power~enwiki met with "Agreed. No arguments there" and "the offer to deploy a summary-style coverage, however, is ... tempting." —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I concede that "rudely to the three of us" was unwarranted, but I personally experienced coarseness in—what I demonstrated this situation to be in my comment above—an unnecessarily convoluted discussion that some seemingly had little intention to resolve. I don't feel I have the authority, as I implied with "I have not interacted", to determine whether or not this belongs at ANI. However, I am wondering whether or not you feel it's appropriate that it took three attempts of reasonable suggestions from uninvolved editors for this very simple issue to generate any form of agreement rather than squabbling. Rhinopias (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Hello, everyone. This is Codename Lisa. I did not want to come here for a long time because ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process and I do not want to play the "block the disputing editor" game. Instead, I did something completely different: I offered the disputing parties to take the issue to Mediation Committee. (Revision 816288573.) There, nobody has the luxury of being uncivil, even though mediators don't block anybody for it. So far, I have only received this reaction: 816311106. Feel free to make up your own mind about it.

It appears this thread has run its course and now has changed subject to "I don't mean to say 'no smoke without fire', but we see FleetCommand and Codename Lisa a lot together." Yes, you have, perhaps as far back as 2014, when Matthiaspaul accused me of meatpuppetry with FleetCommand in a discussion that I was not even present in it! As The Bushranger said above, this instance is also one of those phantom cases. In other cases, I have acted completely differently. Whereas FleetCommand received both bans and blocks, I gained new friends. In May this year, I reported FleetCommand and caused him to receive a block. One tangible case is given above: The case of User:Neil and the question of "Vandalism or not: What if an admin doesn't agree with the community?" This links shows you how FleetCommand and NeilN behaved. Well, this is how I behaved: NeilN and I parted amicably and I complied with his order. I am not proud of what I did in that affair, despite the fact that I was facing abject vandalism.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Update on the discussion: We have reached a consensus about one of the disputed sentences. I have offered a compromise in the form of me totally withdrawing any objections to either of the disputed versions and neither support nor oppose either. That should end my role in the discussion permanently. After all, all dispute resolutions are about compromises: You give a little and take a little, and all the while stay calm.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [14], [15], [16], 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 [17]. If editing another user's post is prohibited by WP rules, he is requested to warn user Chalk19. Claims of "personal attack" are foundless. PS, I don't know how to use the notification to the user involved (Chalk19). Someone is requested to do it, please. --Skylax30 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for your suggestion Serialjoepsycho. At least I am not the one who started this topic here.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Υou are the only one who used (against me) a "highly derogatory epithet", "highly inappropriate and bigoted", "wholly unacceptable". Υou are the only one who didn't accept this, and tried to deny your action through your "falsification" theory. ——Chalk19 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure how relevant the article Panayiotis Diamadis itself is to this conflict, but somewhat, surely, since the conflict turns on "recognition" of Diamadis as notable enough for an article. It's a really bad article. Just saying. Created by an SPA who has made three edits in toto. It lists all Diamadis' four degrees from the University of Sydney and lots of other CV details, including presenting at redlinked conferences, being "one of the notable persons who criticized the film The Water Diviner", and a good deal of text about Australian servicemen's memoirs... no sorry, the last-mentioned are not even CV details, they're simply not about Diamadis at all. I suppose the people who have added these details believed that a sufficiently large number of non-notable/irrelevant factoids will add up to notability, but that is not correct. I've stubbified it, leaving the template about dubious notability, because that certainly still applies. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC).

This is not the place to discuss the notability of the person. For your information, the Greek article contains more material and sources, many of them in Greek. You will not understand this conflict unless you are a Greek and you understand the divides of the greek society. Cheers.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me. EEng 21:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Careful, now... -- Begoon 06:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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 ([18]). 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)

Rtc and birth control

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

---

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

Context: "fertility awareness methods" of birth control are advocated almost exclusively by religious groups, as they have a high failure rate. User rtc is trying to include special pleading about how they are really not a lottery after all as long as you use multiple techniques. So far he has tried edit warring, condescension[19] and WP:POINTy tagging[20][21]. Numerous other editors are reverting the changes, including Doc James, who I think we're all aware is medically qualified. I think a topic ban is needed. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for proving my point? Or possibly missing it entirely, I'm not sure. You might want to read Wikipedia:When to cite. The claim that the earth will have sufficient oxygen on it to support human life tomorrow does not, actually, require a citation because it is not "challenged or likely to be challenged". The same goes for 100% abstinence preventing pregnancy. If you're going to make an absurd claim like the idea that a woman can become pregnant from a sharing a bed with a man despite there being no sexual contact between them (and ruling out cases of somnophilic/drugged rape, since those do involve sexual contact), then you need a reliable source to back it up. The opposite does not hold true. Claiming it does is either sheer bloody-mindedness to the point of surrealism, or deliberate disruption. Based on the series of WP:POINTy tags you added to the birth control article ([22][23][24]) 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 ([25][26][27]); when these were apparently to "follow the source", Doc James explained to you why the original followed the source better. In defending these edits, you made some frankly absurd claims here, to which several editors, myself included, responded with incredulity. You added tags to the article to introduce doubt to perfectly acceptable statements in the article only after your changes were reverted several times as incorrect/not an improvement and the issues were discussed on the talk page. That's listed as one of the classic WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, so yes, WP:POINT is wholly relevant here, as was BB's question and the corresponding discussion. You made some edits; they were reverted with an explanation; you kept making them; the problems with them were further explained to you; you responded with condescension; you decided to switch from the edits that kept being reverted to instead add specious, irrelevant tags to other editors' work. This could have stayed as a content dispute until you added those tags - in my opinion, that tipped your behaviour over into disruptive editing and fully justified JzG's report here. Marianna251TALK 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Eggishorn: Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Eggishorn: Okay, then I was misunderstanding what you meant by "and ending with". Your accusations were about both conduct ("I see this pattern") and content ("your proposed sources do not support your proposed edits"). Concerning conduct, I asked you for an example where I diverted a discussion about conduct to a discussion about content. Concerning content, among other arguments, I made the proposal "How about saying why my tag adding edits ...". (If this were the only paragraph in my comment, I would be diverting, and you were right, but it is clearly not.) So I replied to both kinds of accusations. Now you are using this fact against me: Instead of actually replying to any of my arguments about content or conduct, you ignored all of them and claim I was diverting the one to the other. That's simply ridiculous and unfair. --rtc (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, for what it's worth, this is technically correct. The source doesn't say anything about what any groups advocate, but rather what certain individuals may do. As to this, I see the 0.4% in the source, but I ain't seeing any 24 or 5% about anything at all. The same probably applies to this too, since I'm not totally sure where it comes from. Maybe I'm missing it. I never claimed to be the sharpest crayon in the box.

I mean, yeah. Thinking you can have a wet dream and get your partner pregnant is pretty far off the mark. It's... much harder than that. There's apps for tracking your cycle and everything to the point where the whole thing becomes a chore. But... I can't help but find some sympathy for the idea that a lot of this thread is a red herring and doesn't really address the core issue at all. Maybe someone can correct me. GMG^talk 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's... much harder than that. I see what you did there. heh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, finally someone is actually looking at the issue. I would have wished one of the others did, as it would have prevented this whole fruitless discussion. About "I see the 0.4% in the source, but I ain't seeing any 24 or 5% about anything at all" -- this is actually in the source, in the first table (table 1 at [28]. But the table clearly says which is which, it does not give a range. The current version in birth control does merely give a range. In the current version of the article, any method might be 0.4%, which is a magnitude less than 5%. That unnecessarily confuses the reader; why leave them uninformed when more precise information is available? --rtc (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo The source supports the definition of abstinence. I think you and rtc misread it as claiming that it supports the statement that some groups advocate it. The correct tag would be:

Some groups{{who?}} advocate total [[sexual abstinence]], by which they mean the avoidance of all sexual activity.<ref name=PP2009/>

But that's not what rtc did. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is exactly what I did. Such blatantly false arguments clearly show that you did not actually look at my edits at all. The other tag (failed verification) was about the fact that the source does not support the definition of "total" abstinence. The entire source does not contain the word "total". "total" is a very extreme word, it can easily be understood to mean that you never ever have sex with anyone at all. Further, the source does not advocate anything. It merely lists various degrees of abstinence for various reasons and various lengths of time and also lists abstinence from vaginal intercourse (which it also calls "outercourse"). So it emphatically does not advocate the more stringent definition of abstinence. --rtc (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To Guy, nah man. The PP source really doesn't support that really at all. To rtc, the range (now that I know where it's at) ... (not the sharpest crayon) actually seems okay. I can see that there would be room for an explanatory footnote, or perhaps more detail in the body, but it does seem to be overall supported by the source, although it might not be evident to the reader upon first glance. GMG^talk 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To my reading, it does. Regardless, the tagging was WP:POINT after rejection of numerous attempts to make Vatican Roulette look less terrible than it is. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not made any such attempt at all Please stop making clearly false claims about my edits. If you think something I edited can be understood in this way, please obey the almighty sea-lion and provide a diff. Your reading? You obviously did not read the source. In no way does the source advocate the more stringent definition. It describes both definitions (calling the other "outercourse"), both in several variants, without bias towards the one or the other. --rtc (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To my reading, it does Then... I guess... I can assume you haven't actually read it. No offense. But it's pretty self evidently talking about something different entirely. GMG^talk 01:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree a clarifying footnote would be a good idea. However, another problem I see is this: The section first lists techniques. Those techniques are in the range of 3-5% according to the source. This range (with explanatory footnote) would be okay for me, as it is of the same magnitude and cannot be misunderstood. However, the section gives a range of 0.4 to 5%. 0.4% is for the symptothermal method, which uses a combination of the techniques. This method, however, is mentioned only after the statment with the range. Would you expect a reader to understand correctly that the range includes the method that has not been mentioned yet? That's the reason for this tag. --rtc (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for TBAN of User:rtc

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

---

user:rtc is topic banned from the subject of birth control broadly construed.

1. Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - the evidence above is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - the behavior has gone from tendentious to sea-lioning especially with their new proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Could you please explain to the non-initiated reader what "sea-lioning" means and which wikipedia policy this is? --rtc (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   see here Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Haha! Brilliant. That should really be codified into official policy somehow. nagualdesign 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Although it's not precisely on target, I'm adding WP:SEALIONING as a shortcut to WP:CPUSH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   definitely. And quickly get rid of this too. Arguments? Who needs arguments. Admins should clearly be free to make up arbitrary claims and it should be an offense for anyone to politely request evidence for them, ie. to "sea-lion". --rtc (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

4. Support After reading this thread and seeing the comment below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose - Unless someone actually addresses my concerns above. GMG^talk 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   !Voted again below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

5. Support but note that the user isn't polite enough to be sea-lioning, as shown by pointy proposal below. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
6. support per alternate proposal below and sealioning above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose I'd support a warning for his maintenance-tag bombing (and the malformed RfC to try to justify it) and a short-term restriction from the Birth control article (but not its talk page). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   I started this RfC because opposing user User:Doc James suggested it. I was even quite skeptical it is useful. I don't understand why it is now used against me. --rtc (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   I assume he meant an RfC on a suggested change to the content, not on the maintenance tags. I agree that Doc James' comment was unclear and you shouldn't be sanctioned for starting that RfC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   He's not. This is about tendentious editing, and IDHT, not about starting an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

8. Comment The suggestion to start a RfC was for you proposed change in content NOT for whether or not you should add half a dozen tags to the article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   You reverted my tags directly before suggesting to start an RFC. I am sorry that I don't have the ability of clairvoyance and thus was unable to see that you were referring to an older version. --rtc (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

9. Comment See "Some groups advocate total sexual abstinence, by which they mean the avoidance of all sexual activity.[85]" The content fails verification. The content should be tagged or reworded. This was kind of correct. I would use only a FV span tag instead to highlight the part "Some groups advocate". That part appears to fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Not only that part. The part about "total" abstinence, which I would understand as not ever having sex, fails verification, too. The source simply does not contain the word "total". It speaks about "abstinence is not doing ANY kind of sexual stuff with another person". This does not include a time dimension. The source describes various forms of abstinence, some short-term, some longer-term, but none of them total. --rtc (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Total abstinence is 100 percent effective during the time it's used, be that an hour, a day, a month, a year, or a lifetime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Total abstinence means a lifetime. Total is total. And about effectiveness, so what? I don't see your point. The same way I did not see it when you claimed above that I "think a citation is needed that 100 percent abstinence is 100 percent foolproof". You are making up this claim. It's simply not true. None of my edits in birth control is about effectiveness of abstinence. --rtc (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   You would need to provide a citation for the claim that "total" equates to "lifetime". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   No, I would not. Because the source cited does not contain the word "total", regardless of its meaning. Total means "Entire; relating to the whole of something", "Complete; absolute". Cf wikt:totalitarian. --rtc (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Comment. The wording is fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

10. Very weak support largely because a topic ban would solve the issue on this article, but Rtc's talk page and block log indicate that the behavioural issues here (edit warring, sea-lioning, IDHT, etc.) aren't limited to just one subject. I'd suggest 1RR restriction instead, but I'm not sure that fits, either. A topic ban does at least move towards a constructive outcome. Marianna251TALK 02:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    You mean because you found a number of 3RR warnings from over 10 years ago on my discussion page? The accusation of sea-lioning is simply silly. There is no policy that forbids being polite and asking for evidence. In contrast, there is policy against (false) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", see [29] --rtc (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Warnings from 11 years ago, 10 years ago, 9 years ago, 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 9 days ago... Yeah, your talk page doesn't support what I said at all, and neither does your reply demonstrate more sea-lioning and IDHT. *eyeroll* Marianna251TALK 03:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Wow, less than one warning per year... Pretty impressive. If only I had switched accounts two years ago as you did ... *yawn* Seems you quite fell in love with that "sea-lioning" line of killer argument, did you? --rtc (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I've never ... switched accounts ...? Certainly not the way you're implying - I had a previous account more than 10 years ago that I used maybe twice and can't remember its details, so I made a new one? And I was not counting individual warnings - if I did, it would be waaaaay more than one per year, as you well know and, again, is obvious from your talk page. Marianna251TALK 10:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    So you've never really had an account before and you instantly know all about vandalism policies, how to use the respective templates on vandal's talk page? You must be a wunderkind, since when I started I needed days before I even figured out how to make a signature on a talk page. --rtc (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Interesting comment. You have about 5k total edits, Marianna about 17k. What should we conclude? We should conclude that by now, you should know better. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Should know better what? How to make signature? I figured that out in the meantime, indeed. --rtc (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    No. I had edited (and still do edit) several Wikia fansites, which use the same wiki markup and have the same basic structure as Wikipedia. They also have central policies and guidelines which vary between sites, as do each site's ways of dealing with vandals and user talk templates, which gave me plenty of experience that was relevant to Wikipedia without actually having anything to do with Wikipedia itself. I've also used Tiddlywiki for personal projects since its inception. Is that good enough for you? Or are you done trying to make this ANI about everyone but you? Either way, I'm out. There's clearly no point in attempting any further discussion with you, I've made my points on the topic of this ANI, and I think your conduct here speaks for itself. It's up to an uninvolved admin to determine what community consensus there is here, if any. Good luck. Marianna251TALK 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    One way or another, you came here obviously with lots of prior experience. I did not. Thus, of course I got more warnings than you at the beginning, and accusing me of warnings from years ago is not fair. --rtc (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

11. Support until rtc shows evidence of having a more open mind on these subjects. A proper level of neutrality is impossible when we come into these subjects basing our edits on preconceived and fixed notions instead of on sources and consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    "preconceived and fixed notions instead of on sources"? Did you actually read my edits? Or did you blindly believe JzG's false accusations? --rtc (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

12. Support. We can't have editors draining the community like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose, after taking the time to review this - I don't see evidence of particularly tendentious editing. None of the links provided by Guy are of problematic editing to the article. This edit was entirely correct - the reference for it (here) does indeed not state what the article had stated. And this is also a reasonable edit that I couldn't construe as tendentious - "some groups say" is indeed weasel wording, and asking to clarify a really vague percentage range is hardly a crime against humanity. This thread like a witch hunt because Rtc expressed a non-standard opinion on a talk page. fish&karate 10:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Also, that block stinks. If Rtc was edit warring then so was Doc James, neither version was particularly outré. And at least Rtc was trying to use his edit summaries to explain what he was trying to do, rather than use rollback sans edit summary in a content dispute. No real issue with JzG then using rollback to change the article after blocking, it was done afterwards, the issue is whether a 60-hour block was appropriate in the first place, both in terms of its length (first block in 3 years) and the principle thereof. fish&karate 10:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

14. Strong oppose - (edit conflict) Having reviewed this a couple of times now, to their credit, DocJames appears to have made some effort at discussing the issue and recommending an RfC at the point where discussion starts to fairly obviously go nowhere between the two of them. Obviously the RfC was malformed. No one is going to support maintenance tagging per se, although it probably would have been helpful if someone had explained that the RfC needs to be about a precise disagreement and material improvement to the article, and not about tags. This would have certainly been more helpful than simply reverting the RfC after that's what the editor was explicitly told to do. Surely that wouldn't be frustrating for anyone.

    For their own part, the entire discussion probably would have been better off if Guy had never participated at all, since they start off with an immediate assumption of bad faith and that's pretty much all they contribute to the entire discussion, with literally not a single one of their comments being really at all productive. Furthermore, their block on 14 December, seems at best curious. Looking at the page history, the user was issued an edit warring warning on the 11th after literally a single revert occurring in a string of three edits, and then they were blocked after making two edits two days later, both of which appear to be adjustments, with the only outright reverting happening by DocJames. That they're appeal, which explained that they weren't edit warring (which they in fact appear not to have been doing in any marked way) and that they were actively discussing the edit (which they were) was then simply ignored until it expired doesn't make anything any better.

    Some of the users's previous edits seem perfectly fine, while responses like this, while correct, are not exactly helpful. To their credit, Rtc was the first person to immediately post on the talk page when he was reverted, which is exactly what is supposed to happen, and which started a conversation that lasted about a week before being brought to ANI because apparently the "participants" are bored. Finally, after being reverted, condescended to, blocked, and ignored, the user adds maintenance tags, at least two of which were exactly correct (and as far as I know, I'm the first person to at all notice, and QG is the first person to actually make an attempt at fixing). Then, to their credit, when the tags were removed, they at least attempted to do what they were told to do on the talk page and engage in dispute resolution.

    So to summarize, after all that, if the user left Wikipedia today and never came back I can't say that I would blame them, and they're proposal below I can't say will succeed, but it isn't very far off the mark either. GMG^talk 10:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Edit warring and snarky comments, a block history for tendentious editing and a history with religion-related POV editing, tend to go past the assumption of bad faith and into evidence of bad faith. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Sure. An editor who's been around longer than you have, has made 40k contributions across projects, and before this, had managed to get one 24 hour block in the last ten years. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. GMG^talk 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    What? Rtc has four prior blocks, three for edit warring and one for tendentious editing around intelligent design. I proposed a topic ban because looking back at rtc's history, the sources of strife are outside of his main topic area. Most of his edits are to technical subjects, and appear valuable. But when he gets involved in contentious topics outside of his technical field (intelligent design, Energy Catalyzer, birth control) he seems to lose his cool rather quickly. And rtc has been here a long time, but I was here first :-) I blocked rtc and not Doc James because Doc James is an admin, a doctor, and specialises in medical articles, but rtc was editing outside his normal area, has a prior history of conflict on contentious articles outside his field, and, whether intentional or not, his edits tended to promote POV which is generally rejected. Now, I can be wrong, and this might be one of those times, but every time I go back and look at rtc's talk page, his actions with the tag bombing, his use of snark and so on, I get an overwhelming impression of agenda editing rather than his normal well-referenced technical content. Of course I could be over-reacting, or reading things that aren't there, but that is how it seemed to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Guy, rather than assertions, please provide evidence of edit warring (as I assume what has happened on Birth control is not the sum total of it, there must be far more for you to be blocking for 60 hours and demanding a topic ban) , snarky comments (plural, so I would like to see at least two links please), and some evidence of POV editing to a religion-related article. "A block history for tendentious editing" is also unfair, the last block was 3 1/2 years ago, and the one before that was over 10 years ago. I fail to see how one block in the last decade can be described as 'a block history for tendentious editing'; that's a malignant misconstruction of the facts. fish&karate 11:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    "I blocked rtc and not Doc James because Doc James is an admin, a doctor, and specialises in medical articles" So you clearly blocked simply based on credentials. I explained to you at length why this is a completely invalid approach, as it effectively means that you require users to disclose their credentials and identity the way Doc James does (you know that this is done VOLUNTARILY, and users have no obligation to do it, do you?) to not be treated as second-class users. You cannot use the fact that someone doesn't disclose his credentials against him If you do this, you put pressure on people to leave anonymity. And you find it exceptional that editing in contentious topics results in conflicts and people tend to lose their cool? Like here, where you ignore my acual edits and merely make up false accusations that I must be a religious zealot? Where you block me for edit warring where my entire fault was to make an edit (not a revert) that was reverted by someone else (not by me) who disclosed his degree in the medical sciences? Pleeeeeease. --rtc (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    What it looks an awful lot like you did, was see a redlinked user having a discussion with a name you recognized on a controversial topic, assumed the name you recognized was correct (which is fairly evident given what Rtc rightly characterizes as continued bald appeals to authority) and assumed the redlinked user was being disruptive. You looked exactly far enough to find something that confirmed what you had already assumed, a block related to intelligent design, and then looked no further than the block button. You ignored the fact that the block was absolutely ancient and probably also the fact that it appears to be a dispute with one blocked sock, and another editor who was indeffed for harassment in 2011. You ignored the fact that the only block recent enough to consider (and yet three years ago) was related to Energy Catalyzer, and nothing to do with religion, because it didn't fit nicely, as well as the fact that the last conflict they appear to have been in involved Germanwings Flight 9525. You certainly did not evaluate the actual arguments being made, and you don't appear to have counted very well or examined what exactly was being changed when deciding what was and was not edit warring. When deciding what counted as a snarky comment, I highly doubt you considered that most users who have nearly ten times as many contributions to a non-English project, probably speak English as a second language. And instead of doing any of that, decided to dive into a discussion prudence would have said you probably should have never be in to begin with (as someone who just blocked one of the parties), and did so with your own snarky comment about "Vatican Roulette". You continued making nonconstructive and flippant comments, until deciding to come to ANI, because this is apparently the first step in the dispute resolution process. I think that about covers it. </rant> GMG^talk 12:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    You simply make these claims up. You did not read my edits, you did not read the sources. You did not post any evidence. Neither for this accusation ("block history for tendentious editing and a history with religion-related POV editing") nor for any other one you raised in this discussion, starting at very first word in this very ANI request. You made up your mind, for reasons I don't know, that I must be a religious zealot, and now you're fabricating false accusations around that fiction, not providing any evidence and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. --rtc (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    @JzG: - Guy, an administrator ought to be able to justify his administrative actions in policy, so please would you take the time to address the points I raised above, I wouldn't want them to get lost in the wall of text and missed. Thanks. fish&karate 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I did. Not to your satisfaction, clearly, but I did. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I asked for evidence of edit warring. Not provided. I asked for diffs of snarky comments. Not provided. I also asked for an explanation as to how one block in the past 10 years constitutes a 'block history for tendentious editing'. Not provided. So no, you did not address my points, in part, or at all. fish&karate 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    Let's do a short review. Guy blocks Rtc. Guy proceeds to the talk page and wrote "No evidence to justify this. WP:POINT."[30] Guy reports Rtc to AN/I. The content did fail verification but others did not try to hard enough to resolve the problem or did not understand the content failed verification. I rewrote the content after reading the discussion at AN/I. Should editors be punished or banned for spotting content that failed verification? QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    User:QuackGuru the objections that rtc was making have nothing to do with what you are pointing out here. Do not push this. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    My mistake. I did not understand all the details. It must be the alcohol in the egg nog. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I'm leaving for vacation. happy holidays to everyone. --rtc (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    To folks commenting here, Doc James and I have been dealing with rtc before this specific incident. here are their contribs to the article. Their first edit added unsourced underlined content as follows "Though some groups advocate total sexual abstinence for unmarried girls, ..." ("unmarried girls" is nowhere in the source.) This led to Talk:Birth_control#unsourced which if you read it, especially their first reply to me, you see yet more just wierd misinterpretations, wikilaywering, and IDHT very similar to what happened with regard to the stuff that everyone is looking at now - namely their bizarre argument that the "symptothermal method" is not a method - arguments like this impenetrable mess Please don't take that statement out of its context. The context is that techniques are discussed. Of course any technique directly leads to a method, but not the other way around. Thus the context suggests that this sentence is talking about methods based on the techniques. This suggestion is emphasized by the fact that the section starts talking about the symtpothermal method only AFTER the the statement you cited.. This person is a time suck on this topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    What has all this to do with the accusations of the ANI? Where exactly is the misconduct? Let me try to explain my "impenetrable mess" again in simpler language if it is too complicated for you, before I finally have to leave for the transportation. Let's assume that Frank is 4 years old, Betty is 30, Isabelle is 40 and Yvonne is 50. Given this assumption, would you consider the statement about the range in the followingp paragraph to be clear and unambiguous and have the meaning you would intuitively assumee?

    Each person from the Knuth family lives in Berkeley, California. It has some female members, namely Betty, Isabelle and Yvonne. The exact age depends on the person and is in the range of 4-50 years. The person with Betty as the mother and Isabelle as the aunt is called Frank.

    See a problem? That's the problem with the article I was trying to convey. Don't see the problem? Well... I highly recomend WP:STICK and simply enjoy the xmas season. --rtc (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Let's assume that everyone is just as smart as you, and the problem is not about intelligence, but something else altogether. That is what the evidence shows, actually. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    That's not really "dealing with rtc before" in the way that normally justifies a topic ban. "Dealing with rtc before" would be... look at this similar disruption on Abstinence, Sex education and Condom. What you are pointing to is just the beginning of the current conflict; not a separate conflict in a string of conflicts that justifies a topic ban. GMG^talk 22:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I have not even started to deal with their very bad editing at Comparison of birth control methods. Look at it. This person does not honor MEDRS, adds unsourced content left and right, and batters and tortures the talk page over obscure things. (and has been doing so for years -- try to read Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_42#Introduction from 2007).

    We all have huge amounts of work to do here. I am telling you this person has already wasted a ton of our time and there is no end in sight. Please topic ban them from birth control or better all of human health. We all have better things to do than push that bad content out of WP and then get pinned down at talk pages with bad logic, badly stated, and argued relentlessly for unclear purpose. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Jyt... I've been on both sides of arguments with you for at least a few years now, but you're making hyperbolic accusations (batters, tortures, no end in sight) that don't seem to be at all backed up with diffs. I have a hard time thinking that you're not overreacting. There was at least one glaringly obvious error here that the editor rightly pointed out, and that anyone taking the arguments seriously would have caught, and if you had caught that to begin with, I would take your position more seriously, but since you didn't, it looks alot like ignoring argument in favor of railroading. GMG^talk 00:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    GNG, you can see me how ever you like, but i am no sloppy railroader. Again look at their actual edits at the birth control and look at this bunch of crap they added to the comparison article. Their history is short and very very clear on this topic and they are turning it into a timesink just like they did at the ID article. I will not be taking more time here. People will look at the diffs and behavior or they won't. Heck even you have been banging your head fruitlessly against their brick wall, so I have no idea why you are opposing. Whatever. I am not here for drama. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    Well, for whatever it's worth, I'm not making an accusation of bad faith, even though I understand how it could come off that way. I get that certain topics are a battleground, and that so many of the names we don't recognize turn out almost immediately to be toxic POV pushers that it can become difficult to recall ones that weren't. (That's precisely why I intentionally don't stay in these areas for more than a few weeks at a time.)

    But I think it's pretty evident here that if this same conflict arose on an uncontroversial topic, or if it had been a recognizable name instead of a redlinked user, the reaction from those involved would have been a great deal different. I'd like to think that most might be able to at least imagine the possibility when it's pointed out in grotesque detail. If they can't, then I invite anyone to take some time off, and edit as an IP for a few years, and see if that doesn't change their mind.

    As to a time sink, we'll probably end up wasting an order of magnitude more time here than we would have done if users had simply assumed good faith and followed the dispute resolution process, which is why we do that before we do this. GMG^talk 13:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    What you wrote is dead wrong. You appear to have effectively derailed this which i guess was your goal so congrats. We will end up back here with regard to rtc. Life in community sucks sometimes Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

15. Support Textbook example of source misuse in order to push an agenda. Ripe for topic ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
16. Strong oppose - per GreenMeansGo. I'm not seeing diffs of behaviour justifying a topic ban. Looks a lot like editors trying to get rid of an editor whose perceived opinions differ from their's. The word "timesink" tends to be thrown around in such situations. The continuing escalation of this conflict has been fueled by the dismissive approach of those who have disagreed with rtc. I'm also getting real sick of seeing "sealioning" being thrown around like it means something. Cjhard (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
17. Strong opposeAgree with Cjhard. Specifically the original proposal for a TBAN was faulty, using argument from authority Numerous other editors are reverting the changes, including Doc James, who I think we're all aware is medically qualified. I think a topic ban is needed. Assuming the tagging is bad faith seems like a jump to conclusions in violation of WP:AGF, the tags should be treated as a content dispute. The accusations of edit warring have not been supported with any diffs and I don't see edit warring in the page history. A single condescending comment that would normally not warrant even a short block for incivility is in no way a reason for a BAN. Saying someone is a time suck sounds more like impatience than legitimate evidence the person needs to be banned, and the accusations of sealioning are not helpful as sealioning is basically defined as 'bad-faith civil discussion' it seems like accusing someone of sealioning is against WP:AGF. Also rtc has valid points about being told non-informative things thing like "change is not needed", so some confusion on rtc's part is understandable. Also Context: "fertility awareness methods" of birth control are advocated almost exclusively by religious groups, as they have a high failure rate sounds a little like an assumption that one who dissagrees with you in a controversial area is a POV pusher, DS sould be used to remove POV pushers, not shut down discussions. In short, I follow ANI threads sometimes and this one struck me as bad, there may be problems with rtc but the way this ANI has gone I think it would be an abuse of the DS system to TBAN rtc based on this ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Alternate proposal

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

---

As per WP:BOOMERANG, User:JzG is given a notice that he should refrain from using blocks in a content dispute, refrain from using argument from authority in a content dispute, refrain from starting unsubstantiated WP:ANI discussions with blatantly false accusations to win a content dispute, and refrain from refusing discussion in disputes (for example, he did not reply to even one of my defense arguments).

1. Support as proposer --rtc (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC) I think JzG has been given enough notice above by other editors that he's on the wrong track. For the sake of peaceful xmas I'm withdrawing my support.
2. No blocks were used in a content dispute. I took a position there only after the block, when you continued your nonsense, and thati why this thread exsts: if I was inclined to block while involved, you'd be blocked and this thread would not exist. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Well, you blocked me for edits in an article in which you are shortly afterwards involved in a content dispute. To me, there is not much plausibility in the claim that your block was entirely unrelated to the content opinion that you now openly advocate. --rtc (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   The key word in this is, of course, afterwards. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Well, that's quite surprising that you basically say it is not technically a violation. My revert was technically far from being a WP:3RR violation either, yet you blocked me. Apparently you have two kinds of standards of technicality, one for yourself and one for the users you block. --rtc (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose JzG wasn't involved when he made the block, and it was a reasonable block for WP:EW; you may want to read the rules on edit warring more fully. Just because there was no WP:3RR violation doesn't mean that you can't be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   JzG blocked me many hours after someone reverted one of my edits. Yes, that's true. I made an edit, someone reverted it, JzG blocked me for edit warring. At that time, I and the reverting user were discussing. As you said there was not a 3RR violation either. It wasn't even a 1RR violation. I did not revert, simple as that. Thus, the block was punitive and disruptive. It certainly wasn't a reasonable block. --rtc (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Seriously Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - No substance to this proposal. Purely retributive. Marianna251TALK 01:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   No substance? JzG has based this ANI request on completely false and unsourced claims. He is putting me into the category of religious zealot by claiming that I have been "trying to include special pleading about how (certain birth control methods) are really not a lottery". Later on, he repeated this false and unsourced claim. He charged me with condescension while the diff he provides clearly shows that I merely hinted someone about a surprising mathematical fact. Further, he has shown that he neither actually read my edits, nor actually read the source. He's also accusing me of edit warring, but that's false too -- he blocked me for edit warring after someone else reverted one of my edits, not when I reverted someone else's edits. He did this hours after that revert (again, just to make this clear, not my revert) and while I and the reverting user were discussing. So his ANI request is based on blatantly false accusations, from the first to the last letter. That's pretty brazen. My proposal is to give him a notice, not to block him or something, though I'm pretty sure this sort of behaviour would be more than sufficient for a block. There's definitely some misconduct in opening this request. --rtc (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

7. 'Oppose, this is not the issue. fish&karate 10:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose: JzG is a long-standing and highly experienced administrator, and using blocks to win in a content dispute is a big no-no for an administrator – such an action is potentially enough to lead to desysopping. The only problem is that his involvement in the content came after the block, which means that the accusation is unfounded, so the first part of the proposed notice is factually flawed. The declarations of "false accusations" and "refusing discussion" are highly perspective-dependent – as Guy has said above, his explanations might not have been to some editors' satisfaction, but that is not the same as having failed to provide an explanation as is required under admin accountability. In short, Rtc, JzG can be brusque and short at times, and even a right pain in the posterior, but he continues as an administrator because he usually has support that comes from being correct much of the time, and because he knows the rules and respects them. He has also earned some leeway from the community because he often works in contentious areas where other admins are reluctant to act. In reading above, it is clear that whatever valid points that you have are being buried under behaviour that is disruptive / tendentious and likely to lead to a ban. Either learn to work within consensus and accept that you won't always "win", or stay away from those areas. Proposing sanctions against an admin who is clearly supported by a significant majority in a community discussion only undermines your credibility, wastes time, and increases the chances you will receive a sanction. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Close

I think this can be closed, I am happy to withdraw the tban proposal, more eyes on the article and talk page seems to be generating some thoughtful discussion. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible behavioral problems at 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant

• Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant
• 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing conflict on a discussion thread with one user seemingly taking control of the matter and thinking he has the authority to declare it closed when consensus has not been obtained. Looking for senior editors/admin viewpoints on general behavior and actions of all users from a neutral perspective. MetalDylan (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning to the editor in question that he needs to be more mindful of policy in discussion. That said, you have not notified the editor in question that you have started an ANI topic on his behavior, as is required and as is stated in bold in the orange box above the edit window, so I have done it for you; in the future, please remember to notify people you are bringing to ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger: on the talk page of the F1 article you state, "your contention that asking for a policy-based argument 'is a joke...the most absurd sentence I've ever read in my entire time on Wikipedia.' is very concerning with regards to how it indicates you regard Wikipedia policies." I feel you may have misunderstood my point. I was replying to this statement: "I think policy-based arguments are are what we need to see, and I haven't seen any here yet that support redundant columns in tables." This is an insanely specific use case we are dealing with; to expect there is a policy that not only addresses it, but explicitly allows it, is absurd. Show me a policy that explicitly supports the use of the word "policy" and I will gladly admit I am wrong. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if MetalDylan wants to change something significant about the page, the responsibility is on HIM to prove that it is against policy. Not on me to magically find a policy that addresses, again, an extremely specific topic. That's not how this works. That's not how anything works. There isn't a law on the books that says "it is legal to not murder people." Wicka wicka (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping three comments in quick succession: is filibustering a thing on Wikipedia? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In that case, you honestly could have chosen much better wording in your reply. And the point is in fact true: WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good argument to make, at a deletion discussion or anywhere else. To be fair, WP:ILIKEIT isn't either, but that doesn't change the fact that you (or for that matter, any other editor) can not say "answer my question or this discussion is over" in an ongoing discussion. We don't always get what we want on Wikipedia, even when it seems pure WP:COMMONSENSE, and in cases where Inter editium enim silent leges the change from the status quo (which, as far as I can tell in this case, is for the column in question to be present in all season articles, for consistency, relevant or not) is the one that needs to be defended and backed by whatever policy is closest, instead of demanding that other editors find something that "explicitly allows" what you're trying to change. Remember that mocking someone (or giving the appearance of mocking someone, which, given this is the Internet and tone is impossible to discern, is functionally indistuingishable) in a debate here pretty much torpedoes your argument in the court of public opinion, and that sometimes, it's best to just take a deep breath, push back the computer chair, and go get a nice cup of tea instead of pushing the 'publish changes' button on the catharic ranting you just wrote out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spitefully voting against the supposedly rude guy, even if it makes the article worse, is a horrible way to run an encyclopedia. I understand what you're saying about my tone, and I sincerely apologize, and I will do better in the future, but still - it should be irrelevant to the question at hand. I find myself agreeing with unbearable people all the time, solely because it makes Wikipedia better. We should not lose sight of that goal. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) All Wicka wicka does is shout at and belittle editors. See Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#"Triple header", where they're trying to claim a consensus based on 2 people's comments. This is frankly ridiculous, NPA has been breached against both me & Prisonermonkeys. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you accusing someone of spitefully !voting against your proposal or are you referring to yourself saying you accidentally did that and now recognise how wrong you were? If it's the later, good of you to acknowledge that, avoid it in the future. If it's the former, please provide some evidence this has happened or withdraw the accusation as it'a serious personal attack without evidence, warranting a block IMO. I took a look at the discussion yesterday and all I saw was a bunch of people disagree about what made the article better; along with a people especially you who had personalised the dispute way too much and were too desperate to get their way (but still no evidence this was in bad faith). Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: It also appears Wicka Wicka is one revert away from violating WP:3RR, all the while ironically lecturing others about edit warring. Wicka, you really need to calm down, and talk calmly and rationally about this. Rambling on and on, both here and there, with all this hyperbole isn't helping things. (Likening a simple content dispute to "the legality of murder" isn't going to help convince anyone.) I won't take any action here, as I've had disputes with the editor in question in some of my subject areas, but that being said, from that, I can attest that there is a pattern of issues here - Wicka Wicka, when not getting his way, often devolves into disruptive comments like this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not likening a content dispute to murder, dude, I was just giving an example of how rules work...my point was purely that you define things that are against the rules, not a comprehensive list of everything that is allowed. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I object to any editor who claims that other editors "have problems" with another editor's practice as a means of trying to force that editor into backing down. Especially when they offer no evidence to support the claim. If you have a problem with the way I edit, write me up at ANI. But I should warn you that you're wasting your time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO Wicka wicka is now verging on WP:PA and possibly needs a time-out to go enjoy the holidays or something, it's only Wikipedia after all and it just feels like the dude is about to have an aneurysm. MetalDylan (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't appreciate you baselessly accusing me of personal attacks and then insulting saying "the dude is about to have an aneurysm." Wicka wicka (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not an insult. That's hyperbole based on the tone of your arguments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's pretty clear that Wicka wicka has a very clear idea of what he wants the article to be and is refusing to accept any alternative. That's a pretty counter-productive way of editing. A consensus isn't a consensus if there is only one consensus that you're willing to accept before the discussion has even begun. I also find it quite ironic that he is so quick to accuse others of only wanting their version of the article to be the accepted version — especially since the discussion was perfectly harmonious until he came along. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Musk fancruft

I ran into user:Daniel.Cardenas recently whose account is near-SPA for electric cars and Tesla products in particular. Makes fanboy edits and arguments.

Per his edit count he has been here since 2005 and has around 9000 edits.

To give you the flavor of his editing

• 333 Usage share of web browsers (contribs there, most recent Jan 2017
• 321 Electric car (contribs there, most recent Oct 2017
• 163 Toyota Prius (contribs there, most recent in 2011)
• 144 Electric motorcycles and scooters (contribs there most recent 2008)
• 118 Motor vehicle emissions (contribs there, most recent 2013

Most recently these edits. These edits have nothing to do with what we are up to here in Wikipedia, and everything to do with Daniel.Cardenas's fanhood/passion:

• !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020): *Keep Revolutionary product that puts gas cars to shame.
• at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi:
  • comment: LOL, this is not a short article. The implications of the announcement are huge. Thousands of people dying because of pollution, thousands dying because of drugged or drowsy semi drivers. The truck will revolutionize the industry. If you do a search on a given 24 hour period you will find thousands of hits on this topic.
  • !vote: Keep'. Very useful for research. 1500 views per day.
  • comment: The industry analysts have zero credibility. They have been predicting Tesla bankruptcy and other ills for years.
  • comment: Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, but it is a strong indication. WP:CRYSTAL product announcement is intended for the myriad of product announcements that happen readily, like a new version of car. Done with a press release and a couple of paragraphs of relevant info. In comparison there are working prototypes demonstrated to live audience, orders being taken, detailed specs released, including pricing. http://tesla.com/semi Product is being discussed widely from several perspectives and continues to be referenced widely in the media everyday. The article continues to be expanded everyday. And daily page views show the exceptional value of this page. (note the inclusion of spam link)
• diffs, string of blatantly POV diffs, removing exceptionally high quality refs like this Bloomberg analysis of the battery claims.

• here they remove the AfD template from the article, while the AfD is ongoing. reverted by bot.

On Talk pages:

• section abusing Talk page to chat about Exciting New Developments kicked off with a ref that the user himself says is not usable in WP.

• In the Tesla Semi article
  • first edit is adding spam link
  • next edit adds pure advertising copy + second bareURL spam link (among other stuff): Among Tesla's unique capabilities are 0-60 time of 5 seconds unloaded and 20 seconds with 80,000 lbs of load. Able to maintain a speed of 65 mph up a 5% grade with a full load. Estimated savings of $200,000 a year in fuel costs. Will come in two configurations of 300 and 500 mile range.
  • adds EL to video of Musk pitching the truck
  • adds content citing that same video with a bareURL. There are plenty of written sources already cited in the article with this info (we now have WP:CIR on top of PROMO/fancruft)
  • adds more content, also cited to the same video, with full bareURL spamlink again, adding purely speculative content using the same tense they would as if they were writing "the sun will come up tomorrow" Operating costs will beat that of a diesel truck from day one when considering all costs including insurance.
  • adds more hard-selling: Having autopilot standard helps with insurance costs. Tesla warranties the truck for a million miles which helps with lease costs. Low maintenance for EVs help with operating costs, like never having to replace the brakes due to regenerative braking. (note, they did also add here a bit of non-fanboy content claimed by Tesla but not independently verified. But in the fanboy content, they show that they actually think regenerative braking has something to do with regenerating the brakes. So this person is not only an incompetent editor adding fancruft to Wikipedia, they don't even understand the basics of the car stuff they are raving about.

In other articles

• diff in true advocate form, adding content about health sourced to very non-MEDRS refs.
• diff adds content not in the source provided to Keep Hope Alive.
• but then here regurgitates hyping press release + churnalism refs about it
• creates an article sourced almost entirely from bareURL SPS

Please see this discussion at their talk page, where they write things like Your blinded by your negatively. I've indicated on the talk page how edits are not hype. Read it (diff)

Anyway we resolved that issue and he stood down but and today he stormed back in and went back to the same behavior of trying to force in fancruft, after others had reached a consensus at talk (at Talk:Tesla_Semi#Orders) and in the article itself, to exclude detail about pre-orders of the Tesla Semi and just have high-level, encyclopedic content.

He first wrote at talk} Agree the list of orders is relevant and encyclopedic. It shows that the industry is backing this endeavour, adds notability to the article, and adds credibility to the manufacturer claims (note that none of that has to do with Wikipedia's mission) and then promptly re-expanded this stuff and have edit warred to restore it diff, diff, diff. He made a subsequent argument here: There is no question that the topic is very notable; we need content that shows notability (This is incoherent and in any case, we had an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi| AfD on this] and the close was "snowball keep").

This person is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather continually Assert the Importance and Inevitability of Our Technologically Driven Future with Musk as Our Great Hero as well as his own Superior Knowledge of It, although he apparently barely understands it. We all have work to do building WP.

Please at minimum topic ban him from all things Musk and please consider, from alternatively-fueled vehicles. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with Jytdog's perspective but other editor agrees with me .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_Semi&curid=55822608&diff=816319615&oldid=816319002

Jytdog comes across to me as a bully, even though there are other editors who disagree with him [31][32]. It is either his way or the highway. In fact , everyone on the talk page now disagrees with him on this subject, but here he is bullying. Recommend temporarily banning jytdog , to give him time to reflect on his actions.

References

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Things getting worked out at the talk page is fine, and what should happen. This is not about the specific content. The aggressive edit warring to add advocacy content is not. And you have even here spammed WP yet further. As we had discussed at your talk page, your overall pattern of aggressive advocacy editing is not OK. I will not be responding to you further here. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC))

Your aggressive edit warring is not OK. And you have even here spammed WP yet further with your bullying. Yes, you need to take time off and reflect upon your edit warring with other wikipedia editors. As stated earlier, 3 other editors agree with me, and zero with you on the tesla semi talk page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. See also WP:NOTTHEM and WP:CRYBULLY. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. To summarize latest incident. DanielCar adds tesla semi orders content to page. Comment on talk page. jytog reverts 3 times. Three editors besides myself on talk page agree this is good content. Only jytog disagrees. Jytog comes here complaining about my reverting his reverts. Erroneously claims this is fanboy material, rather than important material that adds great value to the article. Then further claims this is not about the content. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ekrud5/sandbox

Please restore this sandbox, it is a student assignment for an educational project ([33]). The administrator who deleted it refuses to restore it, saying it is bad quality and too promotional. That may likely be the case, but I am the course instructor, and I will judge it myself. Sandboxes are safe places for new editors including students to write their content and I thought they are exempt from speedy deletion; and even if this is not the case, one contested, such content should be deleted and taken to AfD. In any case, WP:G11 does not apply here since it applies "to pages that are exclusively promotional", and even a very bad student draft has more going for it that being a pure promotion (I am pretty sure nobody is paying said student to promote whatever it is that that they are writing :P). I think what I say here is also supported by WP:UP#DELETE. Thanks. PS. While I'd would usually spend more time discussing this with the admin who deleted it, as I would like to review this soon, I don't want to chance that said admin could be inactive for few days or such; I need to look at this page ASAP (grades are due soon, you know...). PPS. For anyone wondering 'why do you let students write such crap', most of my students produce much better content, but there are always some who write the assignments two days before grading day, missing all the deadlines for draft submissions, early reviews and feedback, etc. and send me an email 'my work was deleted' a day before (essentially the case here). Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be undeleted long enough to grade it, but I don't promise it'll be around any longer than that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about G11 (we've got a lot of fancrufty stuff like this), but some of it does appear to be sourced from elsewhere (the intro is from here for example...) Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is bad, but I really don't see how it could fall under G11, particularly while still in development in the sandbox. (The topic, btw, is notable, sample good source), and worst case, this can be gutted into a stub. I don't what's overly promotional about the history section (of course, it is mostly unreferenced, through the last paragraph is correctly soruced to [34]), and lists of characters are dime a dozen around here. Seriously, the only red flag I see there, spam-wise, is the list of stores with all those external links, which of course needs to go. This shouldn't have been G11'ed even if it was in mainspace (through of course in the current sad state it would need {{tone}}, {{refimprove}}, {{grammar}}, etc. But it is good to remember that WP:TNT-like solution should not be applied too easily. As I said earlier, this is hardly a good student example of quality student work, but I don't see what made it a valid G11 target (particularly when a simpler solution would've been to delete the problematic store list from the article, and leave a note on the creator's talk page - which sadly, the speeding admin never bothered to do, effectively biting the newbies - the student had to alert me of the problem through email, saying they don't know why their article was deleted, and I couldn't tell them 'read the message at your talk' because they've never gotten one, sigh...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Piotrus this entire thread was a complete waste of time. If people do not care about your class they will not care about WP. The speedy delete was about the right amount of time to spend on that garbage. We are not your servants or TAs. If the content were something remotely meaningful that could help provide knowledge to the world i would have been sympathetic but tossed off, COPYVIO fancruft about internet ephemera dumped into WP to meet an assignment is a CWOT for the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a cup of tea, stop biting other editors, new or old. Speedy should not be abused because some admins are tired and want to skim the rules to do less work. It was improperly used on a sandbox, the sandbox has been restored, problematic content has been removed, if anyone wants to delete the sandbox, WP:MFD is the right place for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Btw see Draft:Line Friends which was never deleted. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I read that. I now know less than I did when I started. What the actual fuck? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a little relevant info at Line (software)#Features, last two sections. The most that should be done here IMO is moving any applicable sources over (since the actual article is light on sourcing), what we already have content-wise is pretty sufficient. I don't think G11 is really met here, but then again I tend to be a lot more lenient than most on promotional stuff. ansh666 23:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the section called "Line Friends" from both the draft and the sandbox, as it was copypasted word for word from https://linefriends.com/. My feeling is that that's likely the case with the rest of the text too, though the footnotes for those refer to Korean pages of the linefriends website — pages which do not have an English version. I can't read Korean. But both the draft and the sandbox should be deleted ASAP, please. Piotrus, have you copied them for your own use now? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

• Go ahead and delete the draft. But if anyone wants to delete the sandbox, take it to WP:MFD. I don't see now it falls under anything speedy, given that the spam and copyvio content (all two sentences of it) have been removed. As I said above, the topic is likely notable, and while the article is pretty low quality it at least deserves a proper deletion discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Yemeni Civil War

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been trying to get a few editors to work through a content dispute on this article for a few days. All of the editors have been warned repeatedly that the article is subject to WP:GS/ISIL discretionary sanctions, but nonetheless after a few rounds of somewhat productive discussion, two of the editors have gone back to just sniping at each other and generally being disruptive. Some of you may have already seen my post earlier today at WP:AN about an image at Commons being overwritten by a local image, which turned out to be a file extension issue and a silly oversight on my part (and nothing to do with local files). Well, there's more to it than that.

The discussion at the talk page tailed off several days ago without being resolved. Then, yesterday, Chilicheese22 decided they would implement their proposed changes anyway, and edited out a section of the article which had been the focus of the dispute. They also uploaded a new version of File:Yemeni Civil War.svg reflecting the changes they argued for in the unresolved discussion. Panam2014 spotted this, and set off a revert war on Commons which is past 5RR for both of them at this point. This was reported at ANEW, where administrator Coffee declined action as they correctly observed that the revert war is on Commons and we can't do anything about it here.

Apparently not satisfied with just one revert war, Chilicheese22 also uploaded a second copy of their preferred map, File:Yemeni Civil War.jpg, and inserted it in the article in place of the .svg image. That was when I posted at AN, but after figuring out what had happened I reverted the file link change to the previous consensus version. They also uploaded a third version of the same map, File:Yemeni Civil War1.png, and later they reverted my revert, so that their preferred version of the map is currently visible in the article.

In the meantime, Panam2014 has posted on numerous talk pages and administrative noticeboards seeking sanctions against Chilicheese22, including repeated threats to escalate to this board (again: I only tried to intervene in the first place because of a post here a couple weeks ago) and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, despite me and several others repeatedly asking them to deescalate and focus on the content. Panam2014's insistence on running to administrators at any sign of conflict has seriously and repeatedly undermined efforts to resolve the conflict.

In frustration I have blocked them both, despite the fact that my ill-fated attempt to mediate may put me in an involvement situation. This whole thing is clearly beyond my skill to resolve, so I ask for the community to review. And if one of you reading this is an admin at Commons, maybe pop over there and take a look at these images. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have advised both of the editors to leave comments on their talk pages regarding this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons activity can be taken into account here. I certainly will block here if an editor repeatedly uploads copyvios on Commons and uses them here. In this case you have more latitude per discretionary sanctions. If their activity on Commons is causing disruption here I'd say levy a one month topic ban, covering articles but not talk pages, making it clear that messing about on Commons will result in blocks here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Panam2014 has now managed to convince an admin at Commons that Chilicheese22 edited logged out, and won't stop pinging me in celebration. Does this sound like someone who's interested in resolving a conflict? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: "unfounded claims of sockpuppetry" also came from Chilicheese - see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Panam2014 (now deleted). I might have more to add later, when I'm not on mobile and can see what they've been up to since the last ANI. ansh666 04:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Going from bottom to top because why not. First: I wouldn't say that Panam2014 pinging you is either hounding or gravedancing, as you linked to. You're the blocking admin, and they're trying to explain their side. Perhaps a bit overzealous, but not malicious - which is actually a good descriptor for Panam as a whole.

Second: I'd say both blocks are good and well-deserved. Cross-wiki is a bit of a blind spot but it unambiguously affects the article on this wiki. Quite disruptive either way. And since the disruption seems to only be ratcheting up since the last ANI, I think a ban for both from at least the article and at most a topic ban on the war could be warranted here. That said, as I stated at the first ANI, I personally think Chilicheese22 needs to cool things down a bit - from their very first edits they've been accusing people of disruptive edits and sockpuppetry, while barely staying out of 1RR, sometimes by minutes (e.g. [35][36]). Meanwhile Panam (and Nuke) need to remember WP:BRD and not to respond to reverting by more reverting. ansh666 06:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I accept your criticism; blocked users indeed have a right to ask constructive questions of the blocking admin. Whether or not celebrating that another user has been blocked is constructive commentary I will leave to reviewers; at any rate I will strike the comment. For Panam's part when I asked them to stop pinging me they did. Actually over the two weeks or so since the last ANI I'd observed that all of the users involved in the dispute were willing to discuss the content issue with reference to sources and everything, and left the article alone even as your protection had expired and I declined to restore it. So as events unfolded yesterday I became more and more disappointed as I discovered that in fact the editors had simply taken the exact same dispute to pages I wasn't watching and kept right on with the same disruptive behaviour, for example at Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map and all over Commons. In my brief foray into this subject I've learned that the leader of one of the primary belligerents in this civil war switched allegiances on 2 December and was killed on 4 December by his former allies, and that has obviously thrown a lot of confusion into the situation, however the content dispute and revert warring by these two and NuclearWizard predates these events by at least a week, and perhaps as far back as July when this page was last full-protected.

For my part, I now thoroughly regret having tried to help these editors in the first place. Perhaps some kind of limited or broad topic ban is in order but it's not going to come from me: I'm done adminning in this subject area. Both of the blocked users have unreviewed unblock requests on their talk pages, if any of you would like to take a look, I don't object. Otherwise both blocks expire by this time tomorrow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm also regretting it. As far as I can tell the crux of the argument going back to before my initial protection is whether the Southern Movement and Southern Transitional Council deserve to be mentioned as separate entities or not. It's clear both sides think they're right and the other is wrong, not only content-wise but also behavior-wise, and they seem to be unwilling or unable to compromise, hence blocks and suggestions of topic banning. I'm uncomfortable taking action myself for various reasons (involvement not being one of them) but I do hope someone else steps up. If a topic ban is levied I'd suggest it apply to all article-facing content (i.e. image, template, module, etc.) since the dispute is spilling over just about everywhere. @Chilicheese22: Panam didn't post at the discussion because they're blocked like you. Besides, there's no need to notify or ping you for every comment they make as you seem to think; that's what watchlists are for. @Panam2014: it doesn't matter whether it's 1RR or 3RR or whatever or wherever, blocks and sanctions can come for edit warring in general even if you don't cross the bright line, as long as it affects this project. To both of you: please stop this dispute and find something else to edit once the block runs out, okay? ansh666 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666 and Ivanvector: For beginning, please see here (I have clean up my talk page. After that, I do not know if I have the right but I propose to made a RfC or ask a mediator to settle the dispute. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

For any admin that didn't see my response, and is interested on my "two cents" on what has transpired on the Yemeni Civil war article. Please see here [37]. Thanks. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666, Chilicheese22, and Panam2014: I concur with Panam's first proposal; there should be a RfC on whether or not the STC exists and/or what its nature is. This dispute explodes everywhere precisely because the claim is that the STC does not exist -- therefore, since the STC's existence is relevant to every article, template, and image in which the STC is relevant, this issue will simply continue to expand unless the issue of whether the STC exists or not is resolved. I'm not sure how to compromise on whether or not this entity exists. Nuke (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Edited. Nuke (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC sounds good, but everyone needs to agree that whatever consensus comes out of it must be followed, and if the disputes continue after the RfC is concluded, topic bans at the very least - and probably more - will likely be handed out. Also, as far as the process goes: I'd suggest that, during any RfC on the matter, the three of you only make a single short statement and not respond to each other (or anyone else unless specifically asked). It would be a chance to get an outside opinion on the matter, and I wouldn't want you to waste it by rehashing all of the wall-of-text arguments you've been having and making other people not want to deal with the problem like Ivan. ansh666 07:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: For my part, I engage myself. But as in the past, contributors participated in the writing of the article, and we posted in the talk page, I think it is interesting to notify them. However, I think it would be, as Ansh says, to rehearse the arguments for and against the addition of the STC, but I think that if there are new sources, it is important to mention them. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I also think an rfc is a good idea, do you think it is better for us to reference the whole discussion, or have it in a bullet point format, where we list our stances and underneath them place the sources. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

68.234.65.184 introducing unsourced content and factual errors

• 68.234.65.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP editor has a long-standing pattern of replacing article content with unsourced/inaccurate content, particularly about the position of various football players. [38], [39], [40], [41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47], [48], [49]

Editor has quickly removed these comments from their Talk [50] which has been explained on their Talk may be taken as evidence of the having been read. [51]

Editor has explained recent blanking of content as "a mistake." [52]

This behavior has resumed after most recent Talk [53] as seen by changing the position of Minkah Fitzpatrick from "defensive back" to "safety." Note, the article text makes no such claim, while the original position of "defensive back" is supported by both the ESPN and Yahoo.com bio links within the Infobox and the article's categorization. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

More convincingly, the Crimson Tide website shows Fitzpatrick as a defensive back,[54] with indications that he plays safety sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Jamesharrison2014

jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) is not here to contribute to build an encyclopedia. Instead, this users edits have focused on promoting a non-notable journalist, Michael Moates (deleted twice) and blog Nation One News Foundation (deleted). Both pages have been deleted.

Jamesharrison2014 claims not to have a WP:COI with Michael Moates. [55]. It is possible that Jamesharrison2014 is a sockpuppet of Mmoates (talk · contribs), who created the first version of Michael Moates (first AFD).

Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) has been nothing but disruptive Wikipedia. Some examples:

• A previous ANI was initiated by ValarianB (talk · contribs) because jamesharrison2014 was repeated reinserting user talk page messages deleted by ValarianB.
• Jamesharrison2014 has been separately admonished for uncivil comments made at wikimedia commons.
• The user has removed article talk comments that questioned the notability of Michael Moates. [56][57] [58] [59][60]. There are other examples on the now deleted promo pages. The user felt that these comments were personal attacks. The user was removing article talk page comments while reinserting comments on ValarianB’s user talk.
• Jamesharrison2014 has also removed comments from Lacypaperclip (talk · contribs) talk page claiming that they were personal attacks.
• Jamesharrison2014 has posted vandalism noticed on talk pages for Eduardo89 (talk · contribs) after a single revert to remove Moates’ name.
• Jamesharrison2014 asked for White House Press Corps to be protected to prevent the removal of Moate’s name. When then request was declined, the user reverted the response from Ymblanter (talk · contribs) and posted the request again.
• Jamesharrison2014 has uploaded several images to Wikimedia Commons that are lifted from Michael Moate’s official Facebook page [61] [62]. The exif data from these images indicates that they were copied from Moates’ Facebook page. When uploading the images, Jamesharrison2014 claimed that the images were his own work. Jamesharrison2014 has insisted that the images were “open source” and that he never claimed ownership [63], but the metadata for the deleted files indicates otherwise.
• Jamesharrison2014 filed a bad-faith arbcom case (edit: archive link) against me. As of 14:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC), 9 members of arbcom have declined to hear the case and suggested the user try ANI. (WP:BOOMERANG).

Billhpike (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The statements made above are completely false. Billhpike is not following procedures put in place by Wikipedia. Personal attacks are not allowed and I did not delete any comments I inserted the personal attacks tag to show that the comments were personal attacks against a person. I reinserted the comments on Vivians page as she continued to break policies this was over time and continued to happen. Also the claim that the images are from a Facebook page are false. The images were pulled from the White House Youtube channel. Just because the images are similar is not evidence that they were pulled from one single source. Being new to wikipedia I am still learning the processes however I have done more than just the two pages Billhpike is refering to. I am not a sockpupet account and he has no evidence to support the claim. His entire arguement is based of the fact that an image was pulled from Facebook but it was actually pulled from a non-copyrighted youtube channel. He has continued to attack me as much as he can across multiple wiki networks and I am just trying to learn the ropes and create content. I have contributed Omarosa, Sarah Sanders and a few others outside of the other pages listed. The claim he has made is baseless. Also, the request for protection on WH press corps was a secondary request after continued reverting and edit waring which obviously was needed since the admin approved it.

Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The EXIF data indicated that this image was downloaded from Facebook. Billhpike (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014, this is a wiki and everyone can see everyone else's edit history; we can all see perfectly well that you've removed numerous comments with which you've disagreed. If you feel you had a legitimate reason to remove them, explain what you feel that legitimate reason was, but don't insult our intelligence by lying. ‑ Iridescent 15:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please provide an example of where I removed article talk page comments. Billhpike (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Replied to wrong user Billhpike (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison, while I may look smashing in a dress if the mood strikes, my name is not "Vivian". Also, you dont get to slap template after template on my or any other user's talk page, and revert-war to redo them. Being in an argument with you is not an attack on you, and if there is anything that you feel I did that did violate WP:NPA then your avenue was to come to this board and file a complaint, as I had to do to you.. Last, if your rebuttal to the image lifting is true, then please provide a link to the youtube channel and a timestamp of when and where you grabbed the image from. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 removed comments from either Talk:Michael Moates or Talk:Nation One News Foundation (can’t remember) that questioned the notability of the article subject. Billhpike (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PreciesJJ continues to add unsourced info, no discussion

• PreciesJJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2019 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user continues to add unsourced and WP:CRYSTAL information to this former redirect and is bordering on a potential edit war. I know I'm also close to hitting 3 reverts myself, but it concerns me more that the information the user continues to add to this page is unsourced. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The information added to the page is all provisional and based on the PDC order of merit. The up-to-date order of merit will be published at 3 january, the list I added is the updated one till 20 december. User:PreciesJJ (talk 19:12, 21 December 2017 (CET)

• @PreciesJJ: Given this, your edit looks like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. You can add the list when you have a source that actually says these are the provisional competitors for 2019. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is now at WP:AN3 (six reverts) though I can't close it as I'm involved. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

user:AaronWikia

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

---

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

This user has more than once modified others comments on talk pages [64], [65]. I left this message to try to explain [66], I apologize if that was not the correct way in approaching this, but here is the response: [67]. And here is a sampling of responses to cautions or attempts to discuss issues in the past: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. On a couple of those occasions it was actually in response to me trying to save an article from deletion that he had created.18abruce (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

RevDel request

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

---

Can an admin do a RevDel on Jacoby Ellsbury please? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing be similar IP at Slipknot Discography

Repeated edits which are unsourced and messing with table formatting on Slipknot Discography by similar IP addresses;

• 179.52.226.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 148.103.146.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.52.226.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can someone do a rollback to [73] and do something about the IP's as I have noticed they have been doing more unsourced and disruptive, albeit WP:GF edits, across other pages. MetalDylan (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Hi. Last month I requested a rangeblock on an IP address that keeps adding content with no sources or poorly formatted updates to cricket articles. This IP was blocked for one month. However, they've come straight back and are doing the same thing, jumping between sevel different ranges (117.228, 117.223 and 49.34). Here are some examples just from today unsourced under 49.34 range and unsourced under 117 range. To say this is frustrating is an understatement. Impossible to communicate with them, they just continue jumping from IP to IP, with EVERY edit requiring scrutiny. There didn't seem to be any collateral damage from the last block, so I'm requesting that all three ranges are blocked again for another month. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced with yet another IP address. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's several wide ranges that would need to be blocked. Is semi-protection an option? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Return of 71.7.39.119

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

---

This IP address editor was previously blocked for two weeks, for failure to communicate and persistent creation of apparent hoax drafts. It appears that the editor is back to business, with three new problematic drafts (that I can see). These were currently listed at MfD here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked six months, drafts G3'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by Congressional staffers

There have been multiple incidents of disruptive editing by apparent Congressional staffers (their edits suggest there are multiple people doing this) that have been documented by the Twitter bot CongressEdits (and the internet at large — see [74]). Here, I'll try to list as many vandalizing IPs as I can find, since the edit about porgs on October 2017:

(I'm providing this as proof that vandalism by Congress is a recurring problem that is not confined to a single IP or even sockpuppet, not that these specific addresses, some of whom haven't edited in a while and some who only vandalized once, should be blocked.)

• 143.231.249.131 (Blocked twice)
  • Porgs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805821891&oldid=805769382
  • Replying to BuzzFeed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805968359&oldid=805958090
  • Democratic socialists: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805973219&oldid=805937679
  • Kylo Ren https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806073648&oldid=805331027
  • Keith Ellison https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806076444&oldid=805530710
  • Men's rights movement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806084577&oldid=802695153
  • Charlie Kirk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806085597&oldid=804776494
  • MBMBaM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806840528&oldid=806833192
  • Keebler https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808026901&oldid=804889022
  • Anti fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808029552&oldid=807319230
  • Supersoldier https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808029622&oldid=806796584
  • Hank Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808042881&oldid=807019813
  • Air Bud https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808088394&oldid=806906636
  • Invertebrate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809055850&oldid=808008678
  • Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809174733&oldid=801823127
  • Chuck E. Cheese's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815077425&oldid=813092844
  • Obi-Wan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815078735&oldid=815025352

• 143.231.249.136 (Warned)
  • Independent journal review: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805977136&oldid=802994181
  • Ted, Cruz, is, the, Zodiac, killer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065281&oldid=802825712 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065381&oldid=804823016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065409&oldid=805667614 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065446&oldid=802201429 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065475&oldid=805682302 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065509&oldid=805267764

• 143.231.249.133 (Warned, edits from this address may have stopped)
  • Luke Skywalker https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806087233&oldid=803599547
  • Narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806094200&oldid=805255391
  • Guillotine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808039906&oldid=807910315
  • AEIOU https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809541856&oldid=797648019
  • farewell message https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=813848353&oldid=799065249

• 143.231.249.130 (Blocked 4 times, latest block expired today)
  • Our Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806088581&oldid=805874875
  • DSA https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806088945&oldid=805979616 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806089931&oldid=806089302
  • Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806847805&oldid=806495787
  • Vader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806891548&oldid=806615440
  • Fantasy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=807192320&oldid=806425957
  • Hamilton musical https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=807195241&oldid=807097999
  • Mueller https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808031338&oldid=807980550
  • Papadopoulos https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808035864&oldid=808030824
  • George W Bush https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808042038&oldid=807843542
  • Tribble https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808044883&oldid=804699856
  • Daycare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808054571&oldid=806996360
  • Turks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808081334&oldid=808072535
  • Goddess(=Beyoncé) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809180266&oldid=804933959
  • Absolute Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809497438&oldid=802201218
  • Lee-Carter model https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809497633&oldid=776515827
  • Wrecked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809498096&oldid=805564347
  • False attribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809501087&oldid=799697346
  • Cop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809504412&oldid=805647688, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809504497&oldid=809504418
  • Intern https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809505643&oldid=808957698
  • Painting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810313348&oldid=807508778
  • humor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810314481&oldid=810203570
  • dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811435979&oldid=811429351

• 143.231.70.15 (Warned)
  • Imposters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806089348&oldid=805370926
  • Cats https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806091640&oldid=805640286
  • Al Franken show https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810663904&oldid=805982209
  • Cool S https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=814087908&oldid=813647304
  • Kylo Ren https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815219649&oldid=815145158, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815219732&oldid=815219716
  • Star Wars sequel trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815220216&oldid=815094614

• 143.231.249.141 (Warned)
  • Bail https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808028300&oldid=806424691
  • Intern https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816471350&oldid=816283137

• 156.33.252.38 (Warned)
  • Charlatan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808257270&oldid=805118682

• 156.33.241.39 (Warned)
  • Fiscal conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810538031&oldid=809319546

• 156.33.255.220 (Warned)
  • James Hickey https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810702541&oldid=808623422
  • poop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816174958&oldid=814043974
  • Hannity https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816182906&oldid=816131764, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816513512&oldid=816460298

• 143.231.70.14 (Warned)
  • Tom Nook https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811455184&oldid=801833775
  • Bears Ears https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=814037178&oldid=813998887
  • Knights Templar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=814040592&oldid=813726714

• 156.33.241.41 (blocked twice, block expires tomorrow)
  • Mtn Dew https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815227758&oldid=815014619
  • District Taco https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815229237&oldid=814220842
  • Sweet Home Alabama (related to Doug Jones win?) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815229946&oldid=811595452
  • high school student govt https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815231005&oldid=814237990
  • Bandwidth throttling https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815548411&oldid=814112596
  • Deep state https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815554647&oldid=814393998
  • Idaho Falls https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816178487&oldid=816149471

• 143.228.129.2 (warned)
  • Snoke https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815408640&oldid=815366331
  • message posted on First Order https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815408833&oldid=813432713
  • Garbage is Ajit Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815410876&oldid=815040052
  • Tucker Carlson https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815561741&oldid=814724295

• 143.231.249.135 (warned)
  • Zelda https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816016700&oldid=814177574
  • a Katy Perry song https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816140219&oldid=815397428
  • Kylo Ren https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816142565&oldid=816019333
  • Star crossed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816147194&oldid=812850019
  • Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816163078&oldid=816127669
  • Stolen valor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816466532&oldid=729926072
  • This user has been edit warring on R2-D2 many times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/143.231.249.135

This user was actaully reverting vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809259771&oldid=808012804

However, there have also been constructive edits by Congressional IPs recently. I believe Congress has been IP-banned before in the past. I'm not sure if that should happen again but it should be taken under consideration, considering this has gone on for 2+ months now (and I only included a portion of the edits above). Thanks, AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything there rising about the normal level of low-level vandalism we'd expect from any IP range; we wouldn't consider rangeblocking Comcast or British Telecom just because there happened to be some vandal edits coming from that range. A reminder to any admin who's tempted to act on this report that per the message no admin ever bothers reading because it's buried in the wall of text at the top of Special:BlockIP, any block of one or all of these IP addresses is automatically a WMF matter and you need immediately to notify ComCom of any action you take and to be prepared to be pestered by journalists, and en-wiki admins are forbidden by WMF diktat from enacting any form of long-term block on any of these addresses. ‑ Iridescent 17:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that those Comcast or BT edits don't get automatically forwarded to Twitter, which is almost certainly the entire reason behind these. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

One would expect Congressional staffers to have better things to do :/ GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay, remember "congressional staffers" is a broad group; as well as the politicians and advisors one thinks of when one sees the "congress" address, these IPs will also be being used by security guards, canteen staff, bored interns, maintenance, assorted clerks and envelope stuffers and so on. There are approximately 20,000 people working in Congress at any given time; when we see edits coming from a town, we don't automatically assume they're being made by the mayor. ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That and there are certain mindsets these days that would consider at least some of these the single most important thing to do, and we'll just leave that at that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not an American but I think it would be fun if [75] was written by a US Senator. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, if press reports are to be believed, arrogant game playing interns are responsible, not career security guards or clerks or kitchen staff. These career people want to keep their good jobs, while the nihilist interns openly brag online about the fun they are having vandalizing Wikipedia, and will go back to their University "studies" after their jolly spates of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, here is a link to the coverage at The Daily Beast. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that explains one of the few other edits I noticed. [76] Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously WP:NOTHERE

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

---

.

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

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

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

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

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

User:Biantez

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

I have come across several unreferenced articles by Biantez, or ones with only external links (I have messaged Biantez to see if by external links they meant sources, but had no response). As you can see at User talk:Biantez#Sources and User talk:Biantez#Sources again, I have politely tried to engage Biantez is conversation about this, as have others at User talk:Biantez and User talk:Biantez/1. It does not appear that Biantez has ever responded to a message on their page. I have pointed out that WP:Communication is required, but none was forthcoming. I also tried moving an unreferenced article that I was worried might have copyvio issues to draftspace and asked Biantez to work on it there and resubmit, but Biantez just moved it back.

Biantez has been blocked twice before, including last year for repeated addition of unsourced material [77]. I don't think the message went through - I can't find the archive of the last ANI. I would like Biantez to agree that in future they will respond to messages and will only add information with a source. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the earlier ANI thread; poor participation, no action taken. But I genuinely think his behavior needs serious evaluation now. He seems to never responded to any talkpage message despite litany of serious complaints about creating unsourced articles, adding unsourced content, copyvio, editwarring and many other things. He just seems indifferent. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As the user has never used a talk page to communicate, but has shown they know talk pages exist and what they are for (at least in part) by adding dab-project tags after moves and, most demonstratively, establishing an archive for their talk page despite never responding on it, has been continually warned and asked to communicate but has never done so going back to 2009, and leaving aside "okay, you're new" notes has received warnings about unsourced material since at least 2014, I have gone ahead and indef blocked, as communication is required and their obvious refusal to do so has reached the point of being disruptive. If they start communicating in response, then any admin who's satisfied that hailing channels are open can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, The Bushranger. Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Newly-registered edit warrior on a BLP

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Why is it every time a probable sock says "I'm not a sock", I immediately flash to Richard Nixon saying "I'm not a crook"? [78]Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Recurring incremental vandal

We have a recurring IP vandal, primarily targeting sports' championship articles, but also a handful of movie articles as well. As my eyes start to glaze over when discussion turns to sports statistics, my examples are limited to the movie articles, but I've confirmed similar patterns in the sports articles.

(As the editor switches IPs so rapidly, I have not notified anywhere.)

Details, including an extensive list of IPs used, are available at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Cellco_vandal.

Sample behavior:

• Twister (1996 film)

Running time from 113 to 114 minutes 16:33, October 24, 2017‎

Running time from 114 to 115 minutes 16:37, October 24, 2017‎

Running time from 115 to 116 minutes‎ 14:25, November 3, 2017‎

Running time from 116 to 117 minutes 15:01, November 3, 2017‎

reverted to 115)

Running time from 115 to 116 minutes 17:17, November 3, 2017‎

(reverted to 113, per IMDb)

Running time from 113 to 115 minutes 17:42, November 3, 2017‎

The editor never uses edit summaries, ignores all talk requests and changes IPs frequently. The range of affected articles is fairly large (several dozen at a bare minimum) but most of the IPs are in a narrow range. I have not seen any unrelated edits in the addresses I've checked but I have little to no idea how to figure out how much collateral damage would come from a range block. Thoughts/suggestions? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Could be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ron liebman Billhpike (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Liebman was largely fixated on baseball player biographies. But it's been like ten years since then, so he might have branched out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This range probably be safely blocked with minimal collateral damage: 2600:1017:B024::0/40 Billhpike (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Abuse is continuing this morning. Billhpike (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Is a histmerge needed at Language Creation Society?

Last year, the Language Creation Society article got deleted at AfD, then at DRV, which endorsed the AfD but draftspaced the article and required AfC acceptance before recreation. The draft was deleted via G13 at the beginning of this year. Yesterday, I noticed that the Language Creation Society article had been recreated, containing content that was substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article. I tagged it for G4, it was deleted, which was then reversed for some reason... which was then stuck back into userspace, tagged for AfC, and then accepted about a half hour later. Then Draft:Language Creation Society was restored for some reason. While the LCS article is at AfD again, I think a histmerge with the draft may be required because it's pretty clear there is creative influence from the old article, and both articles have received substantial edits from current and former LCS board members and individuals with financial connections to LCS. Any input would be welcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Um... there HAS to be some off Wiki canvasing going on in that AFD. For example, User:Zompist, an editor with a handful of edits in the last FIVE YEARS suddenly comes in to vote keep? I don't buy it. There's some shenanigans going on, and we need an administrator to look into this. --Tarage (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something weird happening here. Isn't the AfC backlog like two months long? How did this go from undeletion and userspacing, to submission for AfC (without the article creator requesting it), to approved and mainspaced in 30 minutes (and by the same person who submitted it to AfC)? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize that this is the holidays are folks are off enjoying the outside world but please, can any administrator look in on this? We have admitted COI issues both with the article's creation and voting. This is not at all okay. --Tarage (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A history merge does not appear to be necessary - the current writeup is very different from the draftified one. Plus there is the WP:PARALLELHISTORIES problem. No comment on anything else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

I'm growing concerned about the conduct of Pigsonthewing, aka Andy Mabbett, in connection with this article. I appropriately tagged the article with {{coi}}, which Andy is already edit warring to remove. Given there is a talk page thread, this removal is plainly inappropriate. Andy almost immediately banned me from his user talk page when I notified him that his removal was inappropriate. Given Andy's very, very long history of conduct issues, I think some inquiry into his conduct here is appropriate before it grows out of hand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're concerned - you don't like people pointing out that you're applying a COI tag contrary to that template's own guidelines for use, even doing so again after being advised to read said guidelines; you don't like being called out for tagging the talk pages of regular editors; you don't like being called out for your baseless insinuations on the article's deletion discussion. You know that by rising an issue here, admins will examine your own conduct and edit warring ([79], [80], [81]), right? Oh, and I told you not to post on my talk page, which you promptly did again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Language Creation Society. You improperly removed the template after that section was created, and then continued to cite the guidance (not really guidelines) for removal of article maintenance templates. I am very concerned about your conduct in this matter, Andy. Calling my notices on your user talk page "trolling" is hardly appropriate. I will also note that I am required to notify you of this discussion. Your nonbinding WP:KEEPOFF doesn't trump that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that Andy has now violated 3RR at Language Creation Society. Diffs: [82], [83], [84], [85]. There is no exception to 3RR for removing maintenance templates, even if Andy is correct that I had not created a talk page thread to discuss the COI problems on that article at the time of the first revert (though they were definitely under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), and I had absolutely corrected that problem before the second revert). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• This is extremely unsatisfactory. User:Pigsonthewing, I have restored the COI template until either the talk page discussion resolves the matter or it is considered in the course of this discussion (as part of a behavioural rather than content discusion). But you are clearly edit-warring over it, and WP:WTRMT does not support your position: even if you did think "that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error... discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised." Since you a) do not appreciate templates, and b) clearly know exactly what constitues edit-warring, may we asume you do not require the usual procedural {{uw-ew}}? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv has added the COI tag four times and Pigsonthewing has removed it four times. In neither case is the behaviour satisfactory. It is worth noting, though, that the first removal of the template by Andy was justified because Mendaliv had not started a discussion on the talk page – in contravention of the instructions for it use. My advice at that point would have been to to start a discussion about the template on talk, per BRD, rather than re-adding the content which had been challenged. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and I still think the proper course of action is to attempt to resolve such differences on the article talk page, which had been looking decidedly bare until my attempt to ask for some clarification of the perceived problems. I am disappointed that experienced editors are resorting to ANI so quickly over an issue (the COI tag) that has not even been raised on the article page. --RexxS (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My first addition wasn't a revert. WP:3RR was violated here by Andy and Andy alone. And I brought this to ANI because Andy left me no choice, having given me a WP:KEEPOFF warning and having subsequently continued to edit war to remove the COI template despite the presence of a COI discussion at the talk page. And on top of that, Andy knew full well what the complaint was about simply based on his participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), he could've participated at the talk page had he looked for the discussion. Andy knows better than to violate 3RR. This isn't something that's fixed by waving your finger at both of us. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And just to demonstrate that this isn't an issue with me alone, just today Andy was carrying on his month-long edit war over at Stage works by Franz Schubert (Today: [86], [87]; Dec. 4: [88], [89], [90]; Nov. 30: [91], [92]), which edit war formerly included Template:Schubert stage works (Nov. 30: [93], [94]). This has to stop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I in no way condone Andy's edit warring, but you don't get to excuse yourself so easily. I remain seriously disappointed by such a respected and experienced editor as yourself adding the same content to the page four times. If that's not also edit-warring, I don't know what is. The moment your COI tag was challenged, you should have been on the talk page, explaining why the tag was needed – something that you still have not done. "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors." What are the "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement" and why haven't you provided that information in a thread on the talk page? I genuinely hope that the only sanction for you that will come out of this is my "finger-waving", because (like Andy's) I believe your intentions are good, but FFS carry them out properly. --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have explained above and at the talk page, the discussion was already well underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), something which Andy full well knew. Was Andy technically correct in that there was no discussion at the current talk page? Perhaps, but definitely not in spirit. Andy's action was to exploit a technicality in something that isn't even a guideline. Was what I did incorrect? Perhaps as a matter of procedure. Was it wrongful or cause prejudice to any ongoing discussion or debate? Hell fire no. Let's drop the "a pox on both your houses" routine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's not. The purpose of templating is to bring more opinions and editors to a discussion about an issue. An uninvolved editor is going to see a discussion about the effects of COI on the article at the talk page, where it belongs, not at some discussion on an AfD page. I understand that when you're as involved in an issue as you have become, it's difficult to see how it looks from an outsider's perspective, but the injunction on {{COI}} is not just technical, it's practical. When someone sees that template, they are linked to the discussion at the talk page. You know about the AfD, but it's by no means obvious to the outsider that you're carrying out the debate on a completely different page. I had to ferret about for some time to get a complete picture after coming from Andy's talk page, where you'd dropped a completely inappropriate "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on the page of an editor with 14 years' tenure. What on earth were you thinking? --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What injunction on {{COI}} are you talking about? There's a non-binding, non-policy guidance page that says if there's no discussion go ahead and remove the template. That's not an invitation to break 3RR as Andy did. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And in response to your question about why I used a level-1 user warning template, I decided the least confrontational method in this case was to proceed through the traditional user warning template series. And, if made necessary (whether by continued disruptive removals of article maintenance templates or other misconduct), Andy could be taken to WP:AIV for continued disruptive editing past a final warning. This is why I used a level-2 template after Andy continued to disruptively remove the template. By the way, you'll also note that Andy immediately began to refer to my warnings as "trolling", which I believe is typically considered to violate WP:NPA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Pigsonthewing has also attempted to take this discussion into the well-known cul-de-sac otherwise known as my talkpage; the relevant section is here. Just FAYI. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Pigsonthewing and Mendaliv: Consider this a warning for both you. Pigsonthewing You are being warned for violating WP:3RR. You should have brought this issue to the talk page of the article, or to ANI if necessary instead of warring the tag from the page. Mendaliv You are being warned for edit warring and not following process. If the tag is being removed address the reason why before simply re-instating it. If there is no article discussion page on this issue, the tag has no place being there, outside editors are not likely going to find that discussion at an AfD.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• If an editor with over 10 years of tenure on en.wiki is accepting these type of outright spams and edit-warring to remove valid COI tags, sigh....Winged Blades^Godric 16:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is not "outright spam", and the COI tag - which is still on the article - is not valid there according to its own documentation. The "substantially similar to earlier versions" claim at the head of this section has also been debunked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about "debunked"? Where did I say in this section that they were substantially similar? I said there was evident creative influence between the versions, in other words that the new article appeared to be derivative based on its provenance, insofar as LCS-affiliated individuals made substantial edits to each other. Thankfully, Jo-Jo Eumerus came up with an acceptable alternative: Redirecting the old draft to the current article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Verbatim quote from your post: "Yesterday, I noticed that the Language Creation Society article had been recreated, containing content that was substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article.". Debunked by in this comment by Jo-Jo Eumerus: "the current writeup is very different from the draftified one". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Well that's embarrassing, I misread my own post! Facepalm I've made so damn many posts today on this ridiculous subject. My point wasn't that the new article was a copyvio of the old one, but that there was evident creative influence such that I believed attribution may be required. That's why I was talking about a histmerge up there. Jo-Jo disagreed, and was clear that it would be a problem, so I accepted that. Moreover, the old draft was redirected to the new page, which I understand to be an acceptable non-deletion outcome. Not as clean an attribution chain as I think it could have, but whatever.
          In any event, the article at present is far better than it was at the start of this debacle. A great deal of the crufty bits have been peeled away. And, I'll admit, it's a hell of a lot better than the old draft that prominently featured LCS's mission statement and had a section discussing the professional services they provided the public. So definitely not as spammy as the old version the LCS folks created. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Another WP:NOTHERE

User:Hamas Hamas Muslims to the gas new account with only one edit to my talk page: [95] Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reported at WP:UAA. Given it's a weekend morning UTC (and still overnight in the US) it might get faster attention over there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Also this now: User:Turks are bloodthirsty, genocidal savages [96] posting over and over again, my talk page urgently needs to be locked down Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've protected your talk page for 12 hours, balancing 'enough time so they can get bored bashing their heads against the wall and go away' with 'we do our durndest to never protect a talk page'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, would you mind revoking talk page access for the second account? Jiten ^talk _contribs 10:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. If anyone else isn't in a fruitcake coma, can they look into blocks for the underlying IPs? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I already did. Unsurprisingly, the accounts are using proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ip 110.77.181.148 is now edit warring at admin's talk page. [97]. It kind of sounds like past messages I've gotten from JarlAxle. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked that IP, but for a week because I have no idea how long it's going to be useful. NinjaRobotPirate, this IP was previously hit by our lovely never-make-an-edit admin, Procseebot. Do you know how to look up whether it's still a proxy? Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

List it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This test is a usually a good first step. Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies has good advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are some damn handy links. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Another IP sock 123.185.128.87 Tornado chaser (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this IP geolocated to northern china, while the other one was from Bangkok. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DIVA in Environmental racism in Europe

Some time ago, I came across the article Environmental racism in Europe because somebody added a link to Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll, which a) does not involve Europe and b) does not allege environmental racism. Reading throught the article, I found a huge WP:COATRACK of poorly sourced claims, announced a clean-up action and proceeded to do just that, checking claims made in the article and finding more sources. The reaction I got was a disruptive editing template on my user page. I responded, inviting Sturgeontransformer (talk · contribs) to discuss things on the appropriate talk page. Sturgeontransformer then solicited a third opinion, which is fine. The third opinion came in the form of François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (FR). I responded detailing the problems I have with the article and in what ways I think policies were violated. The third opinion then proceeded thusly:

• cute remarks about coatracks
• linking cat videos
• acussations of being bellicose, calls to be patient and urging me to assume good faith
• Objecting to any and all changed I made, w/o specifying any reasons
• Filing an ANI-report which was summarily dismissed
• calling me "old chap"
• reinstating that content on my talk-page after being told to bugger off in no uncertain terms
• refusing to discuss anything before deleted content wasn't restored
• calling me "darling" and "dear" To be clear, this is not about gender, it's the uncalled for and belittling familiar tone that bothers me.

All this is enough to get on my nerves, but it's just the introduction. Now the meat and bones:

• FR reinstated a contested section
• and again

I started a discussion on the talk page (as I did with all other changes I made to the article) spelling out my objection (not WP:RS by a mile)

• FR flat out refused to discuss anything unless the content was restored, inquiring if I "can contain [my]self from spontaneously bursting into flames again"
• A question by an uninvolved third party (User:GB fan) about why FR found himself unable to discuss things were dismissed with a "Riddle me this" and an accusation of me "trying to force [...] a new status quo"
• FR then pinged a number of other editors, accusing me of not even understanding what civil discussion is.
• Robert McClenon (pinged) roundly rejects FR's claims after which FR flies off the handle accusing me of (or at least implying such) edit-warring and driving Sturgeontransformer off Wikipedia. Also I am accused of "encroaching" upon WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONS, WP:NPA. No diffs are provided to support any of this.
• FR claims the problem is "quite clear" and that I went "Ha Ha Ha! You got nothin' on me!" in a rather lopsided representation of the goings on.
• A good summary is provided by Robert McClenon and I put FR on notice
• Another diatribe follows, this time accusing me of "destroying the article".
• And another list of unsubstatiated accusations, which caused me to file this. "And this, my dear presumptuous admin (or whatever you are on Wikipedia), is the stupid, short, easy-to-find log that began all of this, that seems to be completely hidden from admins. If Voldemort had any sense in him (!) he would've hidden one of his soul shards here, living happily ever after and ruling over us all."

In the article I have been careful to start discussions on any and all changes I made. FR has not responded to any of them, but instead wasted time and effort (of several editors) and has repeatedly accused me of various forms of misbehavior. The most egregious example can be found under the "contested section" header on the talk-page. I contend FR's behavior in this discussion has transgressed the boundaries of WP:AGF and can only be qualified as disruptive editing because he's massively wasting time and has yet to make a single useful contribution towards improving the actual article. Instead casting casting aspersions and, since he's exclusively targeting me without ever providing evidence of any actionable behavior, harassing me. Since anything I do or say on that TP will only make things worse, I'm asking for appropriate measures by the admins to curtail this kind of behavior in future. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kleuske, none of your diff links lead to the diffs you want. I suspect they are all off by one diff. When using the diff codes you can't use oldid as that links to the previous diff and not the one you are on. You have to get the next&oldid diff number. For example, you are using diff 816626232 to link to Robert Mclenon's summary whereas as it leads to FR adding in a reflist. Robert Mclenon's summary is located on diff 816631936; here. When using oldid, you have to move to the edit after the one you want. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Merd'allors... Thanks for pointing that out. Please bear with me, untill I correct all the diffs. Sorry 'bout that. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. It should be alright, now... Kleuske (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by François Robere

The entire history of this thing is in the logs and talk pages, and I see no reason to elaborate too much. A very clear summary of how this thing started is provided at the bottom of this page. Mind this is a week into the affair and by now I've become pretty irate, but I believe I was kind enough at the onset.

The bottom line is this: Both Sturgeontransformer and myself became convinced after that first correspondence that the other side is not interested in constructive discussion (I'll quote Sturgeontransformer's exact words later if he gives his consent), and that both their and my efforts will be wasted if we continued to engage; hence the ANI request and everything else that followed.

Unfortunately, the admins in their infinite wisdom found no reason to intercede, and in my next to last message (same link, some text in bold) I withdrew completely from the article, as has its original author, who is now off to write a PhD thesis on the subject which I'm sure will encounter much less resistance.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comments - I concur with User:Kleuske's analysis in general and her characterization that User:François Robere is being a WP:DIVA. This was originally a content dispute, the result of bold edits by Kleuske with which FR disagreed. I became involved when FR filed a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which however was stated as a complaint about a user, which isn't what DRN is for, and wanted "the admins" (a repeated FR phrase) to do something about a user, namely, roll back the edits. I also see claims by FR that Kleuske is having problems with her temper, although I also see what appears to me to be temper by FR, and I see FR alleging uncivil behavior, while being rude and disparaging. Unfortunately, I think that either a Topic-Ban from the areas of environmental damage and of racism, broadly defined, or a one-week Block, are now necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That would've been a dandy proposition if neither ST or myself hadn't agreed to some of Kleuske's changes, but we did. What we disagreed with was the way they've done them. I don't know why you keep mischaracterizing the whole thing despite my recurring explanations, to the point of flinging a particularly nasty accusation against me (again in the link above) that's as baseless as they come. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• One More Comment - I will repeat my previous suggestion that if both parties actually want to address content (although it appears that FR only wants to rant), a Request for Mediation with an expert volunteer mediator is the way to go. However, FR will first have to dismount from his high horse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Having waded through the acres of related text, I concur wholeheartedly with User:Kleuske's and Robert McClenon's analysis. FR would do well to read Law of holes. Buried somewhere in all this is a content dispute which I was no closer to really understanding, despite the acres of Diva-ish text from FR, but it was difficult to escape the conviction that whilst Kleuske was properly focusing on policy, FR was simply 'kicking up dust' because they understood that they had no policy based argument to defend their standpoints. If mediation is rejected, I would support a topic ban for FR, enough time and editor goodwill has been wasted already by Kleuske, Robert McClenon and others. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Can you, just for the sake of argument, summarise my standpoint as you understand it? Because, you know, the fact you still state it's about content despite my multiple statements to the contrary is... I don't get it, honestly. You can only state so many times that the skies are blue before becoming irate with others arguing that the clouds are actually pink. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

PS @Pincrete: @Robert McClenon: I'm somewhat dumbfounded by both your suggestions. As it stands I last edited that article four days ago, and has since announced I'm withdrawing from it on several occasions, including - what, today? on this very page? It's up there, look. Add to that the fact I've never touched this topic before on Wiki, as least as AFAICR, and we end up... where, exactly? François Robere (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

[URGENT] Can anyone stop this IP?

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

---

Can anyone stop 103.26.87.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is currently going on a rampage adding a category Indian Muslims to hundreds of biographical articles without any consideration for the person's actual ethnicity? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, such a category seems to violate WP:BLPCAT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The speed between edits looks like they could also possibly be an unlicenced bot. They're doing 3-4 edits a minute for a sustained period of time. Joseph2302 (talk)

The IP has been blocked. Hastiness (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked the IP and asked them to explain their editing on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Troll using ip hopping to harass

Another day, another batch of reverts by the same troll using different ip addresses to evade 3RR blocks: here, here, here and here. Prior to this, they have followed me to Church of St Edward the Confessor, Romford, here, and Wilkie Bard, here, not to mention a whole host of other articles. The IP locates to the same part of England. This is not a coincidence and is tantamount to harassment. Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)