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)

• Guy: There is absolutely no concern about copyright law, since American fair use protocol covers much, much more than NFC allows; and if you review the above discussion, the question is not whether local consensus "overrules" WMF policy, but how that policy is to be correctly interpreted. To frame the dispute in the way you just did is, frankly, entirely inaccurate and misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

So you say. Are you willing to provide the Foundation with your personal details and stand guarantor for any potential legal liabilities?Taking into account the re-usability of Wikipedia, our approach must be conservative, and it is obvious that any fair use rationale disputed in good faith must result in the removal of the image pending independent review. Obviously we have already arrived at broad classes where fair use is established, so the independent review is already done - album art on album articles, for example. But the WP:DEADLINE allows for removal pending review where this is not already in place. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose per David in DC and Only in death. We don't sanction people for following policy correctly (at least we didn't last time I looked). This is ludicrous, but it's unfortunately typical of the attitudes of even some experienced editors to NFCC, which they seem to believe is subordinate to WP:ILIKEIT, when in reality it's one of the Five Pillars. The idea that HW be "banned from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article" is one of the most insane things I've ever heard. Anyone can add a FUR to an image; whether it's a valid FUR is a completely different thing. Anyone who patrols NFCC does this sort of thing all of the time, and they can generally be trusted to distinguish a valid use from an invalid one. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• You should take another look at the proposal, because it doesn't say anything remotely equivalent to banning HW "from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article". What it actually says is if he removes an image with an FUR, and the removal is disputed, he needs to resolve the dispute instead of digging in and edit warring.
  One thing that's often misunderstood is that a removal of a non-free image with a FUR is not a copyright issue: the fact that it's been uploaded as a non-free image and that a FUR has been provided means that it is conceded by the uploader that the images is probably copyrighted and is therefore non-free. So there is absolutely no legal consequence to keeping the picture while a discussion goes on, as the only thing that is potentially being violated is our own internal NFC policy, and no law whatsoever. Like all policies (even BLP), it is subject to interpretation, and the community is the final arbiter of what interpretation is correct. Unlike BLP, removing an image because of a claimed NFC violation is not immune from the edit-warring policy. So, essentially, the proposal directs HW to follow policy that he's been deliberately ignoring.
  This is not, therefore, a conflict between NFC and ILIKEIT, it's a conflict between policy and one editor's refusal to follow it correctly. It would be nice if more editors, and especially more administrators, understood the policy correctly and didn't misstate it with such definitiveness. Maybe WMF legal should run a workshop for admins to explain the correlations and differences between American copyright law, American fair use protocols (which are primarily defined in legal precedents rather than in statutes), and Wikipedia's own NFC policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• You appear to have the same problem softlavender does in that you think any FUR is acceptable. It has to be valid in line with ENWP, not US copyright laws. ENWP is far stricter in what it allows non-resident content to be used for. If the FUR is not valid, then it gets removed until a valid one is provided or discussion agrees the original FUR is acceptable. This is how the policy is written and how it is interpreted on a daily basis by many experienced editors with regards to NFC. Of who HW happens to be one. So unless you get the written policy changed, you need to understand that non-free content without a valid FUR will keep being removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• You inaccurately represent my views. I most certain;y do not "think any FUR is acceptable", I think that, just like everything else on Wikipedia, the acceptability of a FUR must be a matter of consensus, determined by a consensus discussion, and not by the actions of a single editor, no matter how proficient and experienced they are in patrolling NFC matters.
  I really wish people would stop misrepresenting the position of people who disagree with them on this issue, it's very disconcerting, and not terribly collegial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Consensus already exists and has been tested many many times for almost every situation. Eg you are not going to change the decision that it is not considered valid to use say an album cover on anything but the article dedicated to the album. And so on. WP:NFCC is not an ambiguous policy in 99% of its application. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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 [14][15]. 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

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

---

Please restore this sandbox, it is a student assignment for an educational project ([16]). 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 [17]), and lists of characters are dime a dozen around here. Seriously, the only red flag I see there, spam-wise, is the list of stores with all those external links, which of course needs to go. This shouldn't have been G11'ed even if it was in mainspace (through of course in the current sad state it would need {{tone}}, {{refimprove}}, {{grammar}}, etc. But it is good to remember that WP:TNT-like solution should not be applied too easily. As I said earlier, this is hardly a good student example of quality student work, but I don't see what made it a valid G11 target (particularly when a simpler solution would've been to delete the problematic store list from the article, and leave a note on the creator's talk page - which sadly, the speeding admin never bothered to do, effectively biting the newbies - the student had to alert me of the problem through email, saying they don't know why their article was deleted, and I couldn't tell them 'read the message at your talk' because they've never gotten one, sigh...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. [18][19]). 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 [20]. 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. [21], [22], [23], [24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30], [31], [32]

Editor has quickly removed these comments from their Talk [33] which has been explained on their Talk may be taken as evidence of the having been read. [34]

Editor has explained recent blanking of content as "a mistake." [35]

This behavior has resumed after most recent Talk [36] 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,[37] 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. [38]. 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. [39][40] [41] [42][43]. There are other examples on the now deleted promo pages. The user felt that these comments were personal attacks. The user was removing article talk page comments while reinserting comments on ValarianB’s user talk.
• Jamesharrison2014 has also removed comments from Lacypaperclip (talk · contribs) talk page claiming that they were personal attacks.
• Jamesharrison2014 has posted vandalism noticed on talk pages for Eduardo89 (talk · contribs) after a single revert to remove Moates’ name.
• Jamesharrison2014 asked for White House Press Corps to be protected to prevent the removal of Moate’s name. When then request was declined, the user reverted the response from Ymblanter (talk · contribs) and posted the request again. Jamesharrison2014 self reverted this change [44], so I’m striking this comment. Billhpike (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Jamesharrison2014 has uploaded several images to Wikimedia Commons that are lifted from Michael Moate’s official Facebook page [45] [46]. 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 [47], 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)

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 [48] 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)

The 117.228 range was blocked for a month in November, and as far as I know, that didn't cause problems in that range. Maybe a shorter block (say until the end of the month) across those three ranges would be a compromise instead of a month-long (or longer) block? Maybe they'll take the hint with that. Semi-protection might be a long-term option, as it's mainly across articles in these categories one and two, but not always. Any ideas/suggestions/solutions about this would be most appreicated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I reblocked 117.228.0.0/16 for a month. It's difficult for me to make sense of some of these edits, but there's enough disruption to warrant a block. The edits on the other ranges are even harder for me to figure out. The IP editors seem to include sources sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be as much blatant disruption, like blanking. I think it would be best if an admin who knows what they're doing looked at those ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NRP - I appreciate you taking time to look into this. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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 [49]). 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 [50] 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. [51] Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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 ([52], [53], [54]), 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: [55], [56], [57], [58]. 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: [59], [60]; Dec. 4: [61], [62], [63]; Nov. 30: [64], [65]), which edit war formerly included Template:Schubert stage works (Nov. 30: [66], [67]). 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)

Improper COI tagging

@Mendaliv, Tarage, Pigsonthewing, Serial Number 54129, RexxS, Winged Blades of Godric, and Cyberpower678:

Mendaliv has tagged Language Creation Society with COI. However, when challenged to present even a single example of a substantive non-neutral edit, they either refused to do so or admitted there was none.

I request that either:

1. the tag be justified, per the COI template's clear admonitions; see my challenge to do so on the discssion page;
2. Mendaliv remove the tag and publicly apologize for the false insinuation of unethical behavior; or
3. appropriate disciplinary action be taken against Mendaliv.

See also discussion above. Sai ¿?✍ 18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it's Christmas Eve. I don't have time for this right now. Wikipedia is not an instant gratification website.

Suffice it to say that multiple individuals at the ongoing AfD on your organization's article agree that there are significant concerns with your organization's editing of that article. Honestly, this discussion should be at WP:COIN anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said when you have to answer. And maybe you could consider your own impact on others' holidays.

In any case, it's very simple: put up evidence of non-neutrality, or retract the improper tag and apologize. Insinuations without substantiation are not ethical. Sai ¿?✍ 18:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA is actually policy here. Calling me unethical would seem to violate it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I described an unethical behavior — one that you can easily choose to correct. I don't know you and said nothing about you personally. Calling you out for it is not ad hominem. Sai ¿?✍ 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed Christmas Eve. However, you were asked about this at 15:55 UTC on 23 December, and ignored that, despite actively posting until 22:42 UTC - almost seven hours later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross-linked at WP:COIN per suggestion, with request to direct discussion here. Sai ¿?✍ 18:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Saizai: I'll try to be a gentle as I can with this: you're asking for administrator to take some action (that's the purpose of this noticeboard). No administrator is going to force Mendaliv – an editor with 36,000+ edits and over 10 years' tenure and a volunteer here like the rest of us – to justify or remove anything, or apologise, or admit any wrongdoing. This is a difference of opinion, principally over content, and you need to go back to the article talk page to sort it out. I think that the discussion there has remained generally civil, and you should work with the assumption that all the parties are editing in good faith. You'll make more progress. If that fails, you're next stop should be WP:COIN.

Now, if there are any genuinely behavioural problems, you need to supply diffs so that a busy admin can glance at them and see the problem immediately. Admins are volunteers as well, and if you genuinely want sanctions against another editor, especially a veteran editor, I'm afraid you're going to need a lot more than you've presented here. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said at the talk page and above, the ongoing AfD contains the bulk of the discussion of your organization's COI with regard to editing the article about it. Wikilawyering around the issue is, well, not exactly helpful to your cause. At any rate, I have Christmas parties to attend. So I bid you good morning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Saizai, the COI is an objective fact. We do not have to explain to your satisfaction why your edits to an article about your endeavours are not in line with WP:NPOV. And namechecking yourself in an article really is the dictionary definition of COI, so you can take your Wikilawyering elsewhere. If you edit that article again, you will be blocked for spamming. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't highlight me again with your nonsense User:Saizai. --Tarage (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Saizai I would venture to suggest that I have a better insight into what constitutes problematic editing than you do, especially since you have a dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, RexxS, are you seriously trying to justify Mendaliv's misbehaviour by pointing at his edit count? From what I can see here, 84% of his contributions made this year were made outside article space, and even the remaining 16% are mostly a matter of sticking tags, creating redirects and removing content. The only real contributions are two or three sentences about some football player. Fine, nothing wrong with that, and I'll be the first to admit that this kind of self-proclaimed wiki police does valuable work sometimes, but I also have the experience that people with similar edit patterns don't come here to write an encyclopedia, but simply because they are bored or looking for attention.

I hold no grudge against Mendaliv, and I don't think any disciplinary measures are necessary. What I am flabbergasted about, however, is that some of you are actually defending his behaviour. The problem is not the nomination itself, but the extremely toxic way it has been conducted in from the very beginning. I wasn't even aware of the article until I got a notification on my home wiki that my name had been mentioned on a talk page. What I saw there was a grotesque and completely false accusation directed at my address, even though I hadn't made a single edit in the article or the nomination page. Mendaliv's first reaction was that apparently I felt "offended by the recognition of the problem", and once I had refuted that, he elected not to respond at all, continuing his unwarranted accusations elsewhere. I am not amused about the way I have been dragged into this discussion! Which, I should add, is not the first time Mendaliv misbehaved towards me, because similar offensive behaviour happened almost two years ago. For the record, I may be a board member of the LCS, but I am also a Wikipedian with ca. 14 years experience (including as an admin and Arbcom member at wp.nl) and over 18,000 edits. That shouldn't matter a thing, but well, if people seriously want to use editcounting as a means to weigh people's credibility... (besides, remember WP:DTTR).

The way I understand the AfD procedure, it is primarmily a call to make an article that is unacceptable for some reason (including notability issues) into an acceptable article. Mendaliv's actions, however, make it quite clear that he does not want it improved at all, he just wants it deleted at all cost. Starting from the nomination text, which is more like a rant, full of assumptions, insinuations and half-truths. When people demonstrate otherwise, they are either ignored or put under suspicion. What makes the discussion especially poisonous, is that it focuses on Mendaliv's assumption that people with a conflict of interest had been editing the article, even though he has failed to prove a single NPOV edit made by any of the people he mentioned (in reality, nobody affiliated to the LCS has added anything substantial). For the record, even if the COI were true, it is not forbidden for users with a COI to make uncontroversial edits. I am not accusing Mendaliv of acting in bad faith, I suspect it's simply a combination of ignorance and stubbornness. It is regrettable though that he keeps reiterating assumptions that have already been proven wrong to him in the past, but I take it that's simply because he chooses to ignore facts that don't fit his opinions. I do believe, however, that his constant ad hominem reasoning has a very bad influence on the quality of the discussion. Best regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Just stopping in this morning to see how this has progressed. I am completely unsurprised to see another LCS officer doubling down on personal attacks against me, complete with gaslighting/projecting. Sai got told to keep out of the article or get blocked, so one of Sai's surrogates shows up. This is the pattern LCS followed in the DRV last year. It is the pattern I expect LCS to follow when it starts a frivolous DRV after the current AfD closes. That LCS and its officers, directors, and people with a financial connection to LCS should not be adding promotional content to this article, should not be dropping their own names in the article, etc. is absolute basic Wikipedia standards. You have an actual conflict of interest, Vice President IJzeren Jan. No amount of dissimulation and personal attacks against me will change that. Now, I am returning to my family Christmas events. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC

In my personal opinion, you sound like a trigger-happy nominator on a mission to destroy. You show a the hyperaggressive and confrontational approach against both the article and everybody you deemed related to it. To my opinion, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. The Banner talk 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny you are accusing me of personal attacks, Mendaliv, while your own conduct in this case has been nothing but one large series of personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, LCS-affiliated or not, including myself. But well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, right? Minutes ago histories have been merged, so please take a look for yourself. Or wait, to save you the effort, I'll give you the links myself. Here are all edits I've ever made to the article. This one was made in 2010, long before I became a member of the LCS myself. All I did was adding categories and correcting an error in the format. The second one was made in January 2017. I actually removed stuff that I found to be unencyclopedic, including names. That's all. And you keep accusing ME of namedropping???

For the record, let it be said that the person who added my name to the article is a person entirely unknown to me, who has declared not to have a connection to the LCS. If you don't believe me, then by all means file a checkuser request! Although quite frankly, it is ridiculous that people have to prove their innocence, while you still haven't been able to present a single piece of evidence of promotional editing by an LCS member.

Secondly, I don't appreciate being called "one of Sai's surrogates", which is insulting and also untrue, since I haven't add any offwiki contact with Sai since you started this whole thing. Besides, you conveniently seem to forget that it was actually YOU who pulled me into this discussion in the first place.

Thirdly, I already was a Wikipedian when you still were in Kindergarten, so you really don't need to tell me anything about Wikipedia standards and policies. I challenge you to find one single example of unethical behaviour in my entire edit history. If you can, I promise I will personally have myself blocked for at least one year. If you can't, I hope you will at least have the decency to admit that your insinuations have been false.

And at last, you are also accusing me now of dissimulation, too. This is a serious and, as far as I'm concerned, incredibly low accusation. I demand that you either prove or withdraw that. Until now, I have been assuming that you were acting in good faith, and that it was merely your inability to separate assumptions from facts that guided you. But your behaviour makes it more than clear that you are not interested at all in any truthfinding, you just want win this battle by any means necessary, even if that means deliberately distorting the truth. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You are upset about being listed as a {{connected contributor}} to the LCS article. You have not been marked as someone who has edited the article. Being listed as a connected contributor is not an accusation of bias. It is a plain statement of fact: You are an officer of LCS. By definition, the officers and directors of an organization have an WP:ACTUALCOI with respect to that organization. You have followed WP:COIEDIT by avoiding making edits to the article directly, and I think that is a respectable thing to do. I would, however, remind you that WP:COIEDIT also advises you to respect other editors by keeping discussions concise. There is no need for multiparagraph treatises here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the length of my responses causes you trouble. It's just that I'm a bit old-fashioned (not used to writing in slogans or abbreviations), and for what it is worth, I prefer to show respect to other editors by supporting my point with facts and arguments. I would be admirable on your part if you could sometimes do the same by substantiating your claims. In any case, there was no need at all to add me to a list of connected contributors before I had made a single edit. By all means read WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest once more, especially the section titled "Avoid outing". BTW the reason I am upset is not the tag, but the insinuations accompanying it.

Now, I'm not much into wikilawyering, but there is no rule that forbids editors with a potential conflict of interest to edit, especially they are open about their affiliations and their edits are uncontroversial. You seem to assume that every edit made by a person with any kind of affiliation is promotional by definition, and what's more, you basically deny these people the right to say anything about the subject by openly calling upon others to ignore whatever facts and arguments they present. Thát's not right, you see. By attacking people for being honest, you create an atmosphere that encourages people to hide their identity or even engage in sockpuppetry. You should at least understand that people close to a subject are also the ones who know most about it, knowledge that just might turn out to be valuable. To quote something I wrote elsewhere: "This constant focus on editors instead of edits is dangerous and unhealthy for the project. Ultimately, there are only good edits and bad edits. If an edit is good, it doesn't matter who made it, if it's bad, it should be removed no matter who made it." —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 03:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In all my years on Wikipedia I've not been aware that self-identification as a COI-afflicted editor leads inevitably to ignoring such a person's edits or arguments. Rather, the intent is to provide contextualization, and frankly, to cut through the smokescreen of longwinded, pointless argumentation that disruptive COI-afflicted editors tend to engage in. I think you've gotten your point across that you've not significantly edited the article. You've also made it clear that you're the current VP of the LCS organization. The rest of the argument, that there is something untoward about pointing out the existence of a COI without outing the editor, is not really suited for discussion on ANI. This board is not for proposing changes to Wikipedia policy or common practices.

One more thing, though, you characterize the situation... I think of yourself but perhaps other LCS editors... as being a "potential" conflict of interest. This is incorrect. As an officer of the LCS organization, you have an actual COI. You have not disrupted the article by editing yet, though I do argue you have participated rather extensively in LCS discussions, such as the AfD and DRV. I believe your actual conflict of interest is relevant to that discussion. If your hope is to remove yourself from the list of connected contributors, it would have been more simple to just ask for that. I wouldn't have been against it, quite honestly, if you'd been straightforward about that. But when you get into arguments about principles unmoored from the edicts of existing Wikipedia policy, it's really hard to tell what you want. And when you have contributed so substantially to the discussions, as you have, I think it's probably a good idea that you be identified as a connected contributor. But I would (of course) be open to hearing the opinions of others, either here or at WP:COIN, as to whether the identification is advisable under Wikipedia policy. I have no dog in this fight, so it makes little difference to me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another WP:NOTHERE

User:Hamas Hamas Muslims to the gas new account with only one edit to my talk page: [68] 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 [69] 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)

Hey, Bushranger, watch it with the gay jokes. EEng 05:31, 26 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. [70]. 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)

Blocked as an open proxy. Please use {{iplinks}} when reporting IPs (and {{userlinks}} for editors) - it makes it much easier to check the history. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

• FR reinstated a contested section
• and again

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

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

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

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

Comment by François Robere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Clarification - I should have said that I was proposing a Topic-Ban from article pages and talk pages on the topics of environmental damage and racism, broadly construed, and I am proposing that now. The fact that FR hasn't edited the article in four days doesn't change the fact that they continue to be disruptive by their hostile rhetoric. Loud statements that one is withdrawing from editing an article are not helpful. They are a form of diva flounce. Anyway, sometimes the clouds are pink even when the sky is otherwise blue, but we aren't here to discuss metaphysics. There seems to be a content dispute. There definitely is a conduct dispute on the part of FR. I still see no case that there has been a conduct issue about Kleuske. FR should either ask if Kleuske is willing to engage in formal mediation, which is voluntary and in which the mediator has complete control, or FR can be blocked or topic-banned. They aren't editing the article, but they are wasting pixels. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear, you already said that much in your previous message, in just about the same wording, and I've already replied in mine (speaking of "wasting pixels"!).

I don't know whether it is deliberately offensive or stupidly offensive that you have called two editors "dear" while disparaging them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's neither, but as you obviously read nothing that I write you shouldn't really care. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

But do explain this: On the one hand you want a ban, on the other hand you're not happy that I withdrew on my own volition. Do you want me to stay, is this it? Because there are much nicer ways to ask.

You haven't withdrawn. You aren't editing the article, but you are still being hostile and disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Who? Where? You? Here? What does that have to do with that article? François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

One last thing: Four days ago you said it's a "content dispute". Four days ago I replied. Four days later, you're still saying it's a content dispute. Either you haven't read, or don't care, or have your own axe to grind; however you turn it your objectivity is in doubt. François Robere (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This started with a content dispute, and the past doesn't change. There is also a conduct dispute, and this is here, at ANI, as a conduct dispute.

According to whom? You make no effort whatsoever to counter anything I say, you just repeat the same claim over and over. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this on one article or multiple articles? I don't think topic bans are the usual course for issues that are effecting only one article, but an article ban could be. The presentation of the complaint is not very clear. WP:DIVA is not a policy - is this a WP:NOTHERE issue or something else? I think a few clear diffs would help more for those trying to sort this out. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

From my view, what is problematic is that FR is offering a third opinion. I think the obnoxious tone is not unusual for content disputes. The problem for me is that this is in the context of mediation/dispute resolution, where an editor assumes additional responsibility to remain uninvolved. Is it possible to topic ban an editor from doing this type of mediation work? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Sorry I haven't been quite clear. What I'm alleging is WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, since he flatly refuses to discuss the subject matter and is massively wasting time, and harrassment, since FR has been very busy alleging all kinds of bad behavior on my part, on ANI, DRN and the article talk-page. In his latest post on the TP (see last link above), FR extends this behavior to other editors, too, which makes me think this behavior is structural rather than incidental. I do agree that a topic-ban would solve nothing, unless it's a ban on delivering third opinions. Personally I would think a one-way IBAN may be appropriate. WP:AGF stops me claiming WP:NOTHERE, but I think it might be applicable.

I do value Robert McClenon's offer for mediation, but I would require some pretty solid reassurances FR does not continue this behavior. I would also be happy if FR stopped discussing my perceived wrongdoings and focused on the topic instead. I have given him ample opportunity to do so, but FR does not seem interested. Hence the ANI-report. Kleuske (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - I am not a mediator at Requests for Mediation and was not offering to act as the mediator. I am only a mediator at DRN. I am also not an admin, although FR refers to me as one of "the admins", a sort of collective entity. At this point, I think that mediation is not likely to work, and am recommending a Block instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I'd rather if you looked at other articles I've offered 3O on, or just other articles altogether, before suggesting something that wide-ranging. If I were in your position I'd be looking for evidence the editor in question is showing persistent bias any related article; being in my position I know you won't find any.

@Kleuske: You've accused User:Sturgeontransformer of violating at least 8 separate Wiki policies/guidelines before I even arrived at the article. How can you claim "disruption"? As for your comment on "other editors" - do explain. François Robere (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Here are some summaries I've already supplied in other places:

1. The discussion before I went to ANI. Note two things:

First, the elaboration in the "sources" and "countries" sections was due to Kleuske agreeing with me that they had to explain their changes; up to this point none of them were thoroughly explained in talk, despite the other editor's requests.

Second, I was very, very patient with them, and they were very, very inattentive to anyone else.

1. My ANI request. Again extremely civil - too civil - and with an explicit request not to enforce personal sanctions against the other editor.
2. The subsequent DNR. At the bottom there's a very clear explanation to one of the admins about the nature of this dispute; he seemed to disregard this explanation entirely up to, and including this discussion (you can see above).
3. User:GB fan asks some questions about my reservations from further editing the article, and I explain. By this point it's been five days, two boards and perhaps two more talk pages since the affair started, and no one seems to be able to say as much as "let's try and be civil", only WP:Policy babble.
4. User:Kleuske literally says "put up or shut up", and I call the other admins involved just to show them an example of how this thing's been conducted, and why I filed an ANI. The only one who replies is User:Robert McClenon, who is clearly hostile (I assume admins are supposed to be objective) - they have no problem with Kleuske's lack of civility, and seem to admonish me for asking for civility; they suggest a certain kind of bias against Kleuske, but when disproven do not apologize; and they repeat some claims about the discussion despite me refuting them again and again. Here's my reply.

And that's both the chronology and the core of the problem, as I see it: Not a single admin would utter the phrase "let's keep it civil". Not one. Only one admin (User:GB fan) expressed any interest in the case, and only one admin (User:Nihlus) showed any "outside the box" thinking. Everyone else seem to treat it like some kind of a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces are WP:Policies, and they have to fit to the letter, lest we throw a case out. That's the core of the problem, and that how my very simple request - let me revert the article to its last "stable" version, and ask the other side for some patience and civility - rolled into a week and a half of useless discussions. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - FR likes to refer to "the admins" as some sort of collective superhuman force. I am not an admin. User:Nihlus is not an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Kleuske (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Apropos You've accused User:Sturgeontransformer of violating at least 8 separate Wiki policies/guidelines That's simply not true. I have pointed out the article violated various policies and guidelines and expressed my concerns. That was not what Sturgeontransformer wanted to hear, but that's nowhere near an "accusation". Please back that up with the appropriate diff, or to put it in the appropriate idiom, "put up or shut up". Kleuske (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you meant, your aggression left in both of us the impression of a very personal matter.

Actually Sturgeon had no problem with your reservations or suggestions, and neither did I, but we both took issue with the way you tried to force them. And I've said as much many times through this whole thing. François Robere (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You prove my point! Do you have the authority to close issues? You do. Do you have the authority to vote on them? You have. Whatever your exact title is doesn't matter in the slightest, does it? But you find it significant, because bureaucracy. And I already told you what I think about that. I've managed to go through over 3500 edits on Wikipedia without caring about that, and (as it's not content-related) there's really no reason to start now. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think a lot of this could have been avoided if Kleuske had just posted a move proposal, instead of declaring I intend to go over this article with a fine toothed comb and weed out the idiotic assumptions, overused sources and, frankly ludicrous claims. - there may be some problems with the page, but implying that the editors who worked on it are "idiotic" is not likely to resolve them. I agree that going over the sources particular to Europe is a good idea. For example, the term environmental racism (which is being challenged by Kleuske as WP:OR) seems to be used in the Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities - I don't think FR's comments were helpful or grounded in policy - this is primarily a WP:CIR issue[71] [72] - FR should perhaps be restricted from offering 3O's for a time, and should voluntarily take some time off from this article, but I think the 1 week block proposed is both heavy handed and not preventative. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: So this is another example of how other editors' conduct can drive a person mad: I've already left that article. I've said so four times, three of which on this very page, but no one seems to notice. Even stranger, those who do seem to notice (specifically Robert McClenon, whom I pushed on the subject), seem to want me [active] on that page just so they can vote me out (oddly enough, said user changed his mind from "ban" to "block" once he realized that's not going to happen,). And the same thing happened with several other issues that relate to this dispute, to the point where I had to repeat the fact that I was repeating myself, and still no one seemed to care. This raises not only the practical question of whether all of the voters below are objective (I've no doubt that most are), but - and perhaps more importantly - it really leaves one dumbfounded as to the value of discussing anything here. I mean - four times, and some people are still talking about mediation. I really don't get it. François Robere (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

PS I don't take offense at your raising that CIR claim, as completely ludicrous as it is, but you're more than welcome to elaborate here or on my talk page. To me those diffs are a good example of several aspects of how processes like this can be conducted, including establishing some basic assumptions, point-to-point replies, dissection of the issues, and an overall focus on content. François Robere (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "list type article" - the article has a lot of problems. I think editors on both sides have made some valid points, but the discussion has become too heated. I also think you became overly involved in the dispute and the tone of the comments was unnecessarily condescending - even though it is not formal mediation, mediators have to be even more professional - no editor is obligated to take your advice, and you don't have any special authority responding to requests for a third opinion. I know Robert McClenon does a lot of good work at DR/n and understands how difficult it is to guide parties towards a consensus - However, if you are no longer working on the article, and their are no complaints about conduct issues on other articles, I don't think there is anything sanctionable here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It may not be the best term (I believe I used "overview" somewhere else), but it's definitely not the only article of its kind (eg. LGBT rights by country or territory, Renewable energy in the European Union, List of national legal systems).

I definitely became too involved, but my regret isn't about the WP:3O process itself (although the discussion was way too complicated for just a 3O to begin with); rather, it's about involving the admins. Mind - I kept it completely civil up to that point, including in my replies to the other editor's condescending comments (attaching a diagram of Graham's Hierarchy? Really?), but getting directed twice to other boards before having my complaint dismissed on grounds of "framing" was less than satisfying. In a way, this conflict has more to do with the Wikipedia bureaucracy than with the other editor; for whatever structural reasons, Wikipedia has trouble dealing with a whole class of behavioral problems that aren't clearly defined in its policies; one editor even told me to reframe the issues in policy terms, because "there isn’t a conduct issue that I can parse in standard written English". If the English Wikipedia can't conduct itself in "standard written English", then it's a major failure. François Robere (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I may have been too subtle. My point was precisely that complaints should be intelligible in standard written English. The problem seems to be that the complaint by User:François Robere was in syntactically valid standard written English, but the semantic content did not identify any conduct issue. FR did identify a content issue, but FR kept insisting that he wanted "the admins" (that vague collective entity) to do something about a user without stating a reason in terms of policies why there was a conduct issue. FR complains about how restrictive Wikipedia's "bureaucracy" is, but the basic situation is that there is no reason to do something about a user unless the user has done something wrong. Maybe FR thinks that this noticeboard should consist largely of statements of the form "I don't like her" and "I don't like him" and "I don't like them" and "I don't like it" (that bot, or that collective entity). However, the semantic content, in standard written English, didn't identify a conduct issue. If FR can't state a conduct issue in standard written English, maybe there isn't one.

Clarification needed on WP:POLICY

@Robert McClenon: How is your suggestion for a block not contrary to WP:NOPUNISH? As you well know, I've already left the article in question well before this thread was opened (or at least you should know, as I told you four times). Considering my only interaction with any of you has been around that subject, and you've shown no evidence whatsoever that I've done anything wrong in any other context (and frankly, not in this one either), how exactly is your suggestion WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE? Put differently, if "blocks should not be used... where there is no current conduct issue of concern", and you've demonstrated no such issue (only a supposed past issue), how is a block not contrary to WP:NOPUNISH and WP:PENAL? François Robere (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:François Robere - It is true that you haven't edited the article in question for several days, but you are continuing to complain about it. Your complaining is tendentious. Also, many Wikipedians have too many memories of various disruptive editors who take a diva flounce off the stage, and other editors think that solves the problem, and then the diva comes back and resumes being disruptive and demanding with a nominally clean record. I thought that User:Kleuske was being harsh in saying "put up or shut up", but you have made the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Again the same question: Where am I arguing? Here? In a thread opened by a hostile editor on that subject? You can't open a thread like that and then gag one of the sides, let alone block them because they said something you didn't like. This has nothing to do with WP:TE.

As for your other claim: "many Wikipedians have too many memories of various disruptive editors" isn't WP:Policy. What you may or may not have memory of has nothing to do with this affair, or with this editor. Put differently: that isn't evidence, and by making your accusations based on nothing but that you're directly violating WP:PA: "What is considered to be a personal attack? ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." and WP:IUC: "[an example of] direct rudeness: ... ill-considered accusations of impropriety". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you pretty much "made the case" your suggestion should be dropped. François Robere (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to Do Something

• Just continuing to thrash is getting nowhere. It's obvious that User:François Robere isn't interested in editing an article except on their terms, and is being disruptive. Recommend a Block of one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Block and analysis given. Pincrete (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I see a content dispute that has maybe become a little personal between two editors, but there are problems with Kleuske's edits such as removing Ethnopolitics as "not WP:RS" [73] - it's a journal available through Taylor and Francis' database. I don't think ANI should take a side in the underlying content dispute. There is less than stellar behavior on both sides. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I rarely comment here (for the risk of being the pot calling the kettle black), but FR seems to have serious and persistent attitude problems, and could do with some time off. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is still a content dispute and both editors need to be open to discussing the article and work through mediation if they can't work it out themselves. There are some conduct issues but they don't rise to the level of needing action here. ~ GB fan 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  Comment: in my view, it's both a content dispute and a conduct dispute. The conduct part is being handled here. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  I agree and that is what I said above. I just went on to say that I do not feel the conduct rises to the level of needing any action here. ~ GB fan 22:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Troll, ip hopping in order to harass

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

The range is far too busy to block as there's plenty of valid edits coming from it. Special:Contributions/82.132.128.0/17. The range belongs to Telefonica O2 UK, which means it's people (probably many different people, judging by the diverse subject matter and the pace of the edits) editing from their cell phones. As you probably know, such editors are assigned a new IP pretty much every time they visit the site, or when they change their location and are being served from a different cell phone tower. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

NeilN kindly blocked one of them for their disruptive behaviour on Kenneth Williams. I don't fall for them being different people, sorry. Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe what Diannaa meant is that the editors on the range as a whole are many different people, which is why the range can't be blocked to deal with the one or two trolls amongst them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I also implied that blocking one IP will have no impact, because the next time the harasser accesses the Internet from their mobile device, their service provider will assign them a new IP. The person is not intentionally IP-hopping; they but they are intentionally taking advantage of how cell phone Internet access works to evade being blocked for any length of time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I looked into this the first time it happened and came to the same conclusion as Diannaa. I've placed a note here which will be enough for most admins patrolling WP:AIV to block should you wish to make a quick report there (please include a link to the note) and prevent quibbles about edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a workable solution I think. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for that. I hadn't heard of that particular noticeboard. Is that somewhere where anyone can post? Bearing in mind this, would you advise that I treat the reverts under the same caveat at WP:3rr and revert per vandalism? I'm keen to avoid any dramah should I be blocked and the blocking admin will undoubtedly not see your note if they've not bothered to look into the situation before blocking me. Would you recommend using the link to your note as an edit summary upon each revert? Cassianto^Talk 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Anyone can post at AIV. You'll get the occasional admin who will say, "AIV is for vandals or spammers only, post to ANI" but most will block if obvious evidence of block evasion is provided. The reason why I mention AIV is because it's usually faster than ANI but please make sure the IP is active (i.e., edited within the last couple hours). It's no use blocking an IP if the user has hopped to a different IP range. As for reverts, you can revert per WP:3RRNO #3 (reverts of socks of blocked users don't count for 3RR). Adding a link to my post in your edit summary is a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cassianto^Talk 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Flamingoflorida COI and disruptive editing

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

---

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

This editor is connected to the category:Recanati family and has been making disruptive edits to almost every article in the category and related articles, including wholesale blanking [[74] and unsubstantiated additions to personal details. The editor claims that the existing articles were inaccurate and therefore libelous. After multiple explanations of the policy against COI editing and a request to put requests on talk pages, the changes keep coming. No {CN} tags, no requests, just edits. I'm requesting a ban from editing anything in the category for a period deemed appropriate. Rhadow (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have stopped editing those articles since are last discussion and I have disclosed my coi to everyone multiple timesFlamingoflorida (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Flamingoflorida said at WP:COIN three days ago that they would "try" to stop editing affected articles directly and use the request edit template. Since then, they have made over 100 direct edits to those articles and as far as I can see, not used the request edit template once. Melcous (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• The editor has in the past self-identified as a member of the Recanati family. I opened a discussion at COI a few days ago [75], which was prematurely closed after the editor promised no further disruption. Contrary to the advice of multiple editors, involvement with family articles has only accelerated since then. There is also a trail of lengthy discussion at my talk page, as well as those of other editors and article talk pages, all in the rather futile attempt to stanch the flow, so to speak. The issues are most pronounced re: COI subjects, but there are overarching competency concerns re: sloppy editing and original research (see another waste of time here [76]). If several experienced editors are required to follow and clean up after an account, Houston, we have a problem. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The articles are now being reviewed and being made neutral for the first time i am not arguing with the sources I only want a fair and neutral point of view we art not public figures micheal Recanati is not even notable. Some of the sources whereny checked against the article I need help please help and think if those thing where written about your family you would want every word accurate and neutralFlamingoflorida (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that this began in June, when the editor was using an IP [77], at which time he was warned re: COI and blocked. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As you are also using an ip what is the problem I had know idea about Wikipedia then I know very little now but I am learning I need help those articles where full of main or errors about living people Flamingoflorida (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A major example was the prison sentence of Raphael Recanati that said 8 years instead of 8 months no that section is accurate and neutral no one on the family would be affected negatively by it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• And they just keep coming. Here's one just a minute after acknowledgment of this ANI: [78]. Rhadow (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I put the 4 sons in birth using a source and verified the wife’s name with an other source and fixed several small grammar and redundant repeat words I care about the tiny details of my family they are important I have a couple and I don’t hide it I am fully open and I’m trying to source as much as possible I don’t claim ownership in any way of the page and when sourced info is added I don’t object the pages where created without the sources being double checked now I am polishing them Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Read my talk page at Hello for a laugh. What a family. Daddio gets nicked for a stock swindle. Never-do-well son gives $30 million to NYU, takes the credit in the WSJ, then reneges on the gift. Now the granddaughter (my guess) sits in Florida arguing. Sheesh. (Delete after reading). Rhadow (talk) 22:40, 23

Rhadow wrote this about my family that is biased and unprofessional I have a conflict of interest I have disclosed≈ it Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melcous#Kathryn_TappenFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think many of us are losing our patience. This editor (Flamingoflorida) has become a nightmare in an inordinately short space of time, and clearly doesn't know when to stop, even when they're asked to. There are serious competency issues here, on top of the obvious WP:COIs with the Recanati family, and related topics such as 1983 Israel bank stock crisis. I would like to see them topic banned from any article page related to Recanati, and to respect the wishes of editors who ask them to keep away from their talk pages. Flamingoflorida has become quite a drain on many editors' time. I think it might help if this editor were required to propose the wording of all future edits, along with a rationale, on the respective Talk pages of those articles, and be required to wait until an independant editor has the time to implement them. We should not be running around cleaning up their mess, nor jumping to do their bidding, either. (Thankfully their damaging edits to a suite of GLAM-related articles has also ceased and have been reverted, following the intervention of three editors.) Further infringements or failure to heed reasonable warnings should be met with a block on all editing rights for an appropriate period of time. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The pages are arrurate and concise now and when it involves family each word is important I want only a complete accuract neutral article I want help then and still want help now and after a personal attack against my family how can I trust editors to be fair can I have one editor to help me with these articles and not involve anybody else somebody who can help me learn about how Wikipedia works I have an art history background if you need any help with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comments here are not helping your case. Wikipedia acts on a neutral point of view, but that is "what is entirely neutral", not "what somebody associated with the article subject considers neutral". The best way to allow yourself to be helped is to step back, stop editing the articles, and instead go to the article talk page, post a notice about your concerns with the article and how you believe they can best be addressed, and then allow other editors to assess which, and which parts, of your changes would in fact be improvements to the article in line with Wikipedia policies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will agree to that but rhadow now also has a conflict of interest involving the pages I will use the talk pages Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not how COI works. You have a COI because you are associated with/a member of the group in question. Rhadow is not, and therefore does not (can not) have a conflict of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nick Moyes and The Bushranger, I think that anything less than what John from Idegon proposed [79] will be ineffective, and delays the inevitable. After messing with this for three or more days, I'm convinced that at this time the situation is irredeemable. The above comment re: Rhadow is proof of that--the editor can't help but sow contentiousness, and whatever knowledge they bring to certain subjects is more than offset by issues of competence. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Add this [80]. WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunatly I agree we may have a WP:CIR issue here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have stop editing those articles check my logs I have agreed and I am a keep to themFlamingoflorida (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Flamingo, but I trust you as far as I can throw a piano. Whatever is decided here, I do wish you the best. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's now spilled over into my talk page, too. Despite wanting to be fair and reasonable to all editors, even I'm now irritated enough to sway towards Johns proposal to block and revert all of their edits entirely, and let non-involved editors update or correct these articles in the way we would with any other subject. But maybe with the benefit of a few extra links and sources that have since arisen. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You don’t need to trust me I don’t you you don’t know me I agreed and gave my word of honor I and will keep to it And for the record my family’s wealth has nothing to do with it the continued mentioning of it means you are all biaed against it ie nick moyes and rhadow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no bias against anyone here, except those whose actions, whether self-serving or otherwise, cause severe disruption and annoyance to everyone else.Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

After all this, and a notice from NeilN [81], the latest tack is to troll for proxies [82], [83]. Happy Christmas, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• And this request [84] Rhadow (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspected that was a copycat of my request here [85], but I have no idea what the purpose was, nor was a source offered for a possible copyright violation. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User has been indeff'd by Alex Shih. I'd just close this but Flamingoflorida is on his second absolutely clueless block appeal already and I'd like to suggest revocation of TPA and institution of WP:RBI regarding this user. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

5 hours after Alex Shih blocked the editor, a new account User:Artliker was created and is editing similar kinds of articles in a similarly tendentious way, including adding puffery requested by FF on the talk page of one of his family member's articles - [86].  Looks like a duck to me. Melcous (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC) (Note, Alex has quickly blocked the sock. Melcous (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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.

---

Sorry, would use the IRC but it's being buggy for me. Here's the diff [87] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Would an admin please semi-protect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky?

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

---

I just reported Special:Contributions/Cowselba as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MariaJaydHicky. The sock keeps reverting my report. Can someone please block the account so the investigation can move forward? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week, I hope SPI will be completed during this period.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Balans

• Balans (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there! An IP keeps posting an alleged better version of "Balans" on its page (which is just poppycock). As the GA writer, I have reverted his edits and tried to tell them they're wrong. However, the IP seems to not stop reverting to his allegedly better version. You can also check the disturbing message he left on my user page. Btw, they use the pronoun "our", which may indicate a sock puppet. Best of regards and thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 24 hours per the 3RR report, but as I noted there, I have a feeling this one will eventually become an indefinite block. (And if any admin wants to extend my block, go for it). only (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Thank you for blocking and helping . I hope you're getting my point. As the GA writer, it makes me angry when an IP reverts my hard work with his alleged "better" version consisting of a few poorly-written paragraphs with almost no sources. He also claimed my version was allegedly "copied" from somewhere and that "[I] have absolutely no idea wtf [I am] talking about"... Merry christmas to you ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoon network freak (talk • contribs)

To be fair, I don't think he's trying to claim the article is a copyright violation, but, rather, he's trying to claim it's written about a "leaked" version of the song and not an official one. He's claiming the song was released in violation of copyright. At least that's the understanding I'm getting out of his commentary. Yes, he did put a copy-vio tag on it, but I think that's because he doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. But, I could be wrong... I'm not 100% what he's getting at. only (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: I also don't get what he's saying. He claims that the official version of "Balans" released in 2016 on iTunes and other platform was "unofficial", and that a new 2017 remixed version — which he wrote his version about — is official... if that makes any sense... Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed - and the official song video released on YouTube in 2016 appears to have been published by the singer herself. A case of WP:RBI, I think. (Although in the article, perhaps a paragraph on the newer release could be added, assuming there's a reliable source? Actually, I see it's already mentioned in the article) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:152.232.198.139 broke Three Revert Rule at Embraer

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

---

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

https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=152.232.198.139

Please revert the modification of this User, and put ülease back the illustrated pictures, in which represents all models produced. Then if possible protectt the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.86.106 (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You should report violations of the 3RR to WP:AN/EW along with diffs of the 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, but as far as I see the bright line was not broken here. I'm only counting at most 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Please remember that consecutive edits by the same editor count as one edit since the edit could just as easily have performed those edits in 1 edit. Also do remember 3 reverts isn't a right, so you may find both parties are sanctioned for edit warring, particularly if it's only 2 of you at it, or the page is simply protected. It may not help if the article talk page is devoid of any discussion over the content of the edit war. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Oscar's Oasis racing to extended autoconfirmed status

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

---

Oscar's Oasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oscar's Oasis, who registered at 09:14 December 24, has made many rapid fire edits over the last day of being here. He has a stated intention of reaching extended autoconfirmed status by April and tells us to not ask him why. That seems like an odd proclamation for someone to state within their first 5 hours of being a Wikipedia user.

Among the 326 edits the user has made is the 31 hours of its account existence are 81 welcoming of new users and 106 reverts of edits by User:5.43.185.132.

This is concerning behavior from a new user for sure. There seems to be a connection to User:7AU1606 who I see was blocked by User:Bbb23 previously per a checkuser block and User:RickinBaltimore for vandalism. The account is not currently blocked, though.

What are the thoughts on this account? only (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: I was looking into this when you pinged me. Haven't finished yet. Thanks for the reminder about 7AU1606.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who those 2 people are. Either way, I'm not associated with them in any way. Oscar's Oasis (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No connection? Because the YouTube account you posted from used to be an account here before it was renamed 7AU1606. And your YouTube name isn’t exactly a “generic, anyone might use that kind of name” account. only (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oscar's Oasis. There are at least three socks (now blocked). Could you or someone else look at Special:Contributions/5.43.185.132? Are the rapid category changes generally constructive? I hate looking at category issues. The category changes go well beyond this one particular IP. Indeed, it extends to many other IPs and well over 1,000 edits of the same type. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some random ones, they are mainly removing Category:South Korean male actors from articles which also have Category:South Korean male television actors, or in some cases changing the category into a more specific one. Note that User talk:5.43.185.132 was tagged as a possible sock puppet, which I'm thinking isn't actually the case. Κσυπ Cyp   16:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sock puppet template from the IP's talk page. It seems that User:Upsidedown Keyboard's theory was that the IP was making the edits, and then Oscar's Oasis was making the reverts to boost his edit count. Based on Bbb23's conclusion on the case, I'm assuming that's not the case. only (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at least my investigation wans't entirely wrong. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thanks for checking on it and taking action. As for the IP category edits... the edits seem to be valid from a random seleciton of them. They appear to be taking people from the generic "actors" category when they're already placed in "television actors" or "movie actors" categories. So the edits look good... it's the lack of edit summaries and the rapid-fire aspect of their work that isn't as desirable. only (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, the SPI seems to have been moved to the archive page before being marked as closed, with a still-active "attention needed" tag? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The SPI hasn't been archived yet, but it has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7AU1606, since 7AU1606 is the oldest account of the group. When it is archived, it will be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7AU1606/Archive. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Now has been archived, this ANI case properly can be closed. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Immediate attention in Al-Kindi article

Hi, Immediate attention is needed in Al-Kindi article (check talk for the discussion) the user Farawahar violate Wikipedia's citation policy by using unreliable tertiary source for Al-Kindi's background that can't be verified by a secondary source. He goes against the academic consensus of his origin, then when asked multiple times to provide secondary references to support his assertion instead of the disruptive edits.. he simply ignore.

I only ask him to provide credible secondary sources oppose to the unverified tertiary reference he cling firmly to.

Nabataeus (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This is content dispute and both of you deserve block for serious edit warring. Looking through the History of the page you have been reverting each other for five days straight: 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 December. You shouldn't have run here after you just reverted him in your ongoing editwarring. Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know if i have the right to post here about this case or not. Please note that after discussing on the talk page about this topic, i wanted to include the words « he has been described as Persian » i saw in « Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures » which is used on Wikipedia as reliable. I based myself on several Wikipedia articles which use this source as reliable (i’ll provide you the links of the articles if you ask me to do so). More, after being reverted by Nabataeus several times when i tried to include the source above, i decided to ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about it and an administrator told me that although it’s tertiary, it should be ok and that if controversial, additional sources may be useful; i understood this sentence as « all users can add sources in the way to obtain a well balanced consensual article » (i must inform you that i’m of Polish origin and English is not my mother tongue, so i may have misunderstood the administrator’s sentence). In my mind, i was reverting a vandal who systematically removed referenced information. If i made a mistake, then sorry for any inconveniance and since this is the usual procedure for this kind of case, i agree to be blocked without any problem.

By the way, merry christmas to everybody.

Farawahar (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the administrator statement:

The article on the encyclopaedia is a poor thing, with only one (affiliated) source, but the book itself has run to three editions with a mainstream publisher, so although it is tertiary and not secondary it should be OK, provided the ethnicity is not a matter of controversy. If it is controversial then I'd recommend additional sources. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's tertiary (I presume you know what it means..) And it should be ok: britannica status ok. The administrator made it pretty clear and even in his tone that it should be treated with caution. Moreover your tertiary source violate Wikipedia's policies:

• The distinction between tertiary and secondary sources is important, because WP:No original research policy states: "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

• Simple facts: A tertiary source is most often used for reference citations for basic and fairly trivial facts that are not likely to be disputed and can be verified in other sources. Examples include various vernacular names for a species, the pronunciation of a foreign word, or a baseball player's statistics in a particular year.

i took the effort and time to provide references and walk you through it, even explaining with patience how Al-Kindi origin is conclusively established.

But you somehow managed to cling firmly to unreliable tertiary source that you're incapable of verifying by a secondary sources when asked multiple times! the policy is clear and explicit. Provide reliable materials. Simple. I asked you for it nicely from the start. What do you want me to do other than that?

Best regards. And merry christmas to you and everyone.

Nabataeus (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More block evasion from Armanjarrettp

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs)

Same as before, as seen here.

• ESZCocoran426 (talk · contribs)

Poor grammar, using previously made articles to change other transit templates. Yet another sock account. Cards84664 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User Ulysses Faye Ohkiph

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

---

Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a slow edit war over national anthems in Asia. The particular problem is Template:National anthems of Asia. After being unable to resolve it with them I sought a third opinion – see Template talk:National anthems of Asia#China & Taiwan – which seemed to resolve things for a while. But Ulysses Faye Ohkiph continues to assert their idiosyncratic views, with a further comment on the talk page and now again restoring their rejected changes to the template, as well as making other pointless changes, accompanied with ever more offensive and abusive comments on the talk page and in edit summaries.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The initial version is accomplished by me and stay as that condition for more than 1 year. A racist like JohnBlackburne suddenly broke out and accuse me for edit war?! RIDICULOUS! I watched this template for years! Is Republic of China historically equals to Taiwan? Is he Chinese? Does he understand? THE VILLAIN BROUGHT SUIT ASGAINST HIS VICTIMS, lol.Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for both the linked edits above and the little tirade here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい 18:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

IP address removed

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain why the IP address was removed from this edit? As far as I can recall, the edit was performed by an IP. Dr. K. 20:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been fully suppressed, so only someone with CheckUser privilege could tell you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Oversight, not CheckUser Most likely someone who accidentally edited logged out and requested suppression. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Boing!. I suspected that much, given no record of the visibility change appeared in the deletion log. I think it was an IP, but even if it was not, I don't recall any offensive username. Dr. K. 22:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This reason is plausible. Dr. K. 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

IP hopping, probably block evasion by User:Pocketthis

172.58.24.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 172.58.20.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.

Edit warring from multiple IP addresses on the article DUI_in_California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Probably block evasion by Pocketthis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the IPs keep restoring content that the blocked user added in the past. BytEfLUSh | Talk 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for 72 hours, BytEfLUSh, to stop block evading IPs. I will extend the protection if the disruption resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) BytEfLUSh | Talk 22:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin heads-up on Julius Dawkins/User:Jremoval

• Julius Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jremoval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A connected contributor (well, the article's subject) has created an account for the sole purpose of removing its content (links above in section header), and has, blanked it twice. I have advised him to contact OTRS, but not sure what admins can do here, other than give another explanation of the issue. This is a difficult situation, because he shouldn't be blanking it if this were not for the exceptional circumstances that he has provided us. !dave 22:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

They can semi-protect the article, which will prevent Jremoval from editing it. I'll request it at RFPP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, they could block Jremoval. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

In an edit summary, Jremoval claims that they are removing information for privacy reasons, but all of the information deleted is easily available at any number of websites, and none of it is, as far as I can tell, an invasion of privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm all for protecting the subjects of BLP, but this is the most basic and non-private information. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article. We have no way of knowing whether this editor is who they say. I agree with Beyond My Ken that there is nothing controversial in that article, and nothing that would bring danger to his family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, 2017121310010035 within OTRS is a continuation of this discussion. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 06:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--@Cullen328 and Drmies:--Is the subject very notable? If not, based on OTRS details, I'm inclined to launch an AFD with the clause:--Subject requests Deletion.(pending some inter-OTRS formalities).Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 13:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Winged Blades of Godric, I don't know about "very" but he seems to pass the notability guidelines for professional athletes easily. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Winged Blades of Godric, he is notable in my opinion. He played in the National Football League for two seasons, after an impressive college career. I did a basic Google search, and easily found significant coverage of him, published years later, that would make it easy to expand this article. I found nothing negative about him at all, except that his NFL career was brief. He later played arena football for a few years. I would oppose deleting the article based on nothing more than the subject's unreasonable fears. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, I have near-nil idea about American Football.Since, you have both said that the subject is notable enough there's no future prospect of an AfD, at least from our side.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Turkey

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

User:Khirurg and User:EtienneDolet tag-team edit warring against a recently closed RfC at Turkey.

Diffs:

• [88]
• [89]
• [90]

Attempts to discuss on user talk

Comments by closer of second RfC on article talk: Talk:Turkey#Secularism,_unitary,_parliamentary_republic...

The add was made by User:Icewhiz here with edit summary "per RfC" [91] Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The one behaving disruptively is you [92] [93]. I think it's time you were topic banned from anything related to Turkey. Khirurg (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for three days to allow for discussion on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I made the edit in acccordance with the newly closed 2nd RfC on the matter. I do think Khirurg and EtienneDolet may have been confused due to recent editing on the article and the original RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Icewhiz: I have no doubt that you were in good faith to restore that wording, but I think the entire procedural aspect of opening up the 2nd RFC has caused more problems than it has solved. The first RFC involved 11 users, 10 of which supported the removal of all the wording (democracy, parliamentary republic, secular, and etc.) as opposed to just 1 user. That's an astounding sway of opinion to one side of the debate. And the one user, who happened to be against the other ten, was Seraphim System who kept undermining the first RFC and continuously arguing the opening of another one until the opposition just died out. What's even more problematic is that Seraphim System went to WP:ANI to void the first RFC without even bothering to ping any of the users only to reopen another RFC a day later (pinging was done by Icewhiz). All the other users probably were fed up by the time of the 2nd RFC or just considered it a farce since it was obvious that the sole user who was pushing for a second RFC wasn't just pushing an RFC, but a POV that solely belonged to that one and only user. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      • In hindsight the ping mechanism did break around when rfc2 was opened, and Godric stayed the open (10 oct) while the ANI discussion was on going, and then reopened later (19 oct) which had the unfortunate effect of pushing this down in legbots' lists. Participation in the 2nd RfC was far from great (in some posers just myself, with comments by Seraphim System).Icewhiz (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Come to think of it, the pinging did break down around that time. I forgot about that. But regardless, at least you made the good faith effort in pinging the participants. And that ANI discussion is more of a charade than a discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request). Contrary to what Seraphim System says, s/he is the sole user who is challenging the consensus reached by the RFC with filibustering tactics that I've never seen before (s/he keeps responding to his/her own comments back to back to back to back). Just look at the comments of veteran users such as Winged Blades of Godric, Jytdog, Ealdgyth. Not one user is in support of Seraphim's tirade. This ANI discussion was an attempt by Seraphim to push a POV and to wear down his/her opponents before getting his/her way to open up a second RFC. A WP:GAMING strategy that seemed to have worked since very few participants had the energy or time to engage with the user in a second RFC or of the multiple FORUMS the user shopped at (let alone the fact that s/he didn't even bother to inform them). Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The problems with WP:OR and unsourced commentary in the first RfC were noted by several editors, it was not only one editor. Godric closed finding only a weak consensus for removal. In my opinion, the editors most likely did not respond to the second RfC because they did not have WP:RS supporting their positions. It is much easier to make disoganized, unclear arguments without WP:RS then to propose well-sourced changes. In fact, there was no source-based discussion on the talk page at all before the first RfC. RfC's are not a tool to impose unsourced editorial "opinions" "truth" and original research on the articles. At least one of the editors advancing the argument about secularism has been blocked as a sockpuppet - that same WP:OR appears on at least one other article, and I have already found WP:RS that directly contradict the editor's analysis. I'm not opposed to improving the articles and discussing them, but consensus requires source based discussion. There is nothing stopping any editor for trying to gain consensus for specific source-based changes on the article talk page.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It would help perhaps if someone could clarify exactly what happened with the last RfC. The way it's currently being discussed, its pretty hard for someone who wasnt involved to understand what actually happened. Here was what I thought was going on when I closed the second RfC: I thought Godric had closed the first RfC as no consensus because he thought that too many of the votes in the original RfC were just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rather than being policy based. He then proceeded as part of his close to make a new RfC so that people could !vote on each particular part of the sentence in question, and Icewhiz pinged all the past !voters. Is this not the full story? Brustopher (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The close was revised after I formally challenged it. At least three editors had objected to the non-sourced based "voting" in the RfC. It was also difficult to disentangle different parts of the proposal. There was clear consensus to remove democracy, but the consensus for other parts of the sentence, especially "secular" was much weaker. Godric decided to open a multi-part RfC. A lot of the issues arose from the first RfC being improperly proposed without discussion and for changes that were not supported by WP:RS, and the second RfC sought clarification. I certainly don't think the discussion should be reopened for further "voting" that is not supported by WP:RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the second RfC should be reopened and closed immediately as no consensus due to the almost complete lack of participation. I don't think it should have been used to come to any firm conclusions. Number 57 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think that's a good idea. Considering the fact that nine users (as opposed to one) were against all of these words being placed to the lead, it's only going to create more problems down the road since the participants of the former RFC will return to protest the words they contested in the original RFC. The article should remain locked so as to encourage discussion. The discussion should now focus on the three words that are being added to the article (Secular, unitary, parliamentary republic). And it doesn't have to be an RFC, but a simple discussion. RFCs actually make it difficult in this case because !votes will make things more complicated and confusing, especially when each word that's being added needs to be analyzed thoroughly in accordance to RSs. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The closer states that he has "taken into account arguments from the previous RfC that led to this one." so that is not a reason to reopen. He states clearly: In the previous RfC, much of the discussion on secularism was again just people giving their own opinions and arguments, rather than providing sources. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo position of describing Turkey as secular. is entirely consistent with WP:POLL. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, User:EtienneDolet has a long history of battleground behavior in WP:ARBAA2 -including a warning.[94] I have not looked into the editing pattern in detail, but the "failure to edit neutrally" may be spilling over into this topic area. His comments during the RfC were not based on WP:RS including:

• "In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy. I know the West is loving Ataturk right now since they constantly compare him to Erdogan, but Ataturk ruled with an iron fist under single-party rule. During his time, you couldn't even publicly speak any other language other than Turkish"
• " A country filled with long and extensive record of human rights violations against non-Turks, forced assimilation, forced deportations, denial of ones racial identity, the banning of languages, and then outright genocide should not be viewed as accepting of cultural diversity. That's rather obvious to me. As is the secular stuff."
• "Sure, there are RSs that might say Turkey is a de jure democracy (the Britannica source doesn't even say that by the way), much like how there are RSs that say North Korea is a Republic, but if it doesn't jive with reality, then it should not be presented as such."
• "Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves."
• "for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article"

Regarding the last part, Brustopher notes in his close There are sourced descriptions in the body of the article describing Turkey as secular in Wikipedia's voice.. For example, where are sources that languages were banned? Kurdish was not banned until the 1980s, and it had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide. Even if you are sympathetic to the views here, which I am, it does not excuse abusing the RfC process to impose unsourced person opinions and POV on the encyclopedia. The standards have to be higher. As for battleground behavior, the unsubstantiated personal attacks on the article talk pages need to stop [95] - what forum shopping? Where is the diff? I challenged the close here, at ANI, after I discussed it with the closer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Drop this--The closure of 2nd RFC is quite well.See my comments at the relevant talk page.Winged Blades^Godric 13:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MWS

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

This user is becoming very disruptive:

• [96] 19:35 Dec 24 changes numbers to something the reference does not support. Supposedly they have private data that disagrees with a review published in the Lancet.
• [97] 23:58 Dec 24 (starts addomh signature to main space)
• [98] 14:51 Dec 25 (adds simple disruption and signature again)
• [99] 19:31 Dec 15 (continues)

They were previously editing as an IP and moved to an account once the page was protected.[100]. I had started talk page discussion on both issues.[101] They have removed warnings from their talk page.[102]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hum they use "v"s for "f"s. Reminds me of a prior blocked account that refused to use standard English writing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for signing edits in mainspace, see if they engage on user talk, otherwise we may be back here later this week. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Shenanigans at AfD

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

---

I nominated Owen Shroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Shroyer is an Infowars "journalist". A number of suspicious Keep votes have been registered.

• Article was created by MattiasDhlb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has very few prior edits.
• 91.239.206.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is in Tblisi, Russia, ruse, fake news etc.
• 80.193.190.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has edits in common with MattiasDhlb and is very likely the same person.
• LaceyUF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has very few edits to Wikipedia and no obvious prior interest in this article or AfD.
• Jacquimunroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited today for the first time in six and a half years.
• Oscar's Oasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just got banninated as a sock.

This smells of meatpuppetry to me. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I'm not Matt, I'm also a girl! (this does seem like a girls vs boys issue doesn't it!) Got a new router as an early Xmas present probably why my new IP doesn't show many edits. Googled Shroyer Saw page in creation Tried to clean it up Had a look at the creator's other edits and cleaned those up I've never have a login here and have no intention to create one. Anonymity is important to me. Discount my vote if you like seems like plenty of genuine keep votes. 80.193.190.189 (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC) This IP, 80.193.190.189, has been CheckUser blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other 5 possible socks but I'm LaceyUF and I have dynamic IP address so it changes a lot, plus I edit from 2-3 different devices. I have been VERY active on wikipedia for nearly 10 years and have went to 2 wiki-meetups, and donated about $300 over the years. I know about AGF but allow me to clarify the only reason I signed into my account was because it's the only one I have tied to an email address. I change usernames often due to the amount of creepiness I get from being a woman in tech. 67.233.34.199 (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Also where can i find an archived version of the Owen Schroyer page? 67.233.34.199 (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My bad, it's Shroyer, link corrected above. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What does the amount of money you've donated have to do with anything? And, technically, deliberately using IP addresses to edit when you have an account is a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry, since it avoids scrutiny of your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not banned or blocked, I'm free to do what I like. I suggest you read WP:AIR. I'm signing out of my account now so I don't get anymore alerts. Consider yourself blocked from communicating with me. To everyone else, keep up the good work and will somebody please find me that video where Jimbo Wales gives an inspirational speech about sharing human knowledge with the world? (it is a famous 10 second clip that has been used extensively in wikipedia promotional outreach materials) Thanks! LaceyUF (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@LaceyUF: I guess you might not read this, but you are not correct when you say "If I'm not banned or blocked, I'm free to do what I like." Deceptive use of multiple accounts and/or IP addresses (for example, to appear to be more than one person on one side of a dispute) is not allowed, regardless of bans or blocks. I'm not suggesting that you have done anything wrong, as I have not examined this issue at all, but I'm just correcting you on a point of policy as explained at WP:SOCK. (As an aside, WP:AIR is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, so I presume you meant something else). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant wp:iar. LaceyUF (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

LaceyUF My sole comment on your Talk page is the mandatory notice alerting you to this discussion. I note that you have copied the article to your sandbox. You are curiously obsessed with this topic, given your tiny number of edits to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I edited the Otto Warmbier article as my last major contribution. You are wrong on my edit count unless you are a checkuser. Please stop talking to me. I have nothing more I wish to say to you. LaceyUF (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You see, it doesn't really work that way. If you're doing something which is a violation of policy, like sockpuppetry, for instance, then your "stop talking to me" is not going to be terribly effective, because editors are going to want to know about your violations, and more to the point, are going to want to see you sanctioned for those violations. So far, every unrecognized editor on the AfD in question has been revealed to be a sockpuppet, and that raises a reasonable probability that you, too, are a sockpuppet. You can provide some evidence to show that you're not a sockpuppet, or your can rant and rave, and leave the impression to reasonable editors that you are a sockpuppet, the choice is yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, you cannot ban another editor from communicating with you on Noticeboards and other public places on Wikipedia -- although you can ban one from your talk page, if that makes you happy -- and the community could sanction the other editor with a Interaction Ban (IBan), which would prevent them from communicating with you, but you'd have to present some cogent evidence that such a ban was warranted. before that would happen.
  To the actual point, it's not the case that you are "free to do whatever you want", as you will find out if you take the time to read WP:Sockpuppetry. We have policies, some of which restrict what you can do, and they must be followed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's interesting to note that the IP 67.233.34.199, who LaceyUF says is her's, posted the welcome message on Oscar's Oasis' talk page as the first edit there. [[103]] OO has, of course, been blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(from memory) I saw his name at the AFD and changed the color of the word "talk" next to his username from red to blue for reasons I wrote on your userpage. LaceyUF (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another blocked sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I literally only have Christmas break to myself with work and the family. I'd met up with old friends, which led me to look at some old edits. Went through the list of nominated articles and I knew of Owen (and a couple of other pages) so took a look at the article and found it to meet the guidelines. You can even look me up on Facebook I really am a real person! :) Sorry I don't contribute more but I only try to contribute to pages and people I know something about. Jacquimunroe (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC) PS I live in Bath now, and not Hull, if you want to look me up. Jacquimunroe (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC) This account, Jacquimunroe, has been CheckUser blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Intentionally editing logged-out when you have an account is not necessarily prohibited, any more than editing with multiple accounts is. It's only a problem when you violate the WP:SOCK provisions, one of which is doing it intentionally "to confuse or deceive editors" who need to be reviewing your contributions. Merely editing with an IP is not a problem at all. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If the intention is to avoid scrutiny -- which is what I specifically referred to -- then that is "problematic" editing while logged out, and is most definitely a violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case you've got one IP with a first edit on 14 December to the article in question, [104] and another with a first edit on 18 December whose fifth edit was to the AfD. [105] Given that, there's every reason in the world to suspect meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Then you have LaceyUF, whose initial response to this on Guy's talk page was "please remove my name from that list of dogshit" [106]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Does somebody smell sock? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. My IP address is usually 62.25.109.195 if I forget to log in which I do a lot of the time. Regarding the Russian vote is it really fair to discount a vote just based on geography? Has this IP made other malicious edits? Obviously when I work on something I don't like to see it deleted so may be a bit biased but isn't assuming that "everything from Russia is bad" a bit racist? MattiasDhlb (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC) This account, MattiasDhib, has been CheckUser blocked as a sock of Jacquimunroe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC) No, it's not and nobody's assuming it's bad because it's from Russia - the other IP geolocates to the UK. The reason this is suspect is because a bunch of editors with limited contributions all jumping onto one specific AfD to !vote the same way is very unusual and often a case of either xpuppetry or canvassing. Also, Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia and is not in Russia. WHOIS seems to confirm this. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for explaining Mr rnddude. I did ask one friend to check out the page - didn't explicitly canvas them to vote and wasn't even aware of the vote until after as I was offline that day, but I think I can identify their vote to Keep on the page. Which may be out of loyalty but I will stand by the fact I do believe it's a notable subject with enough coverage to justify an entry. There seems to be a strong interest in the page looking at analytics which may only be due to this discussion but I am standing right behind it for now. MattiasDhlb (talk) There have been edits at the AfD by an open proxy IP [107] Billhpike (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Probably someone trying to deliberately discredit the voting. At the end of the day all Shroyer has to do is mention on his show that Wikipedia want to delete his page, and there'll be hundreds of KEEP votes from people who don't even know what a Wiki is. Probably even conspiracy videos. Full disclosure I am a friend of Matt's in the real world who hasn't voted. I knew about this yesterday and avoided voting yesterday because it seemed biased but got still got sucked into an AfD sinkhole. If I do vote it will be to keep. I'm not voting this way because I am a friend of Matt's but because I honestly think it's a keeper. Shroyer's digging his own grave and let's watch him do it. Spikegray (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC) The above account,Spikegray, has been CheckUser blocked as a sock of Jacquimonroe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Threat by SPA

I think that this threat by blocked SPA Antonios Skaras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to inform the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, qualifies as a threat. I don't think this qualifies as an explicit legal threat, but it is a threat nonetheless and I think it qualifies for a block upgrade. For background please refer to the talkpage of the SPA and to this AIV report. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's hardly a threat; it's not like the foreign ministry can do much about non-Greeks residing outside of Greece. However, it's definitely not helpful, definitely not why talk page access is permitted for blocked users; I'd advise someone to end talk-page access. But maybe I'm biased because I'm the admin who blocked this user in the first place? Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I am actually Greek, and this was meant as a threat. Removing talkpage access is a good idea. But upgrading the block should demonstrate to this SPA that he cannot threaten other editors. Dr. K. 01:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a explicit "threat to sue", but it's absolutely intended to cause a chilling effect. TPA revocation inbound. I just noticed the initial block wasn't indef, so for the moment, swiching to indef and warning per WP:NLT, if he continues after this, TPA revocation time.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both and Best of the Season to you both. Dr. K. 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

National Folklore theft at a page named Arab Dance

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

---

Arab dance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1-The page is stealing every single Egyptian Folklore heritage and claiming it to 22 countries. Clear appropriation.

2- North Africans (Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians...) are not ethnically Arabs/Bedouins so calling their Folk dances by Arab dance is clear culture appropriation and exclusion to Copts, Berbers and North African countries cultural right to have their National Folk dances named after their people and home.

What's the validity of creating pages on Wikipedia that erase the identity of several nations and also steal their Traditional Heritage. The article replaced every single Egyptian Folklore and every single Egyptian Traditional Dancer by the word Arab, in an attempt to erase other countries National Traditions.

3- A National Folklore Dance should have its country name mentioned, the owner aim is to steal certain countries' traditional folklore heritage and generalize it as if it is practiced by 400+ Million Arabic speaking person which is totally untrue.

4- The word Arab is not used by millions of North Africans as we are ethnically not Arabs so our Traditional Folklore should be named after our people/country and not other 20+ countries. Marina Towadros (talk)

AN/I is not a place to resolve content disputes. I see you're already discussing this at the article talk page, which is the correct venue, so I am closing this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?

 – Alex Shih (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Range block to combat block evasion by MariaJaydHicky

Since blocks from this user's SPI were handed down earlier today, this user has used at least the following four IPs to evade their block:

• 82.132.239.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.235.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.230.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.223.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.239.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Prior to the most recent SPI, the user used the following IPs in the past few days (probably a bunch of others as well):

• 82.132.223.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.229.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As well as, apparently, Special:Contributions/LouiseRedknappfan.

Would it be feasible to apply some kind of short-term range block? Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Evasion continues, now at Special:Contributions/Grandenator. If a range block is inappropriate, can admin at least block these accounts and listed IPs? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Widr:, who blocked one of the IPs yesterday. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Widr, for taking care of this. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys actions

Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have requested a controversial (we already had a conversation with him and User:The359 about it) move of the Toyota GAZOO Racing WRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which ignores WP:MOSCAPS. Please undone the move. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We have not had a conversation about it. You came in, said what you expected of the article and then left. There was no "conversation" involved. You have not taken part in any recent discussions about the article move, cited any specific part of MOSCAPS that you claim applies, and nor have you addressed the issue of why you think the source provided in support of the article name is invalid despite satisfying both WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. You should also be perfectly aware that consensus can and does change over time. To run straight to ANI to try and force changes to an article like this is inappropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The article was originally "Toyota GAZOO Racing". As the article was changed back to its original capitalisation according to WP:BRD it should be discussed, but the first change of capitalisation ("GAZOO" to "Gazoo") looks uncontroversial and is supported by WP:MOSCAPS#Trademarks - it isn't used consistently on official websites[108][109] and "Gazoo" seems to be more commonly used in news coverage. Peter James (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's now at Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT. This discussion can be closed. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We had not a conversation? Really?! You hadn't received a new consensus and ran straight to technical requests without any discussions. You never stop to surprise. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You have a history of making bad edits and responding poorly when your mistakes are pointed out to you. Given that you haven't edited the article in question or anything related to it in over a year and your habit of makimg declarations rather than engaging discussions, running to ANI over it is a rather dictatorial approach to take. Meanwhile, I'm trying to deal with someone who is violating WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:OR on the same issue (and is now violating WP:CRYSTAL), which you would know if you were actually paying attention to those pages rather than swooping in and making demands about an article because it satisfies your ego. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Your allegations to my address look like a confession of your own actions in Wikipedia. The facts are that you mislead the administrator and lied that you hadn't conversation about the page name and that you had achieved new consensus. Corvus tristis (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that in addition to not having any diffs supplied (by either side) with regard to the actual complaint, calling another editor a liar is a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

edit warring

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

---

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

The editor Binksternet is engaged in an edit war with several editors and is continually undoing sourced and referenced edits and posting threats on talk pages. The edits made to the articles 'Shirley Bassey' and 'Rock Profile' are sourced and verified. Indeed, the edit made to the Rock Profile page is the ONLY one that is sourced and verified. None of the other claims on the page have any sources at all. Oddly, Binksternet ignores this, which demonstrates they are simply wishing to war with particular editors. Currently, Binksternet is in violation of wikipedia's 3R rule and yet is avoided censure or even comment, whereas they continue to post threats to editors who are not in any violation at all. It is time Binksternet was blocked from editing for starting an edit war and violating the 3R rule.62.253.196.108 (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Taking a brief look at the edit history of Shirley Bassey, I see content being added by IP editors being removed not just by Binksternet, but also FlightTime: [110]. I also see that Binksternet has initiated discussions on the talk page: [111], which the IP editors have not responded to. Let's not waste any more time here. Requesting close without action. Cjhard (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You will need links to editing concerns - also the 3rr notiticbord is the place to report edit warring - quick look at user Binksternet editing history failed to see any concern. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another editor has now joined in and is posting abusive talk page comments. Binksternet is in violation of the 3R rule clearly laid down by wikipedia and comments have been posted on their talk page, which they have deleted and removed. The 3R rule has been violated. That's a fact whether you close a dispute or not. 62.253.196.108 (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also a fact that you called Bink a "psychopath".[112] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And it appears that the complainant here is also the editor 5.148.42.186 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably, but the former is a consumer ISP (i.e. home) and the latter tracks to a commercial organization (i.e. most likely where he works). 86.149.136.124 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a consumer ISP but it's a hotel according to the WHOIS link - could be public wi-fi in different locations. Peter James (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how much use this will be, but I've semi-protected both Shirley Bassey and Rock Profile for two days because of the BLP concerns and edit warring. ansh666 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User talk:CSHN Murthy

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

---

I do not know some of their thing, but there is a serious thing on their talk page currently, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this user talk page needs pay admins attention. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Or arbitrators' attention.Winged Blades^Godric 13:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

TPA needs revoking

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

---

StudentsAssignments (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a promotional account, yet the promo continues on the user TP. Can a friendly neighbourhood admin please assist? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Removal of a request on the Talk page of Criticism of Windows 10

This morning I edited the Talk page of Criticism of Windows 10 asking whether other people have experienced the problems I have, and whether someone has some references that we could use in order to put these concerns into the article. My edit was quickly removed by "Codename Lisa" who accuses me of using the Talk page as a forum and of disruptive editing when I put it back (see User_talk:Eric_Kvaalen). She even wrote "So, sue me, I dare you."

My entry on the Talk page is a good-faith question and request. According to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments she does not have the right to remove it.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Instead of addig your own original research, you should look for reliable sources for the problems you're having. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello.

  In my first edit summary, I was careful to be not just thorough and polite, but also helpful. I wrote: "Wikipedia is not a forum or a Microsoft technical support partner. You are in the wrong place, buddy. Microsoft Answers, TechNet Forums, or Superuser.com are the appropriate venues." I complemented it with a user talk page message explaining the problem with what he did. But he knew all this before posting that article talk page message: Other editors have told him not to. Also, {{uw-chat1}} is too pampering or condescending, given his station; so, I used {{uw-chat2}} instead.

  What followed up was, at least in my opinion, a defiant reflexive revert, which Eric sought to justify after only the fact. On one hand, he invokes WP:TPO (which is just a guideline) in the face of the fact that WP:NOTFORUM is not only a policy, but one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia. On the other hand, he says something entirely different on his talk page: "It was for improving the article based on reliable sources!" It goes without saying that in the contents reverted, he had written quite the opposite: "I would like to know whether other people are having similar problems. I came to this Wikipedia article and I find nothing about these problems. Does someone know of references so we can add these concerns to the article?" So, yes, I did use a stronger tone.

  People like Eric Kvaalen are not unprecedented. We've had people who came here to complain about many grievances like Donald Trump, Net Neutrality, mass survillence revealed by Edward Snowden, etc. Wikipedia is the wrong place.

  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: You think calling someone "buddy" is an example of being "polite"? Paul August ☎ 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to jump in on the minor etiquette point; to my mind, "buddy" as used here is not overly courteous, but neither is it impolite. Had that been a reply on the talk page rather than a removal edit summary, I would think it was 100% appropriate. Then again, that's just me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Restore (and warn) I am thoroughly tired of Lisa's POV (and the inevitable identical tag team behaviour from FleetCommand) being used to strong-arm just this sort of issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So you are arguing to restore a clear violation of WP:NOTFORUM because you don't like the editor who initially removed it? That makes no sense from an objective take, and looks only like you're trying to further a grudge against editors you don't like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely I already made that clear enough for you.

There is nothing in TPO that requires this content to be removed. Although "forum" is regrettable, this is a trivial instance of it and, of the two between forum and POV, I'll take a bit of forum every time. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, aside from admitting your entire rationale is due to your dislike of the editor who removed it, you still advocated for restoring a policy vio based on that. (If you want to get all wikilawyerly about it, then sure; the policy does not require the removal of such posts, but restoring such a post would be a fresh breach of policy.) I generally ignore forum-y comments (or point out NOTFORUM to the editor) instead of removing them, but to sit here and advocate for the restoration of a removed one simply because you dislike the editor who removed it seriously borders on WP:DE.

I mean, there's no chance this edit is actually going to get restored with anything like agreement to keep it, and you have to know this already. So from where I'm sitting, all you've accomplished is undercutting your own position the next time you disagree with either of the two editors you mentioned. Everyone who's read this, and then reads your next disagreement will come into that discussion with the knowledge that you care less about the project than about sticking your thumb in the eye of those two. I know that the next time I see you disagreeing with them, I'm going to be starting with the assumption that you're wrong, due entirely to reading your comments here. That's not only basic human nature, it's actually quite a logical presumption, too.

I guess my point is; I would advise you to remove your comments (you can remove all of my replies, as well) from this section and take a bit of a breather. Not doing so only makes it more difficult for you the next time you conflict with those editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is chat room stuff. There are many ways to start exploring new content. E.G. finding a first source to launch discussion. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So Andy Dingley, that doesn't explain the "warning" part. If it's OK either way, why the fuss at ANI? SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It might make more sense to bring this question (in a much abbreviated form) to the Computer Ref Desk, and see if anyone has experience finding sources on these kinds of issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Eric Kvallen's lengthy post ended with a clearly stated desire to improve the article if sources could be found. I consider that a mitigating factor about the NOTAFORUM concerns. Although calling him "buddy" may not have been an insult, I see it as brusque and dismissive in this context. There are only two Wikipedia editors I might call "buddy" because I have known them for years and have met them in real life them off Wikipedia. Even worse was "So, sue me, I dare you." That is both terribly rude and seems to me to be an attempt to provoke Eric into violating our policy against legal threats, which would result in him being blocked. Codename Lisa, I advise you to dial down your confrontational tone. I endorse the suggestion by Baseball Bugs to ask for help finding sources at the appropriate Ref Desk. The optimal outcome would be less drama and more collaboration with the goal of improving this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

At Talk:Esham

Esham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What do you make of this? General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)