Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Proposal[edit]

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 ap[propriateness 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)

User:Chas. Caltrop for the third time[edit]

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

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

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

  • User notified. I am notifyling have also notified all editors who participated in the earler AN/I reports about this new one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Let me correct one statement I made above, Chas. Caltrop did reply to one other editor on his talk page, but the response was haughty and superior, as of a teacher replying to a somewhat slow child. [22] Such a response might be understandable if the comment being replied to was particularly inane, but that was not the case, it was a perfectly reasonable question, politely asked. [23] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no stricture against deleting usertalk messages, or even against being haughty a couple of times on one's own usertalk. Unless someone can provide diffs of repeated long-term problematic editing, this filing is likely to go the way of the last one. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a stricture against not communicating. I've seen a number of people blocked because they never responded to anything on their user talk page. And while it sounds nice to say that being "haughty" isn't disallowed, in point of fact, if someone can't edit collaboratively, they don't belong here. Collaboration requires communication, and a willingness to engage without insulting your interlocutor. Chas. Caltrop clearly does not have that. He knows that his edits are impeccable and correct, and anyone who dares to contradict him or revert his edits is either ignored or insulted. We can do without that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
None of this is the least bit sanctionable. There's no policy against deleting usertalk messages or responding in a way you don't like. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The haughtiness was not limited to his user talk page; it may also be seen at Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_2#Weasel_words? in the part I collapsed, attempting to shift the focus away from his tendentiousness and incivility. The incivility may have been a passing flash, and the opaque edit summaries may be getting slightly better. That being said, I still see Chas. Caltrop as a high-maintenance editor, difficult to collaborate with, and needing a lot of cleaning up after. I agree with Beyond My Ken that any random selection of this editor’s contributions is likely to show the problems as described in this iteration of the filing. To claim otherwise would be consistent with the style of a sea lion. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
None of this is the least bit sanctionable. So far no one has provide diffs demonstrating repeated long-term problematic editing. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe BMK should re-present what was listed in the previous ANI discussions, but I found clicking through just an assortment of Chas. Caltrop's edits provided plenty of examples of edit-warring to retain the same overwrought language, sometimes with grammar errors included for measure. Regardless, the lack of appropriate edit summaries is certainly problematic. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A reply from Chas, Caltrop

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know.

Regards,

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

It's no use, everyone around here already knows that I'm fanatically pro-Nazi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
BTW, Chas, Caltrop's edit summaries are completely generic, and bear little or no relationship to the edit he's actually made. It looks to be that he just scrolls down his list of summaries and picks one almost at random. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Chas. Caltrop does make one valid point above: in his edits -- which typically consist of numerous changes -- there are good things among the bad, so one has the choice of either laboriously going through the entire article, fixing the bad stuff and leaving the good, or just reverting and losing the good. It was the second choice I've made recently, but other editors have chosen the first. My choice was based on the ratio of good-to-bad elements. Since the bad elements, in my view, outweighed the good, I chose to revert. Other methods would be appropriate in other circumstances, but the real solution is for Chas, Caltrop to be do only good stuff -- but, again in my opinion, he does the good stuff in order to sneak in some of the POV bad stuff, on the assumption that many editors will just let his edits go. Given the history of his editing, I can't countenance that decision anymore, so when I see that there's bad stuff in his edits, I'm likely to delete them, to protect the articles from his POV and from his stilted ultra-formal style of "encyclopedic" writing (which you can get a feeling for from his reply above). In short, Chas. Caltrop and Wikipedia are not a good combination, since his style does not suit that of a popular encyclopedia (it's more suited for academic papers and journals), and his insistence on pushing his POV runs counter to WP:NPOV, a basic Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
BMK, you need to provide evidence of disruption in grammar/stiltedness if you want any action in that area. What, for example, is wrong with this edit, and why do you insist on the implied criticism of "certain writers" instead of the neutral discussion of the facts? I've not checked Charles' other edits, but if this is representative, you need to step away and stop disrupting things. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Nyttend, I won't be "stepping away" and allowing an editor to harm Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that would be good and/or helpful and/or appropriate, but I feel like the response by Chas. Caltrop pretty well illustrates exactly the communication and language issues that BMK has described. BMK did also link to the two previous ANI discussions, where diffs were provided. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Their response includes battleground behavior, insinuation someone is a nazi, and that they have the truth. That's a pretty good list of reasons they shouldn't be here (Tivanir2 editing from phone.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B108:C778:61D0:EFD0:78E2:DE71 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If this was a block appeal, that reply from CC above would get me slapping a WP:NOTTHEM decline. Just sayin'. (And the more I read it the more I cringe at it. Wow.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
His allegedly stilted style doesn't worry me, but other aspects of his editing do. Take a look at this current teapot-tempest. I'd admit that I raised my opening objection in a somewhat pugnacious way, but (surprisingly) nobody seems to have objected to that. Instead, CC (a new name to me) raises rather incomprehensible objections to my pre-announced edit to the article, after reverting. (The only [apparently] clear objection is that I replaced sourced material with unsourced material. But sourcing isn't necessary in an introduction; and he cites very sloppily.) Nothing so terrible in any of this in itself -- certainly my thoroughgoing revisions have been reverted by other editors, and sometimes on reflection I've embarrassedly concluded that those editors had been right to revert. But it's worrisome if it's part of a pattern. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to provide evidence of disruption in grammar/stiltedness - you might want to look at what they did to the Cultural Marxism section. They broke the section up into multiple pro-conspiracy theory headings, even though the section is intended to describe and give factual corrections to the conspiracy theory. Tell me whether a casual reader would come away from Chas' version with any comprehension of the facts. --Jobrot (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken asked me to comment. I think there is almost nothing of substance to be said about this editor and his edits that hasn't already been said. The use of vague, generic edit summaries that do not explain the actual changes being made to articles is irritating, but I suppose people cannot be blocked just for that. Chas. Caltrop should definitely be blocked if he continues to insinuate that other editors are Nazi-supporters without real evidence, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I was summoned also. It seems Chas Caltrop's edits may be generally better now than they were when I first encountered him, when they were appalling. But he definitely needs to use accurate edit summaries, and not change things like "US" to "U.S." pointlessly. zzz (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • BMK, the prior two ANI cases were useless and the one you brought here doesn't provide diffs of long-term disruption and POV editing. To get a response you are going to have to do the work and show the community clearly that there is a problem. I realize that is a lot of work, but people not doing that sort of work, is how people can persistently disrupt the project, which is what Chas. Caltrop appears to be doing. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Something sanctionable[edit]

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

Sticking my oar in ... I examined some of Chas. Caltrop's recent edits yesterday after first seeing this report, and as I have said at Talk:Reinhard Gehlen#Names—where I started the section—he appears to me to have overgeneralized something we do with biographies of people who have changed their names (usually women), and missed genuine problems with the way the article was written. In the now archived discussion at Talk:Dunning-Kruger effect cited above, judging by the edit linked there, my suspicion is that he misidentified "suggest" as a weasel word, since his changes include substituting "indicate"; he also changed "One study" to "The study"; I believe these wrongly overstate the claim. I had earlier reverted a change he had made to a caption at Sino-Soviet split, making a stylistic and clarifying change of my own instead: my change. He thanked me for that edit, but reverted with the edit summary "CE; restored correct context caption". I find this a disturbingly WP:OWN edit summary, and I stand by my judgement that, especially in the caption to a group of maps, the reader needs the context of the article devoted to the dispute and how it relates to the topic of the article they are looking at, rather than one of three reiterations of the years of the dispute sans name, plus what to my eye is POV or if you prefer OR about the relationship to the article topic. In short, I think there is indeed ownership, edit warring ... and rudeness stemming from inflexibility, which includes reluctance to discuss (no participation yet at Talk:Reinhard Gehlen) and unacceptable dismissiveness when he does discuss. To be still shorter, yes, this is a problem editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep that's four reverts in a 24-hour span: 23:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC); 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC); 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC); 22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC). I'd also note that there was reverting going on across a number of articles with Chas. Caltrop on one side and Just plain Bill and BMK on the other side, mostly on 4 December (e.g., Sino-Soviet split, Reinhard Gehlen, Dunning–Kruger effect). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of Chas edit warring, November[edit]

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

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

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3 (for blanking a section)


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

diff 4

diff 5


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

diff 6


Multiple reverts against Chas on the Leninism page:

diff 7

diff 8


Multiple reverts against Chas on the Bananana Republic page:

diff 9

diff 10


Reverts on the Newspeak page:

diff 11


Revert on the World Communism page:

diff 12.


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

diff 13

diff 14

diff 15


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

diff 16

diff 17

diff 18


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

  • Comment Chas has a habit of selectively deleting or muddling up content and language within left leaning articles, as well as expanding on right leaning articles. The latter is not a problem, however the former along with their continued poor treatment of other users, as well as violations of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines constitute grounds for a ban in my opinion. I don't believe they're WP:HERE to build Wikipedia up for everyone, but are instead WP:HERE to WP:SOAPBOX and subtly WP:VANDALIZE. If you don't believe that one user racking up 15-20 reverts, from multiple other users, in a single month, with little to no interaction on talk pages, is problematic, then I don't think you understand or respect Wikipedia as a collaborative project. It's voluntary, let's not make it a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a chore for people. --Jobrot (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note: Reports for edit-warring belong at WP:ANEW. I don't see any edit-warring warnings on Chas. Caltrop's usertalk since July 2016. Another note: Issues reagrding article content need to be discussed on the talkpage of the article (not on usertalk), so that all interested editors can respond and consensus can be reached or affirmed. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a notification on their talk page right now. Not to mention it being admitted on their talk page, or here where they're goading another user into reporting them - that interaction ending with Chas going to Sino-Soviet split and doing some spite edits because they believe it will annoy FreeKnowledgeCreator. Or here in another (4th) AN/I back in june specifically about edit warring. A WP:TEND editor will avoid WP:3RR, the smart thing to do for someone who enjoys WP:EDITWARRING is exactly what Chas does - commit multiple edit wars across multiple pages consistently re-instating content that has been rebuffed on talk, in descriptions and sometimes even on Chas' own talk page... at best users will find themselves with a terse pugnacious message violating WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL and THAT is the problem. Negative action and no repercussions. A problem you're apparently not seeing despite the overwhelming evidence.
Unless you believe that WP:CIVIL should be dropped, and that users SHOULD be seeing 15-20 reverts from multiple Wikipedians across multiple pages a month? Unless you believe goading and bullying is appropriate? Or that edit summaries should all repeat? Or that talk pages should be ignored, and WP:TPG shouldn't be followed? Or that a user should be allowed to soapbox by edit warring articles of a specific political bent they don't share? What level of bad behaviour is required for someone like you to accept that there has been a long term problem here and it has been completely ignored? - I mean FOUR AN/I reports? FOUR!
Does the claim of being here for WP:CE really hold that much weight? In the face of all this bad behaviour and the evidence they're a bad actor?! Come off it, bullying, lack of communication, editwarring, WP:TEND - admit who's the problem and let's move on. This has been on going for their whole time here. It's ridiculous. If you can't learn the basics of civil collaboration by now you simply shouldn't be here (or aren't WP:HERE for the right reasons). So yes, there is an edit warring issue, and this user does have long term behaviour issues that effect other users, shown with diffs, that violate several areas of Wikipedia policy. They need to be banned. It's that simple. Look at the number of users who are having problems with this one user, and let that help you decide. There's a reason this user attracts this much trouble - and it's no ones fault but their own... and frankly it should have been dealt with a while ago. --Jobrot (talk)
The EW warning was not placed on the user's talk page until after this ANI thread was opened. If you can provide WP:DIFFs demonstrating WP:TPG violations and WP:CIVIL violations, please do. If you merely disagree with their content edits, then take that to article talk. (That is generally the problem with most of these kinds of disputes -- they are content disputes that people attempt to prosecute on usertalk instead of article talk.) Also, please note that edits by others do not substantiate disruptive editing; only edits by the user do that. In the ANI you linked to, the opining administrator determined that "All parties are just as guilty of edit warring." Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I literally just linked you to Chas goading another user, attempting to bait people into reporting him. Chas shows utter destain for WP:GOODFAITH just as other users have reported. There's more on their talk page. As for violations of WP:TALK - every single post in non-article space Chas has ever made, has violated WP:TPG because Chas is literally been so stubborn and set in their ways as to have never bothered to learn how to interact on talk pages properly (etiquette, indentation and formatting). In a whole year of being here - they've never bothered. Here they are a year later still being warned about this.
Anyways Softlavender first you demanded diffs proving long-term problematic edits - which I provided - and now you're shifting the goal posts to demanding diffs showing a lack of WP:CIVILITY and violations of WP:TPG (when I've given you links, and those things are fairly obvious); I think the problem is that you specifically are ignoring this as a behavioural problem and trying to reframe it as a content issue (across this many pages? this many users? Really?). I think you need to WP:LISTEN to what all these editors above and previously have been saying, show some WP:GOODFAITH towards them for once rather than continuing on with your one sided devil's advocate program, which is starting to look like straight up bias. When is a problem user a problem user? Right now - and with your work it looks like they will still be in the future too! --Jobrot (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not shifted goalposts. You failed to provide a single WP:DIFF of Chas. Caltrop editing disruptively or violating policy, which I have requested from the very beginning. You have provided other editors' diffs, and links to a couple of threads, but no WP:DIFFs of Chas Caltrop editing disruptively or violating policy. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So you don't think that an editor being reverted 15-20 times in a single month (but lots of other editors) constitutes "problematic editing" on their part? Your phrase. Not mine. Personally, that scenario sounds pretty damn problematic to me. Particularly for the editors doing all that clean up work. Which is my point when I said you have to give THEM WP:GOODFAITH TOO! --Jobrot (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Various infringements[edit]

On top of the previous diffs of edit warring[edit]

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

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

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

Diff Zzz complaining about Chas edit warring. No reply.

  • Reports of edit-warring (including logged-out; although the user should be TP-warned with the {{subst:uw-login}} template) belong at WP:ANEW, not at ANI. Editors are not required to reply to talkpage posts, so that is not sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It indicates WP:TEND. To quote the relevant headings One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors, One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages and One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject. --Jobrot (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A more general quote from WP:TEND "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." --Jobrot (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

People trying to open discussions with Chas[edit]

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

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

Diff FreeKnowledgeCreator once again (different page). No reply

Diff MWAK on Chas' talk page. No reply.

  • Editors are not required to reply on their talkpages, and article-talk consensus does not require every editor's participation for a consensus to be reached. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
See previous reply RE:WP:TEND but also, in the case of the Frankfurt School page Chas did ignore consensus. You're going into bat very hard for this guy, who I believe is an obvious WP:TEND. --Jobrot (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Users complaining of lack of proper edit summaries (obfuscation)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • The editor does use edit summaries, as can be seen in his contributions: [24]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So what's your explanation for why these other editors are finding that Chas' edit summaries vs actual edits don't line up? To quote FreeKnowledgeCreator from the above diff: If your changes are disputed, then you need to discuss them on the talk page. Note that "Clean up; grammar, flow, npov" is not an appropriate edit summary when you are restoring disputed edits - but it is what I'd expect from a WP:TEND editor. --Jobrot (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You said "lack of edit summaries" all five times. He does use edit summaries, so there is no lack of edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry, you're right. I have edited the entries accordingly so they match the section heading "lack of proper edit summaries". --Jobrot (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Diff Again, same user.

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

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

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

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

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

  • OK, that's four instances of being snide on article talk (all but one of which precede the article-talk warning given by non-admin Mark Marathon). Users have considerable leeway in how they respond on their own talk page, so that diff doesn't really apply (and is yet another example of why content issues should never go to usertalk). In terms of the four article-talk diffs, I think they merit an administrative warning on the user's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll just paste that quote again from WP:TEND in case you missed it- "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." (wow look at all those diffs of all those repetitive reverts up there, 15-20 in a single month did someone say?) - But this is REALLY going to be a measure of just how WP:UNCIVIL someone can be, along with the complete irrelevance of the WP:TPG (let alone bothering with talk pages). I'm kinda shocked by AN/I's lack of interest in protecting Wikipedia from WP:TEND editing, especially considering how many editors have complained about this one editor's behaviour. With non-admin users like Wukai (Diff) and Mark Marathon (Diff) almost trying to protect other editors where AN/I apparently will not. Guess that's the way this project is going. Sad. --Jobrot (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, please stop bending over backwards in your attempt to not see the problem here. Your contributions to this discussion have all been hand-waving dismissals of evidence and observations by veteran editors. It makes it appear that you either are an apologst for Chas. Calthrop, or that you have some sort of animus against Jobrot, and it's overall really not helpul. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What he said. It's as if you've staked out a position at the start and are utterly unwilling to move from that. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Classic case of "won't be proven wrong". TIP: it's okay to think one thing, get evidence for another, and change your mind. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The case has been laid out and evidence presented as to Chas. Calthrop. I have to agree with BMK. Kierzek (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

page hijacked (Pleše became TreeHouse Ltd)[edit]

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

It's not the first time I've seen this happen since the ACTRIAL. Fixed -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Same for me... Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's two more CU confirmed socks to clean up after: Regsut Smar (talk · contribs · block log) and JRabeni (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Now you bring it up. Same at Rapšach-->Evan M. Loomis. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Ditto Vlčetínec--> Jason D. Ballard Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Both now cleaned up. A previous account was Gleopak (talk · contribs · block log). If anyone sees or knows of any more of this I'd be happy to take a look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
One more: Světce --> Tomorrow Lab by Rmleien. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

I've spent some time going through various Czech villages and towns, but found no more examples. Still, I have the creeping suspicion more hijacked articles exists and my search was not exhaustive. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Should new editors be blocked from moving articles? It seems to be a big right to give new users with no editing history, and is a big hole in the encyclopedia's security. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That might be a worthy discussion to have, as I can see some support for it, though if we were to have one, it should be held elsewhere, not at ANI. SkyWarrior 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Non-autoconfirmed users do not have (and never had) the ability to move articles, so ACTRIAL shouldn't have an impact on hijacking. Unless of course they don't realize that we unpatrol moved pages... – Train2104 (t • c) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
According to this, the user name used to create this article has 10 edits, and was created on Nov. 22nd.[[25]] The fifth edit was a move.[[26]] Am I missing something? The whole point of this is to bypass NPP. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
They had deleted contributions before the move, and were autoconfirmed when they made it. This isn't an ACTRIAL thing so much as a fool NPP thing. This has been a common tactic for a while with page moves. The focus used to be on disambiguation pages, but now it seems to be on obscure towns. Nothing new under the sun. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Potentially dumb question: Do we unpatrol pages that have been moved as suggested above? I know we do when an article is converted to/from a redirect. If we do unpatrol moved pages, there isn't any problem here, as they won't be able to use this technique to bypass NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That is a phabractor task somewhere that was requested after consensus at one of the village pumps in the Spring. I don't have much hope it will be implemented any time soon, but there is an open task for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

More pages that were hijacked (Czech villages):

At least one Polish village (possibly more of these):

Peter James (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Two more (both Polish villages):

Peter James (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we really need to either throttle page moving for new users, or outright block moves for pages in "* geography stubs" categories. Also found:
...all of the above should be cleaned up now, and all of the hijackers blocked. I assume these are all part of the same sockfarm; I blocked them as 'spam/advertising only' for now, so if others can check and tag, that'd be great. In the meantime, the accounts in question are listed below. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Stale for checkuser:

2016 disambiguation hijackings[edit]

Cicchetti is a blue link because Cicchetti (food) was moved, so it would have to go to (disambiguation) or be made into a surname article as it only listed the food and people with the surname. I'm not sure if the last two were valid disambiguation pages, and both were created by a banned user although Gokinjo has been restored by another user. Peter James (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017, Estonia villages[edit]

Peter James (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the four accounts that hijacked the original articles. I think a policy of summary deletion of the new titles is advisable, however well-sourced or apparently notable they are, as creations by blocked or banned editors in violation of bans. That we didn't pick up on them until now should not overshadow the fact that the well has been poisoned. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and nuked all the sandboxes and anything else I could.
 Checkuser needed. Also the list of non-stale accounts above, please. MER-C 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Another Polish village. MER-C 12:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been through all the accounts listed above. For every active account there are (or rather were) typically two more sleeper accounts, plus a different proxy range. It's all very systematic. It's therefore important to flag any other accounts doing this. After this thread is archived I'd suggest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00 is the appropriate venue. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Also a Polish village. Peter James (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it, I wrote a program to fetch all moves since 1 July by users with less than 30 edits and found two more:
I can dump the (somewhat ugly) output somewhere if you want to look at it. MER-C 20:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrative attention needed for these article hijacks[edit]

Need an administrator(s)'s attention on these article hijacks and problematic editors. Since this is an WP:ACTRIAL issue, I am also going to ping Kudpung. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything left to do with respect to this, point me to it. bd2412 T 03:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: The Bushranger already did everything, I think there isn't anything left now until new relevant pages are spotted. Alex Shih (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This trend is infuriating. bd2412 T 03:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, a quick look shows (unless I'm missing something) that these hijacker accounts are autoconfirmed, hence the issue is probably not ACTRIAL specific. What it does demonstrate however, is that we are getting better at detecting such issues. Perhaps this is now the lever to apply more pressure at Phab. I believe Tony might know how to approach this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Given the editing pattern here (enough sandbox edits for autoconfirmed and then hijack!) perhaps userspace edits should not count towards autoconfirmed status? - The Bushranger One ping only 12:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A lot have been changing the article first, so I don't think that will help. I also don't think it's specifically ACTRIAL related, as this has apparently been going on for quite a while, but it's clearly intended to avoid NPP. That this is a sign of us getting better at detecting such issues is a strange conclusion, but going forward I think the edit filter should be able to help with logging these kind of moves. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a Phab ticket somewhere about unpatrolling all moved pages because of the disambiguation reasons. It has stalled. I think the best thing at this time would be an edit filter that tags (so attention is drawn to it). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If we don't unpatrol moved pages, what happens to drafts (in whatever namespace) over 30 days old that get moved to mainspace? Do they sit unnoticed by NPP? – Train2104 (t • c) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
They appear to have targeted Azylber specifically, presumably because they're inactive. I just found Travel Nurse across America while trawling through Azylber's created articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Xezbeth: Nice find, thank you! I've blocked and deleted. I've also went through Azylber's page creations, but I couldn't find anymore hijacked pages. Alex Shih (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a footnote, some of the articles created through this hijacking spree may actually be on notable subjects. Not many, but there were a few that looked plausible. So if anybody wants to "adopt" one of these in their userspace, feel free to ping me and I'll see what I can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Seem silly, but place name seldom change, any change just like in Ukraine, would be a controversial move that requires discussion, may be lock all place name from moving, is a solution? Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Protecting one class of page from this sort of move will just inspire the spammers to vandalize some other class of infrequently-watched page. A filter which prevents moves of pages with fewer than some number of watchers would stem this behaviour but could be quite disruptive. However, this is a class of spammers that are not just creating unsuitable content but also destroying good encyclopedic content in the process, and so some level of disruption may be warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Pages with few watchers are more likely to need moving. I don't know if these can be prevented without also preventing improvements to many more pages, but improvements to Special:Tags and Special:RecentChanges make any new moves easier to find. Peter James (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Well yeah, that's exactly the problem. Unpatrolling moved pages is a better solution as long as new page patrollers know to look for these sort of moves, and after I read up the thread I remembered that I was (one of) the one(s) that suggested that in the first place; I'd long forgotten about it. Whose arm do we have to twist? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#Unpatrol moved pages and phabricator:T159028. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Would an edit filter that identifies new accounts (<50 edits) executing page moves be helpful? There would be a lot of legit moves but its log would be a live centralized point to record such moves. CrowCaw 18:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Crow: See filter 877. I don't think it's suitable for forking at this time, but feel free to do so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That's about what I had in mind anyway! CrowCaw 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
877 isn't great, there's a lot of noise and obviously the spammers have already figured out not to use dab pages. Could one of you code-familiar gnomes make a report that could show something like "<new user> moved page <source small page> to <target small page>"? That would still have a lot of noise but then at least it should be obvious that a move is from a dab or stub or whatever to a completely unrelated title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with that is that a lot of dab pages have commented-out text for the explict purpose of having them not be listed as small pages... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't understand how that's a problem? I'm thinking of a report that looks like:

It occurs to me while writing this that this is the move log, but my point is you can see at a pretty quick glance that two of these moves are most likely fine, one is odd but is at least explained, and one is pretty clearly inappropriate and likely spam. So I guess what would help would be a way to filter the move log for moves by new users. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the parameters are <source small page> to etc., and the page isn't counting as a small page, it could be an issue, but I might simply have been reading things too literally. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello. Curly Turkey has been edit warring with me and Nardog on Ukiyo-e. We're changing the IPA so that it matches Help:IPA/Japanese, and this guy is continuously refusing to get the point that it's that guide that needs to be changed, not a particular transcription. Here are the relevant diffs: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].

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

One of his most recent actions was to call me a 'commited troll' and then telling me to 'f off' after I posted an edit war warning on his talk page - see [33]. He also lied about my (only) revert on Ukiyo-e, calling it WP:POINT-y. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

  • As much as I agree with Mr KEBAB when it comes to the point of discussion, I find both Curly Turkey and Mr KEBAB less civil and respectful than they could have been and should have been. Mr KEBAB could have certainly spared some sarcasm, but Curly Turkey's personal attack is also very troubling. Nardog (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Templating the regulars is widely recognized as warranting a "fuck off". I stand by it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:TTR, WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
        • The Bushranger: Doesn't apply when the templating was deliberate trolling, as in this case. Mr KEBAB did not template me until I announced I was disengaging from him. The templating was pure retaliation, intended to provoke a response. Again, a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE—too hungry for drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
          • @Curly Turkey: Retaliation or not, that's hardly any of your business. The template was placed properly, and the essay you linked to is just that, an essay. It's not a policy, and nobody has to follow it (especially when they're not aware of it, like I was). Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Templating a regular in a dispute is tantamount to lighting petrol. You'd have got an expletive from me, too, had you have done it. It's not often I agree with CT, but on this point I support him entirely. CassiantoTalk 12:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                • @Cassianto: Then this should be made into a policy. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                  • No it shouldn't. It's plain common sense. And I respect that more than I do some bullshit policy offered up by a WP:CIVIL cretin. CassiantoTalk 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                    • @Cassianto: So let me get this straight: violating Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars which isn't a policy is enough of a reason to be cursed at, an action which actually is a violation of the WP:CIVIL policy. That's not hypocritical at all. I'm not sure if the second sentence is aimed at me, but if it is, you better watch your mouth buddy, now and should I ever template you (which I will, if it'll be appropriate). Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                        • Read in to it what you will. You will anyway. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                          • Regardless of what you think of WP:CIVIL, it's still policy - and WP:NPA certainly is. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                            • Fascinating. CassiantoTalk 21:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                            • CIVIL applies to behaviour, The B, not just language—and in this case, the behaviour was disruptive, the language was not. Keep in mind who brought this imtesink of a tempest to the drahmah boards—the one who stirred the pot in the first place, and appears bent on keep it stirred. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                            • Eeew ... my comment's touching Cassianto's ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No, what people need to keep in mind is that you've never addressed the issue on Help talk:IPA/Japanese. That's the most important thing. There was no logical reason for me to back off and I didn't.
The only reason you think that (wrongly) is because you still want to have the last word. Let me break it to you: you're not entitled to that. If you want me to stop responding to you, you stop writing to me first. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I brought it up there before you kicked off this drahmah you refuse to let go of. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You posted there after I told you that I was starting a discussion here. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be your "smoking gun"? Good luck convincing anyone. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: That's not up to us to judge. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
What they also need to keep in mind that the second time you told me to f off was when I notified you about this discussion, which I'm required to do. That alone should warrant a (short) ban by definition, saint. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Bans and blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to spank those we don't like. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I won't feed the troll by taking part in the discussion, expect to say that the supposed "edit-warring" was (a) commenting out the disputed IPA until the issue was resolved; and then (b) removing it entirely (at Nardog's suggestion) when Mr Kebab started editing even the hidden comment, accompanied with personal remarks. The text in question was under discussion at the time Mr Kebab made these disputed edits—in fact, Mr Kebab was involved in one of the discussions, and thus was aware of how disruptive this edit was. There are three separate discussions now underway (at WP:JAPAN, Nardog's talk page, and Help:IPA/Japanese, and Mr Kebab has not participated in a productive way in any of them—his comments are pretty much all personal remarks. A classic case of WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Curly Turkey: More personal attacks, great. You did edit war. Instead of talking it to the talk page or User talk:Nardog, you felt the need to have your version be the current one at all costs. This is a highly disruptive behavior.
I apologize for that edit summary (which isn't a hidden comment, not if you're a regular as you say) but not for the rest of my messages (given your behavior... please). And please, don't talk about User talk:Nardog anymore. You're the one who was continuously refusing to answer my question, and behaved as if answering your questions to Nardog was my responsibility, duty or whatever you thought.
A classic case of WP:NOTHERE? That is a laughable manipulation. Anyone can check my contribs (which, of course, you've never bothered to do) to see how productive an editor I am. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"My" version of the text was gone before you edited the article, so obviously I was not protecting "my" version of the article "at all costs". Your unproductive edit is still a mystery.
A "hidden comment" is one in the HTML of an article that does not display; for example: <!-- this is a hidden comment -->. You edited text within a hidden comment, which is not a productive thing to do. You obviously did not do it to improve the visible text, and I removed it per Nardog's suggestion since it was drawing such obviously unprodictive edits.
The only "question" you asked me was the obviously rhetorical "And why are you refusing to understand ..." sneer, that was obviously not inviting any sort of rational answer. Are you asking me to please rise to the bait now? You seem quite bent on provoking a response from me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: No, it is not a mistery. See, I know this tactic. You're pretending to be bewildered so that I keep explaining myself to you so that you can laugh at my naivety. Enough of these games, I'm aware that you know what I meant. I've explained that edit multiple times already.
That's what you meant. I know what it is, I thought you were calling my edit summary a hidden comment. My mistake.
It wasn't rhetorical, I did want an answer which you've never given. Now you can answer or not, it's a bit late for that, as you can see. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no rational response to your sneer. That you would expect a response gives us some insight into your mental processes. You can stop pinging me, by the way—you've amply demonstrated how desperate you are to provoke a response from me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
How come you could say to Nardog Are you even trying to understand why the IPA is being given in the context? and I couldn't respond to that with And why are you refusing to understand that you're doing things in the wrong order? Are you above me or something?
Only in your head. AKA more projection from CT. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey is certainly in need of an attitude check. That this was the editor's attempt to prompt discussion on WP:JAPAN: [34] is pretty alarming. As is Curly Turkey's unbacked assertions of disruption, trolling and tag-teaming. (Which has been doubled down upon here.) Incivility is rarely enforced, but this conduct crosses the line into personal attacks. The lack of any discussion on the article's talk page (are there good faith discussions being undertaken anywhere?) reflects poorly on all involved, but in Curly Turkey's case this is indeed coupled with incivility and personal attacks. Their long-term involvement with this article suggests to me that this may be a case of ownership. Cjhard (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, the accusation of tag-teaming was out of line and unfair: I retract it and apologize to Nardog. It was a poor response to the incivility Mr Kebab had subjected me to on Nardog's talk page and the ukiyo-e article, and I wrongly assumed that, as Mr KEBAB was a stalking Nardog's talk page and making edits on his behalf, that they were in cahoots. I can now see that was mistaken and that Mr Kebab's disruptions were entirely of his own volition.
    Re: OWNership: I've raised concrete accessibility issues with Nardog's edits that are under discussion elsewhere—maintaining the accessibility of an FA is hardly a trivial OWNership issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If the requirements of FA conflict with our guidelines regarding content/MOS etc, then its FA that loses out. We don't ignore guidelines and policies just so an article can keep its gold star. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Only in death does duty end: that's not what I said, is it? Nor does it have anything to do with the edit Mr KEBAB made to the article, does it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Mr KEBAB made an edit to have the IPA conform to the relevant IPA guide. You reverted him. Really you need to gain consensus to alter the relevant guide so the article conforms or gain consensus to not display the IPA. What you shouldn't be doing is keeping in the article the IPA notation that is incorrect. RE "maintaining the accessibility of an FA is hardly a trivial OWNership issue." - IPA is not an accessibility issue. It is entirely a matter for linguists & translation, but not speaking Japanese or not knowing why the IPA is right/wrong are accessibility issues and have no bearing on it being an FA. IPA *is* a trivial issue. You could remove it from almost every article and it would have zero impact on the reader's understanding of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where you got this version of the story, but it doesn't conform to any of the ones already presented. The IPA was already commented out of the article, and Mr KEBAB's edit was to a hidden comment, made tendentiously in mid-discussion. The edit I made was not a "revert" (where did you even get that?), it was an already-agreed-upon removal. But thanks for muddying the waters. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
(A pronunciation guide is a matter only for linguists? I guess that's the long way of saying "I can't read IPA". Millions of non-linguists use IPA ... But this isn't the forum for such nonsense. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My revert was performed 10 minutes after you started a discussion on Nardog's talk page and 40 minutes before Nardog agreed to the removal of the IPA. This is probably the third time I'm saying this. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
(I know that I shouldn't post so much here, but I want to clarify this). I've never contacted Nardog outside WP, not even once. We're fellow editors that have talked a lot recently about English phonetics, that's all. All of our communication is public, and the fact I backed him up was because I agreed with him on the issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Correction: the fact that you editwarred on his behalf in mid-discussion. I doubt you want to draw more attention to that. The edit I made after yours (that you call "editwarring") was one that Nardog had agreed with before I made it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Are you capable of replying to me without lying? I hope that's not a rhetorical question. About the second part, yes, that was my mistake. Nardog agreed that removing the IPA might be a solution. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So you admit now I wasn't editwarring, and your edit achieved nothing positive. Why not just bring an end to this drahmah now, then? Is there something you hope to achieve? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My revert was performed about 40 minutes before Nardog agreed to removing the IPA, and at that time I wasn't aware of the discussion on his talk page (I wrote that post 10 minutes after you started that discussion). Before that, you reverted him twice. The first time it was a revert of an edit made in October, the second time a revert of Nardog's revert. So it started to look that an edit war is incoming (you don't have to break WP:3RR for that). The warning on your talk page wouldn't have been posted if I noticed that Nardog agreed to the removal of the IPA, so again, that was my mistake. Sorry for that.
I do not admit that my edit achieved nothing positive. It made the IPA match Help:IPA/Japanese, which is how it should've been from the very beginning. Again, you're aware of this and you're just baiting me into explaining myself over and over again. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You tendentiously edited a hidden comment that was under discussion. You really can't talk your way around that. Seriously, haven't you had your fill of drahmah for tonight? You still haven't told us what you hope this will accomplish. "Getting at that guy I don't like" is not what ANI is for. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not responding to this. Intelligent people will read my previous responses. Others won't, or pretend that they don't understand me when they actually do. I can see through your games, CT. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) (Disclosure: My past positive interactions with CT are a matter of public record. But I'm not here as his talk page stalker; I had my own little ANI thread on an unrelated problem earlier today and was reading over it when I noticed this.) I'm sorry, but per BRD Curly Turkey's version(s), the stable status quo until October, should be restored until talk page discussion takes place. This means that this edit summary by Mr KEBAB was way out of line and turned the standard procedure on its head. And yes, CT is right on the article content dispute: no one can argue that the version put in place by Nardog isn't more "correct" as Japanese phonetics goes (or, rather, as 2017 Tokyo phonetics goes, even though that is various levels of anachronistic when dealing with pre-modern and non-Kanto-centered topics), but that article is not about Japanese phonetics, and the pronunciation key's main purpose is to tell people that it's not pronounced the same way as Yukio Mishima's given name. (I studied Japanese in Dublin City University -- I know for a fact that this mistaken reading, which I'm pretty sure was the "official" pronunciation of the name of this Japanese fusion restaurant for a time, is ubiquitous.) Nardog/KEBAB's version does not make this clear to the reader, since only people with a specialist's knowledge of Japanese linguistics (or perhaps obscure IPA symbols) would be able to read that, and they wouldn't need the pronunciation key anyway. Sorry, but this looks like nothing more than a content dispute where the OP has been on the wrong side of the edit war and has the weaker argument in the content dispute. This thread should just be closed. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hijiri88: No, I don't have the weaker argument. Sorry, but you don't seem to understand how the IPA-ja template works. The symbols used there need to match Help:IPA/Japanese, otherwise we might as well just delete that guide. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: You're right -- I don't understand how the IPA-ja template works. I do, however, know how MOS:JAPAN (a much more authoritative guideline) works, as I helped draft it, and I can tell youmthat even MOS:JAPAN is filled with holes and is literally meant to be treated as a guideline in the Pirates of the Caribbean sense. I have also written the better part of 200 articles on Japanese topics for English Wikipedia over the last 12 years, and have been studying Japanese linguistics for most of that time, and I can tell you that even if Help:IPA/Japanese (a help page, which is not authoritative like a policy or guideline) perfectly described Modern Standard Japanese (and it apparently doesn't even do that), it would not be an appropriate guide for the majority of articles on pre-modern Japanese topics like ukiyo-e, where specifically MSJ pronunciation is an anachronism. If the purpose of the pronunciation key was to tell readers how the majority of Japanese in 2017 would be most likely to read the word if it was written phonetically and they had never heard their parents, grandparents or teachers use it and had no idea what it was, then maybe your version would be helpful, but some weird minutiae like that really do not belong in the lead paragraph, and it's debatable whether they would be helpful even in a footnote. The purpose of the pronunciation key is to tell English-speaking readers that it's ukiyo, not yukio; the more specific details are, at best, off-topic, and at worst anachronistic and wrong. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Then look for sources that use the IPA symbols that you think are suitable and propose a change on Help talk:IPA/Japanese, which does follow reputable sources. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Because you demand it? Not how it works—no policy requires it. Context is everything: we write articles that best serve the general reader, not to satisfy specialized pedantry. "we might as well just delete that guide" is a non sequitur. You've shown no inclination to find a solution to any of the issues raised. Are you interested in anything but fighting? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
See WP:PRON. It's a part of the MoS rather than a policy, but it's close enough. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines, as a general rule, can be ignored if there is an obvious, good reason to do so in this or that article. And the guideline you link in particular is written in a descriptive, not prescriptive, fashion: a phonetic transcription is normally used, Other options are to link [Wiktionary] and so on. The page is 35 kB in length, so I'm doing all I can based on the blank link you provided to the page shortcut. But why is this conversation taking place here rather than at WT:JAPAN or at WT:MOS-JA? Heck, it was already being discussed at the former before you forum-shopped it here. And yes, it does look like you did it just to turn a woulda-otherwise-been-civil content dispute into a "fight" -- you haven't even elaborated what admin action you are seeking beyond a (short) ban (sic?). The diffs you provided show you unilaterally edit-warring at CT while he tried to find a solution, and very little else. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I did it to bring attention to CT's behavior. I don't really care if you consider it an escalation, you can think what you want. It just shows that you don't have the full picture yet.
You seem to be confused about what edit-warring is. I reverted CT one time. If anything, CT's behavior looks more like edit warring. How many times do I need to say this? Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and we all know about CT's behaviour. The problem is that one-way CIVIL-blocks are (almost?) never issued when the CIVIL problems were provoked, as they were here. The others (like your edit-warring at CT while he tried to find a solution to the problem) are non-issues on CT's end.
And no: it's you who is confused about what edit-warring is. If one party is desperately trying to come up with a compromise and/or use the talk page and another is not, the arithmetic number of reverts is irrelevant. What you think "looks like" edit warring is irrelevant.
When you open a thread about someone on ANI, you need to have a specific proposal for admin intervention. "[B]ring[ing] attention to [someone]'s behavior" (just for the heck of it?) is not an acceptable use of this noticeboard.
Anyway, multiple editors, including myself, have called for this to be closed, so why hasn't it?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
CIVIL-blocks are (almost?) never issued when the CIVIL problems were provoked – I have no idea how things actually operate here, but if it's true, that is troublesome given WP:BATTLEGROUND. Nardog (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I forgot the most important proviso. My comment was addressing the OP, who I assumed wasn't looking to get blocked himself. Of course the Community could collectively decide that CT and MRK both need to be blocked. But what I'm saying is that I just don't see that happening, nor either editor being suicidal enough to push for that themselves. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: You're a classic example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm done explaining myself to you, you're fully aware what I did. And if you're not, what are you doing posting here? If you didn't bother to understand the situation, you're wasting everyone's time. You're continually refusing to get the full picture, and that's your problem. Please spare me the ridiculousness of saying that one edit can be considered edit warring. It's insane.
And should I get blocked along with CT and maybe Cassianto, I'll have no problem with that. But there needs to be justice - either all of us get blocked, or none of us does. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've read every comment you've repeatedly pinged me in (and then some), and none of it has answered the questions I asked you. Please spare me the ridiculousness of saying that one edit can be considered edit warring. You are showing a gross misunderstanding of EW policy. Editors who don't get the policy even after it is explained to them tend to get blocked, so I would be careful if I were you. Of course one revert can be edit-warring. One revert per week/month/year can be edit-warring; one revert overall can be edit-warring. If you are ignoring talk page discussion and/or attempts at compromise and blank-reverting anyway, that is edit-warring, regardless of the number. It's insane. When you go around casually saying things like that to other users, you are begging to get yourself an NPA-block.
And should I get blocked along with CT and maybe Cassianto, I'll have no problem with that. Huh. So you are saying you don't care about finding a solution to the content dispute and working to build an encyclopedia, and you don't even mind losing your editing privileges, so long as you can get at CT? But there needs to be justice - either all of us get blocked, or none of us does. Please read WP:NOJUSTICE. We are all here with our not-god-given editing privileges-not-rights for the specific purpose of building an encyclopedia, and when talking about "justice" does not advance that goal it is either ignored or cracked down on.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: You really need to have the last word, don't you?
Editors who don't get the policy even after it is explained to them tend to get blocked, so I would be careful if I were you. This applies to actions, not thoughts. It's nobody's business if I don't understand the policy (whether I do or don't is a somewhat different matter).
If you are ignoring talk page discussion and/or attempts at compromise and blank-reverting anyway, that is edit-warring, regardless of the number. So much for reading my posts, then. I have no intention of proving to you that I didn't do that. Why? Because you don't care about the truth, you just want to slander me. It's obvious to me now.
When you go around casually saying things like that to other users, you are begging to get yourself an NPA-block. And you're begging to get banned for continuously lying about me. Better check your oversensitivity, bro.
So you are saying you don't care about finding a solution to the content dispute and working to build an encyclopedia I'm not interested in proving to you that I'm here to do that. You're not an admin, and they can check that themselves.
This is the last time I'm responding to you. You can go shake hands with CT now, you hardly differ from each other. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(written before the above comment by Mr KEBAB) @Mr KEBAB: I feel like it's about time for you to just drop it. Again, it pains me to see this, especially since I agree with you. Your latest remarks come off as self-destructive and retaliatory. I know you're better than this. Nardog (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog: I'm dropping it right now. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Agree with Ritchie333: storm...meet teacup: get a room and let everyone else carry on doing useful things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with both of the immediately above comments. Damn near anything is a better use of our limited volunteer time than this thread. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FWIW, I disagree with CT on just about everything when it comes to content minutiae (assuming a basic understanding of policy; obviously there are editors who completely misunderstand policy active in some topic areas, and in both of our disputes with such users we have both always agrees), but most of our discussions have been civil. Granted, I've been on ArbCom-enforced-but-self-requested-in-origin 1RR for most of my history of interacting with him so I have never actually edit-warred with him. And, frankly, I think the project would be a better place if everyone was subject to 1RR. But that's not really relevant here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Nardog—I do need to point out that I had announced that I was disengaging from Mr KEBAB to keep the discussion on point long before any of this drahmah erupted. This all could have ended then and we all could have had a productive discussion. I notice nobody's taking part in the discussion—you yourself haven't responded to the points I brought up on your talk page or Help:IPA/Japanese, where I've already responded to the things you say you're so perplexed about wrt my "behaviour". This is not the forum to discuss those things—those places are. You can see I'm not alone in the position I hold, so obviously earnest discussion (not drahmah) is needed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Civility and insults made by User:Nightscream resubmit[edit]

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

Nightscream has had a long history of reports made by multiple editors about his civility over the years (a simple search of the ANI boards pulls multiple incidents about this). But since he either is or was an admin, no action is ever taken on his actions. I call on a disinterested third party to review the long-term history of abuse by Nightscream and take action as needed. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to specific example? So far, I'm not seeing anything that stands out as actionable. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I suspect he was referring to Nightscream's opinion of SanAnMan's writing style here, and the comment about "utterly mindless non sequitur" here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like blunt constructive criticism to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jauerback: Call me short-sighted, but I don't see how comments such as "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content on the South Park articles when I don't write them" and "But in the mean time, feel free to waste your time replacing good, clear writing with grammatically incoherent sentences, redundant add-ons, and passages of unclear meaning to the uninitiated reader, all the while employing logical fallacies to justify doing so, if you prefer." can be construed as constructive criticism. Per the policy of WP:CIVIL this falls under "Direct Rudeness" as quoted "(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". And as I stated in this post earlier, Nightscream has a long-term history of repeated reports by multiple editors about his tone and lack of civility. I am not the first person he has done this to. I stand by this issue. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SanAnMan, I went ahead and notified Nightscream of this, since you failed to. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Apologies Jauerback, I didn't think a second notification was necessary since I had done one for the previous notice. My mistake. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
SanAnMan, if there was no action taken on your initial thread, perhaps it is time to realize that no action is needed. Just sayin. There will come a time when continued vague complaints will come back on you.....perhaps you should just contemplate growing a thicker skin and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
John from Idegon while I appreciate your candor and words of advice greatly, I am really not being vague. I am quoting direct statements from Nightscream on my talk page and direct policy from WP about civility and I am demonstrating that Nightscream has a clear and vivid history of complaints in regards to breaking policy about civility. The fact that you and other admins are willing to let his continuous violations of this policy slide while telling other editors like myself to "grow a thicker skin" (and other such feedback) is exactly the reason why I am making this complaint. I'm not the type of editor to make complaints to this board without what I feel is justification. I have admitted both on my talk page and in my original statement that I was at fault for not knowing the WP:UNBROKEN policy. But this does not allow any user to go off and make the type of rude and belittling that Nightscream has; even more so with the fact that he has multiple complaints against him on these same ANI boards for the exact same type of actions. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
In 12 years here, Nightscream has had exactly one civility block (along with three for EW). Direct ≠ rude. I am the same way as he. I will not waste time building a praise sandwich here. I have to do that with the people that work for me, but it isn't worth the effort here. If you cannot take someone pointing at your errors and telling you they are errors directly, without sugarcoating, then yes, you need to grow a thicker skin. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that Wikipedia is a harsh place to edit. While Nightscream was quite insensitive in his comments, he was telling the truth. There's nothing sanctionable for either party involved. Sorry. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor failing to obey administrative closure on Talk: Cary Grant[edit]

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

  • How about a nice big block for both you and Ritchie, for so obviously using 'archiving' just as a means to silence an opposing view to your own. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, it's good to see Cassianto's attempt to distort the truth with this report hasn't worked. Hopefully other viewers to this board will also check out the talk page for themselves. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As opposed to Cassianto's leap to the drama boards, I'm attempting to offer a constructive solution (an RfC), to a perpetual problem (addition of an infobox without consensus)- as evidenced by the threads from Davidbrookesland, Jojhutton and HughMorris15. If anything, this thread should be about Cassianto's needless lurch to ANI, without warning, and behaviour on that article talk page, and others- I see he's just been involved in another spat with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) over infoboxes today- from someone who's been blocked over a dozen times for personal attacks and harassment. I can only assume that this ANI post is an attempt to harass me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice attempt to smear another editor without any basis or evidence. Please see WP:NPA as to how to discuss things civilwith other editors. – SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Jcc, friendly words of advice...I recently learned that following procedures is not always the best way to handle things. On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with other editors, and simply let them be wrong. ^_^ [FBDB] Good luck. Atsme📞📧 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yet again, we see Cassianto wanting to impose their personal dislike of infoboxes onto everyone. They would do far better to simply apply some user CSS and just hide the offensive things from their own delicate view. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SoftLavender wrote the comment in June of this year and it was cherry-picked now. The question came up again less than 3 months ago. closed 16-9-2017. Just how many times SHOULD it come up? Once a week, like you take out the rubbish? Ritchie333 was dragged into it here without the poster notifying him. Dragging other interactions and history into it looks like the tables are turned re: harassing and maybe go Aussie. We hope (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Great comment, apart from the fact Cassianto opened this report, which rather spoils it all. Quick- change the comment so you slate me instead! :D jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
More seriously- with reference to your comment Just how many times SHOULD it come up?- that's exactly what I'm tired of too. That's why I'm suggesting we have an RfC and establish a consensus one way or another. That way, we can revert all attempts to add/remove/re-add the infobox with a pointer to the RfC. This is an approach that has worked well with other articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone else suggested the block. If you can harass an editor by pinging and thanking, you can do the same by continuing disruption at an article talk page with this. And you can harass more at a time than pinging or thanking. We hope (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
And those who care to can be just as active with their RfCs. We hope (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The thing to keep in mind here is that regardless of whether or not the infobox belongs or not, once we've reached a decision to not include one in this article, it is not unexpected that there will be questions about that decision. Let's just concede that the the proper decision here is to exclude the infobox from the Cary Grant article. (I'm not saying it WAS the proper decision mind you, just that we'll treat it as a given for the sake of moving this discussion forward). Given that such a decision does not match reader expectations at Wikipedia, there are, every so often, going to be people who find the lack of an infobox surprising. Those people are also going to know NOTHING about the background of how the decision was arrived at. Here is my central point, so don't miss it (bold for emphasis): New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious to them. --Jayron32 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have no intention of entering into any kind of exchange here, so Dingly and his friends can say what they like about me, I couldn't care less. This board, believe it or not, serves a purpose, of sorts, and it is reasonable for me to come here to let others stop trouble before it starts rather than participating in the drama and then being the subject of it. I've learnt that there's no point in conversing with people like Dingly as the ensuing drama only deflects away from the real issues at hand. Although I suspect that this is their plan all along. CassiantoTalk 20:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

...I remain astounded every time I see the fact come up that some people still believe infoboxes are bad, and that things get so vehement about it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
...I remain astounded every time I see the fact come up that some people still believe infoboxes are unthinkingly good, and that things get so vehement about it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
read me--Moxy (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Good to know, Moxy - I'm bookmarking that link. Not having an infobox is a disservice to our readers, and that's who we should be trying to please rather than wasting valuable time on editor disputes. Ritchie333 did the right thing by closing this infinite MOS sinkhole. I also agree with Jcc in that there needs to be an unambiguous decision to maintain some form of MOS consistency regarding style and content. We block editors to prevent disruption when we should be modifying or creating PAGs to eliminate the cause of the disruption. Now that would be a boost to editor retention and save our admins a boatload of time! Atsme📞📧 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
As I've seen several times before, the "research" can be read in different ways, with absolutely no justification for including or excluding an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • An advantage to having infoboxes is that those who don't want them can easily hide them, by simple technical means. Those who prefer them can't make them appear from nowhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What about people reading the article who aren't registered editors? How do they dump the box, or is it assumed that everyone else in the world wants the boxes? We hope (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I doubt that there are many newbie or casual readers with strong feelings either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Andy Dingley is correct about that. In fact, I think most people assume that having an infobox is something common to all en.wiki articles. I still recall the surprise my son registered when he went to look up something in an article (I think it was Mozart, and there was no infobox. He was shocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, how about "momentary intense surprise", then? In any case, the point is that he, like (I believe) many other people who only use Wikipedia as a reference, assumed that all Wikipedia articles had infoboxes, because all articles he had looked at before had had them, so when he saw an article without an infobox he was momentarily intensely surprised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the information he was looking for would have been in the infobox if the article had one. I think it was date of birth -- and, yes, he found it in the lede quite quickly, but his first thought was to check the infobox, which wasn't there, making the article just a wee bit less useful to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
BMK, he's lucky enough to benefit from you as his father, if you don't mind me saying; he doesn't need to be dumbed down to by a series of uninteresting and repetitive bullet points. I should point out, however, that I'm not, as stated many, many times before, completely adverse to all infoboxes. Off the top of my head this, this, this, and this spring immediately to mind where I've actively added or modified them as I considered them to do some good. Oh, and then there was this discussion that I took part in, during which I stated that I was all for an infobox, but not a premature one. And well known infoboxer-about-town, and all round good egg, RexxS, will, I'm sure, vouch for me with regards to the occasions I've approached him about which box to use, including the unnessersary (some might say) infobox extension (which I rather liked) on the Church of St Edward the Confessor, Romford article I started a few years ago. CassiantoTalk 20:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Thank you, that's very nice of you to say, and I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. The articles on composers always look a little off to me for not having infoboxes.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The use of infoboxes is optional as the Arbcom case in 2013 established [35] "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." I really hope this long running feud re infoboxes on classical music articles is not going to start up again.Smeat75 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Which composers? Beethoven, ibox added by an arbitrator who wrote the infoboxes case, as the community consensus. Bach, Handel, Reger and many more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ritchie, closing a day-old good-faith thread on article talk with a snarky closing comment is not a great look for an involved administrator. It would be better if you provided some helpful advice or insight or overview, rather than closing the thread. I have now restored the new thread opened by Jcc that Cassianto deleted in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • You are worth your weight in gold, Softlavender. The project is very lucky to have you. Have a very merry Christmas and an exceedingly good and fulsome New Year! CassiantoTalk 23:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Softlavender. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Something that isn't being discussed is that several editors have clearly stated that they basically own the article because they are the so-called "regular" contributors to the article, and that even though they are the minority in these discussion, that their opinion should prevail. Claims of article ownership are serious breaches in Wp etiquette and are very disruptive to consensus building.--JOJ Hutton 01:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, we've seen a lot of that lately. --John (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Aww, that cliche OWN claim, bless. OWN works both ways. CassiantoTalk 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's try truth-I see no one at that TP claiming ownership of the article-only an accusation by the complaining editor. Just so there's no misunderstanding, here are the replies to that: editor editor. Anyone interested can read the rest at the TP and see there are no vine-swinging, chest-thumping claims of ownership. We hope (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Can someone block Singora above, please. They are evading a block. CassiantoTalk 14:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Infoboxes serve the readers. Supposing that serving the readers is considered to be important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think you speak for "the reader"? Certain infoboxes do no such thing and serve only those wishing to cheat quickly in pub quizzes. Full, factual, and well-written lead sections serve everyone and are the work of someone wishing to serve the reader. CassiantoTalk 19:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Infoboxes don't seem to add any value to these bios. JAGUAR 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The whole infobox thing has long ceased to be amusing. I predict another ArbCom case in early 2018. --John (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that should be set up as a recurring event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
😂 I saw that Bugsy...and make it BYOB. Atsme📞📧 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, Dr. Blofeld: "Just accept articles as they are". Why was the article not left as it was, then, but the infobox removed? I believe that much precious time could have been spent on more article writing, that now went into this same question again and again, by different people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nah, there's nothing more precious than an ibox Gerda, way more important than writing articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is it one or the other for you? You found the article like this in 2015. You could have left the infobox as was and expanded the article, which you did for quite a while, and thanks be to you for having done that, and thanks to the others who helped. The removal happened in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • General Note Once again, just by taking a straw poll of the comments here and at the articles previous talk page discussion, there is a clear 2 to 1 majority in favor of restoring the info box. As always, it's the same 5 or 6 editors who continue to push their minority opinion.JOJ Hutton 20:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that it's always been the same handful of editors pushing for an infobox's addition.[36][37][38] JAGUAR 20:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, not a vote, but please tell me what policy or guideline are the majority of editors breaking? Why should the minority opinion be favored over the majority opinion? In addition, it's not always the same number of editors who feel that the article should have an info box. There have been countless editors who have expressed that the article should have an info box. Each new discussion brings in more and more. I only counted the most recent discussion, but if I went back and looked at every single editor over the past year and a half, I would find that it's the same six who do not want an info box, while I would find that dozens of editors have expressed favor for an info box.JOJ Hutton 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, what makes you think your in the majority? If we were to have a Wikipedia wide vote with regards to Infobox Biography, and what good it does, I think you'll be surprised with the outcome. Secondly, what makes you think Wikipedia is a democracy? It's not. Arguments can settle on the minority side of the arguement, if the scores are too tight to determine a consensus. CassiantoTalk 21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem confused. At 20:46 yesterday you pointed out it is not a vote. Now you talk about "a Wikipedia wide vote". It might help you to understand if you clearly think through whether consensus is determined by voting. --John (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The only thing I'm confused about is your erratic behaviour of late. The stalking of my edits, which has brought you here; canvassing for the purposes of scoring points in RfCs; allowing personal grudges to influence rational thought in order to derail an FAC that someone has put a lot of hard work into; intimidating diff collecting... need I go on? Have you considered a break away from all this to collect your thoughts? CassiantoTalk 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you don't like my FAC review. Is consensus determined by voting? --John (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Who did, exactly? You appear to be the only one. I think you need to compare WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOVOTE and work it out for yourself. CassiantoTalk 06:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


OPEN UP an RFC[edit]

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

Yes, and then when the likes of Jcc and anyone else get bored a few months later, we can hold another one, and then another one, and another...continue ad infinitum. CassiantoTalk 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
A 1-year mandatory freeze on another Rfc would settle things. Furthermore, a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on Bios of actors (infoboxes or no infoboxes) would be more ideal. I'm guessing though, many pro-individual article editors would oppose such a move. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
One year is still too close. I think we're closer to discovering a cure for the common cold than we are at solving the infobox dispute. But I admire your attempt at providing a compromise, as opposed to the unfettered bullshit I've seen Jcc, Dingly, and others spirt out.CassiantoTalk 21:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Heck, how about a 5 year mandatory freeze. I certainly could go for that. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I suggested a moratorium on the article talk page yesterday. I really think we should go for it- like GoodDay, I'd happily agree to a over two year freeze post-RfC if that's what you wanted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I really think at this point a two-state solution is the only feasible way forward. EEng 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Best. Comment. Ever. — JFG talk 12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
We have a de-facto two-state solution. When I write a new article, I add an infobox, and nobody cares. When Dr. Blofeld writes a new article, he may add one or not, and I won't care. How would you solve a problem as the one here: an article that had an infobox for years, which was removed in the process of improvement, declared as an improvement (diffs above)? Do improvements give you the right to undo what others had added long before you? That is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like something better suite to ARBCom than RfCs. The last 2 requests for relief on the box problems were tabled by the committee. Someone needs to make a move in that direction and see if they're willing to hear it now. We hope (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It also doesn't take in the process of articles without boxes where someone decides to add it "try ibox". You seem to want the same "rights" to restore boxes that those who either don't want them or want them restored are seeking. We hope (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
When I try an infobox, and say so in the edit summary, and it is reverted, I drop the case without argument. I think that's fair, and doesn't take the community's time. I wasn't reverted often in 2017, - I count eight nine, two of them were restored by others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to try arbcom, you will be asked if all other mediation has been tried. On the talk, we just started to talk about parameters, which is a way forward that I like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
When I first read this, I thought it said, "If you want to try arbcom, you will be asked if all other medication has been tried." Not a bad idea, come to think of it. It's like when someone [39] said, "I really like your comments re uses of lobotomy at ANI." Combined with medication that could do wonders in keeping bad behavior under control project-wide. EEng 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any other lasting solution. As it is now, this can go on over and over with others choosing sides and encouraging others to "play on". Arbcom's willingness to consider the problem seems to be the only solution. We hope (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Attrbution: "play on" is short for "no foul, play on", first used by Floquenbeam (then arbitrator) in an edit summary for ARCA regarding infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop the windmill-tilting. What was meant was in the sense of keep going with it. Not "amusing". We hope (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Another Carmaker1 report for NPA and OWN[edit]

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs) has been the subject of previous complaints about edit summaries before at:

User:Stepho-wrs noted that in general Carmaker1's edits are correct. The most frequent issue seems to be off-by-one errors in car model years due to <nerd reasons>. That's great and all, but it just doesn't matter that much whether a Wikipedia article lists a model year as 2005 or 2006. If Wikipedia were catalog or database or manual, this level of accuracy would matter a great deal, but it's not, it's an encyclopedia. The more correct year is better, but that pales in significance to the importance of not biting newcomers, not telling others they may not edit because they don't have certain credentials, and not making personal attacks.

Previously Carmaker1 was told to "dial it back" and use a more civil tone in edit summaries, and that has clearly not happened. Carmaker1 is either unable or unwilling to not violate WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:NPA. Carmaker1 seems to operate on the assumption that WP:EXPERTs are allowed to violate WP:NOR, and use their expertise to bludgeon others.

Warnings were given by admins User:Ritchie333 and User:Swarm. With so much evidence that yet another warning is a waste of time, an indef block is the obvious solution. Diffs:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44]
  6. [45]
  7. [46]
  8. [47]
  9. [48]
  10. [49]
  11. [50]
  12. [51]
  13. [52]
  14. [53]
  15. [54]
  16. [55]
  17. [56]
  18. [57]

Wikipedia is so much better off with with a bunch of car model years off by one than keeping an editor with unverifiable "insider knowledge" driving away other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So "carmaker1" is "driving" other editors away? EEng 12:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Motoring them away. Only hick Americans say "driving". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Does this exactly have anything to do with the serious matter at hand, that you brought up regarding my own poor conduct? That is rather baiting and gives a false impression that this is a laughing matter and not a serious discussion. What can be perceived as cynical and condescending tones are definitely what drives other users away from Wikipedia, even if many of them might have thick skin. Text on this site probably should have a neutral point of view and not partiality. Your points on here are made very well, when they are expressed objectively like many others have done in this section consistently. Trying to further mock someone, isn't exactly being neutral.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Man, you need to (a) lighten up, and (b) learn to express yourself more succinctly. EEng 07:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It's really hard to "lighten up" in this case really. What I said is very unpleasant and hardly defensible. The individual that brought it up as a concern, is making a joke out of it to you, so I don't really know how to observe it on that basis. Reading things in text is much more difficult than hearing it in person, so IDK really.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block it's not a matter of accuracy or "insider knowledge", it's the difference between "car model years" and the years a car was produced. The "2015 Ford Focus" would have shown up on car lots around September 2014. Carmaker1 is, in an exceedingly uncivil manner (Stupid/idiotic prose and poor layout of timeline. I will now use production years instead and not care about a few American h**ks, when much of the world and most other Americans go by intro date.) edit-warring on this, after multiple ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC) (indef support struck; after discussion, I feel some form of TBAN or final warning should be sufficient power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC))
    • Stuff like this is especially concerning, both because the year the car was designed is WP:TRIVIA and because of the fact that in that edit summary and others it's very heavily implied he's using WP:OR extensively. Support indef block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but how does this fall under WP: TRIVIA when music infoboxes have a section for "Recorded" and "Released"? Dates of creation and milestones in development and life-cycle of automobiles, aren't exactly trivial in this context are they? Is that particularly objective in this context?--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Other stuff like music is noteworthy for release and recording dates. The date a car designer sat behind his or her keyboard is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
          • I understand that is your viewpoint, but I figure we are not on the same page, due to difference in viewpoint on this. My use of design in articles, in relation to development milestones or dates, is the moment a working identically sized replica of a future car is approved or design freeze completion in real-time by an automaker. Not particularly a car designer at their desk, as that isn't really a defining moment or climax. The moment when a company makes major final decisions, is what I have based some of what I submit on. "Point of no return stages." I realized long ago, it is too infinite and imprecise to base design/development notes on someone doing design sketches or developing mock-ups, in these each being a very long process. Truthfully, I made up the idea to put year of design approval in parentheses next a designer's name in the infobox as a "sub-template" for automotive articles years ago. Never really discussed the idea with consensus, so I can understand now why it annoys other users or doesn't make sense. I shouldn't be making up templates as I go along, but I wasn't fully aware that was a wide-sweeping issue I invited.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - Carmaker's gross incivility appears to have continued, unabated, for years despite previous warnings. This suggests that they aren't equipped to work in a collaborative manner and will not be so equipped in the foreseeable future. Cjhard (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • *I do not appreciate how my efforts to contribute to Wikipedia and provide industry knowledge and experience to the Automotive Project, seems to result in what can be described as a witch hunt. The very problem I have is that, it would help to have other users fill in the gaps in many of these cases of poorly written articles, containing inaccurate information. Many other websites, on the web have a tendency to copy information from Wikipedia and if any it is off by one number or letter, it can spell disaster (in terms of rumours). If many of these issues did not fall on deaf ears (in relation to administrators), the pressure wouldn't exist. If someone wants to take issue with one of my statements, perhaps ensure that all users are on the same page or in consensus on articles. The head-butting egoism between various users on occasion (mixed with commonly introduced erroneous additions by IP users), makes for a very uncomfortable environment and makes one feel, as if some assertiveness is needed to support informative edits. There are times I remove myself from editing for long periods of time, only to come back to Wikipedia and find correct information removed for the most questionable reasons. My expectation is that Wikipedia users are to add new "correct" information, then remove incorrect information to improve an article. Not simply remove content and write it to their sole liking, omitting information they personally don't care for or have developed dead links over time. That is not being objective. I just had to restore information about the BMW 5-Series (F10) design process between 2005 and 2006 (under "Development" heading), as someone felt it was necessary for them to remove that section, as they didn't care for its presence. The information had citations, yet it was removed by a user named "ReverseLevity". Yet, administrators and other users did not notice these changes and restore such information, in it being accurate and cited. When that happens, users like me have to belatedly restore what was removed. When things like this happen so many times (section blanking/removals/vandalism), instead of enriching a "good article" with more insightful content, it is rather frustrating. Intellectual property and automotive industry competitive concerns and risks, are a reason why specific design and development information tends to be very hard to cite in many cases, in being withheld for general public consumption. One isn't particularly abusing WP: OR, as WP: PAYWALL is also a major factor with certain privileged information. I can't say I see how design and development information lies under WP: TRIVIA. I often have to essentially beg for cited additions I make to not be challenged by personal viewpoints, when many other additions/edits to the various articles I come across, often have unsourced information unchallenged. I am most focused on there being stricter quality control on Wikipedia, in terms of accuracy. English Wikipedia is vast and relied on as a source by many non-academic venues worldwide, that it hurts to see inaccurate information passed around as fact, because of many of us might miss erroneous additions or vandalism to articles--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blockArguing from authority like here plus inappropriate edit summaries is a big problem and incompatible with collabrative work of building encyclopedia. He can come back to editing once they make it clear they understand this. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I cannot agree with how that is observed as arguing from authority, when the user has made personal attacks against me and edits the article in the form of WP:OWN. User: 1292simon has personally removed many of my contributions, which I established as targeting and rather offensive.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • If you don't agree this is arguing from authority, then indefinite blocking is necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
        • It wasn't really explained to me how you see it as arguing from authority and I felt earlier on it was viewed in a generalized sense, without deeper context. If you are referring to me trying to police articles intimidatingly and also being pompous about it (bragging), that isn't acceptable on my part and can see that. I wouldn't bring that up industry "expertise" with another user, that didn't to try make me feel as if I was being condescended to (in directly omitting every contribution of mine in multiple articles). Feeling condescended to is simply a perception and doesn't excuse such tantrums in the long run. You try to work things out or get help.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment as a point in Carmaker1's defense, articles on specific car models see a disproportionate amount of edits from IPs and SPAs, most of whom don't use edit summaries at all. I don't want to contribute to a Randy in Boise situation, but disruptive edit summaries are worse than no edit summaries; and if Carmaker1 isn't willing to tone it down, I do still feel an indef block will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I think the best way I can personally and professionally go about this (on my part), is to truly honour/deeply recognize what I have been told and invest collectively in discussing anything information I have to provide, with other users until we can agree on a mutual decision on whichever content. The way I have been going about things, is haphazard. On one end I might have production timelines right, but the R&D info I provide is all over the place on my part. Many of us are here to learn new information or contribute and it can be frustrating, when you can't find a source for interesting information you read in an article, submitted by another user. It does not help also if said-user becomes defensive and chooses to fight you back on questioning their submission, in an effort to save face or micromanage things. I just haven't heard before, that while my submissions are mostly welcome, my edit summaries and perceived forcefulness need to go. If I am not welcome here, I will disappear if need be and came here originally to enrich others knowledge, albeit in a desperate and heavy-handed manner.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User: Power~enwiki, as I obviously should've been able to spare time and talk with any other users doing edits I didn't agree with, explaining my reasons on why the article favoured a certain format. My edit summaries could easily have politely expressed why a statement or date was perceived as wrong by me, then see if consensus can be established. Even if dealing with other people being difficult, there are better ways to handle things. I did not exactly read the last ANI brought by Vortex833, until well after the fact (like now). Pent up frustration from a unsatisfactory resolution of that Honda-related article situation, led to abusive edit summaries on my part upon what unfairly judged as rinse/repeat deliberate mistakes or vandalism. It was my subjective perception, not objective fact.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment as someone who has seen numerous cases like this come and go over the years, I have to give you some advice Carmaker1. If you keep replying to every single vote, you will most likely end up being blocked. It's incredibly annoying. Likewise, if you continue to insist there is no fault or that the complaints only come from editors with red on their hands, you will most likely end up being blocked. You have numerous editors in good standing already calling for your block, so anything other than "I was wrong and here is how I am going to change my behavior" is just digging the hole deeper. Stop making excuses no one wants to hear, stop arguing that it wasn't you, or that the ends justify the means. Own up to your mistakes COMPLETELY and THOROUGHLY, and you MIGHT end up avoiding an indef block. --Tarage (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I am not here to defend myself, but explain my reasoning as a deeper look at my point of view and how to fix that point of view, as I had stated to power~enwiki above. If we are not on the same page, it doesn't help Wikipedia and creates a bad environment that chases well-meaning people away. There are plenty of editors I work with comfortably, in Wikipedia being such a vast site. Clearly consistently brushing off any difference of viewpoint and finding a resolution, has been a terrible failure on my part. Condescending to people doesn't help resolve situations, something I have since learned and hope all of us take note of. Having been here for nearly 11 years, I haven't acted liked a longtime user regarding knowledge of guidelines.--Carmaker1 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You'll have no one to blame but yourself. --Tarage (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You are now being rather confrontational Tarage. I addressed your concern politely, as that is how I want things moving forward/in conclusion. I explained to you where I was coming from and I'm not sure how you're perceiving it. I have been here 10-11 years, learning new things about Wikipedia every day. I just wish for all of us to work collectively and actually discuss things openly on a talk page, in a genuinely civil manner. On my part, I lazily skipped that part and lost requisite patience, instead of seeking assistance and patiently waiting for responses from others to help.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block He keeps changing years for some reason though much of his insider knowledge is inaccurate. Overall he's making wikipedia significantly worse.Ramloner33 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — this is Ramloner33 (talk · contribs)'s first edit. The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My insider knowledge is accurate, but I am instead making things overall worse? Please explain (so I can reflect), as I am not understanding your viewpoint, as I don't hold much influence on this site as regular user (never sought administrator position) and usually walk away from any occasional content dispute, ruled not in my favour by administration the past decade. To explain my reasoning, I have been mostly concerned about an accurate timeline, that allows readers to enter an article and not get confused by contradictions within an article. I have indeed gone to the extreme by trying enforce "maintenance" of articles, by being verbally abusive. I won't disagree with that, it isn't proper. I am rarely here during the course of calendar year, so I have previously assumed I hardly affect Wikipedia environment and seen as merely a blip due to frequent absence. I have never encountered editing with you, so I am not sure if we've been in contact before. Apologies if my changing years is controversial, as we all learn things everyday in terms of perception.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The problem is that that insider knowledge might be accurate, but we can't verify it unless it's publically accessable. Paywalled data is acceptable, but "insider knowledge" suggests "a little bird told me", and that's original research. Remember that the primary principle for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Wow, now I get it. Thank you Bushranger, as by I should really read up on many WP pages to understand protocol. It is very true that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I am sorry that I have been ignorant of that, as I should have known better all this time. This isn't really a cynical response, but truthful. I can see why we don't favour celebrities writing their own biographies in articles. An original point of view isn't how Wikipedia works. I really need to (or should have not) avoid basing so much of my content on behind the scenes whispers. Off-the-record items are terrible information to be submitting on here, if you do not have a source. They are better ways off of Wikipedia to spread such trivial knowledge, than forcing others to work against protocol. I am a bit surprised at myself, for not only BEING, but remaining so ignorant in editing here in-frequently since 2006-07. Oh well, that's it. Thanks pointing out WP:VNT.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have understood the need to bring such a serious matter to attention, as I have been terribly disrespectful. I am finding User: Dennis Bratland's own conduct to be rather questionable. The use of "nerd reasons", as well as how they have acted uncivilly towards me on their own talk page, highlight why a user such as myself can at times behave so terribly in response to select users as a human being. Rude, sarcastic tones in which this user has approached me, after asking them to explain something to me, hinder not just me, but other users from being comfortable in Wikipedia's editing environment. Much of my poor conduct has been developed over the years, from dealing with similarly difficult and extremely rude editors, that have not been called to task for their behaviour because of WP:NOTCENSORED being used an excuse. The Bushranger, Ramloner33,Power~enwiki have all conduct themselves civilly in addressing me, which is the best way to highlight how I could have been better behaved and learn. Speaking to others with respect, so they repatriate the same in return. I also have to ask, why Ramloner33 appears to be a new account and this happens to be their first edit entirely. I do not know how this process works really, so I am a little curious.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support block. As per nomination. Edit: see below. Many regular editors may have thick skin, but WP:NPA and WP:BITE are still important, not least because we should avoid scaring off new contributors with unnecessary hostility. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Mutual respect is very important. Both of us know this very well. It is important that we heed and honour are our own words through action. I do not come here to scare off new users, especially when they are here for positive reasons to contribute and not vandals editing for amusement (sometimes with a registered account). My influence on greater Wikipedia is extremely minute, as it is very demanding as solo and is a collective. Cheers,--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*** Some wonderfully noble statements in the reply above. It's a pity they have no relation to your repeated insults and mocking towards myself and other editors. Regards, Stupid 12 aka 1292simon (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

        • It helps when you are on the same page and any animosity is avoided, by being 100% genuinely civil. My bad actions are being discussed, but can you say that you have been respectful to me judging by snarky behaviour here and in the past? (Save for thanks on E65 page) Perceived Tom & Jerry scenarios still do not excuse away my own behavior, but of course provide insight into it. Any previous squabbles with you or verbal attacks toward you, still are amongst a glaring list of many other bad behaviours on my part, supporting the ANI ban discussion. We have to practice what we preach and not sneak in little digs at each other (under the assumption it will not be observed by objective parties)--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Agreed. My bitter reply above was because I incorrectly interpreted it as being preachy and defensive, rather than an acknowledgement that improvements are needed. Sorry for that. 1292simon (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Thank you. I apologize for going overboard and insulting you in my edit summaries, as when something is submitted on here (like by me), it is essentially permanent and no one likes to see their name/alias/username being referred to in a negative, over harmless matters and have it essentially be not erasable from edit history. Considering how you handled that E65 matter very well, I should have taken as a sign of good-nature intentions and refrain from later on projecting onto you my own paranoia.--Carmaker1 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose block or any other sanction - As I feel the situation is being seriously misrepresented. Carmaker is being portrayed as an editor who is being disruptive in spite of numerous warnings. I've reviewed the diffs, and I do not believe that is the case at all. Firstly, regarding the purported admin "warnings", I can't find or remember any instance in which I ever warned carmaker; indeed the only relevant involvement on my part that I'm aware of is me defending them in the last ANI thread. Regarding Ritchie, he also appears to be downright sympathetic to Carmaker, saying only "I don't know what you want me to do other than just remind him to dial it back a bit?" That hardly constitutes a warning, and I don't see where Ritchie even issued such a "reminder" to Carmaker. Please provide concrete diffs of these purported "warnings", otherwise the "ignoring multiple warnings" allegation should go straight out the window. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. But based on my review, that allegation is simply not true. Secondly, regarding the supposed infractions themselves, I've reviewed every specific infraction that has been reported in various AN threads, and frankly I don't see any serious violations that would warrant more than a reminder to "dial it back a bit". Many of the diffs aren't violations of any sort at all, and the ones that do constitute incivility or personal attacks are of extremely low-severity, nothing more than your typical editor would resort to when irritated by their time being wasted in stupid disputes. I have to be honest, I find the long list of diffs above to be annoyingly disingenuous, given the lack of severity of the problem (and it's a stretch to call this a "behavioral problem"). Thirdly, regarding the actual content dispute that is the root of all this frustration, Carmaker seems to be on the side of common sense. American vehicular model years do not correspond with actual years. "Model years" are released within the preceding calendar (actual) year. Carmaker is just trying to ensure that articles report the actual location in history, as opposed to the completely meaningless "model year", which is artificially marketed as the next year's model. This is something that is common knowledge to most Americans. Those who are trying to make articles reflect otherwise are either deliberately trying to introduce an Americentric POV to a worldwide project, or are quite plainly ignorant about what they're editing. There is quite simply nothing unreasonable about Carmaker's edits themselves, and that might be why they're frustrated after dealing with the same stupid issues for years. @Carmaker1 and Ritchie333: please correct me if I'm wrong on any points regarding yourselves. Swarm 09:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for providing your objective viewpoint, as I can't better express what you just did. Partly dealing with what seems to be "drive-by" editors on occasion, that might detrimentally edit for laughs and leave the rest of us to clean up their mess, has allowed me to become to hypersensitive to innocent helpers and lose sight of most other users good intentions, by becoming a vigilante editor. With music articles, the level of vandalism is much worse and I am letting negative sentiment from poor resolutions over those cases, negatively affect automotive articles I work in. It is my job to be fair and impartial, despite occurrences elsewhere, even if it feels my concerns at times might fall on deaf ears (which isn't fully accurate in reality). The Nissan Armada article experienced a wave of vandalism in 2016/early 2017, in which I made a request for ANI assistance to lock it for IP users temporarily. Sadly, it didn't turn out well and become a bigger mess, until another admin kindly stepped in months later. I think if I learned how to calmly address any issues I have on here, with administrators for help, things like this wouldn't boil up to this point on my part.--Carmaker1 (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I can't believe these excuses I'm hearing here. You get frustrated and that makes personal attacks OK? Since when? Swarm, do you understand which editor Carmaker1 is referring to as "stupid 12"? If it isn't clear from the context, it is User:1292simon. Carmaker1 has been carrying on a campaign of attacks against 1292simon for a very long time.

These comments are personal attacks, and they are disparagement by nationality, and they are plain bullying:

"I ACTUALLY researched the design timeline for this model, so 12's attempts to discredit that out of pettiness are unfortunate."
"Stupid 12 doesn't realize that as someone that has MANY connections in the automotive industry, not everything is out in the open. Perhaps you should join the industry and then find that information yourself."
"Keep it up 12. I know much more than you do about BMW history, yet you prefer to leave holes within in it."
"If I see someone reinstate his name here, I will report you for deliberately introducing inaccurate information"
"I will now use production years instead and not care about a few American h**ks, when much of the world and most other Americans go by intro date."
"Why is the prose like a hick salesman wrote it? SMH"
"The ignorant that put this, should try and do better investigative research on how R&D actually works, not just some marketing BS with a false narrative."
"If anyone changes these dates to anything other than the start of production and concluding sales years with prior consensus, I will make it my mission to report you for disruptive editing"
Carmaker1's excuse is that they are frustrated. So what? Yes, there is some kind of long term abuse or socking from an IP, but so what? Carmaker1 can't figure out how we deal with that very common problem. After 11 years of editing. We don't deal with IP abuse by threats and bullying. If you're going to go on a personal attack rampage because there is a long term vandal in front of you, you can't edit Wikipedia. Should all of us start acting this way towards vandals? Should we all start calling Americans hicks? Or whatever nationality we happen to dislike? The ongoing theme here is that Carmaker1 owns this topic and these summaries are intended to drive others off his turf. That's a violation of policy.

No suggestion at all of an apology to 1292simon. Everything Carmaker1 has to say is WP:NOTTHEM excuses. This is someone who doesn't get it because they can't. A ban from the automobiles topic is better than nothing but it's not going to stick.

The idea that none of the previous ANI cases included warnings is Wikilawyering. Does Wikipedia have some kind of notarized warning delivered by a footman with a wax seal? Really? I'm saddened also to see admins getting sucked into a content dispute on ANI. What I'm hearing is that the year 2006 is the correct year and 2005 WRONG and any editor who dares to change it to 2005 deserves what they get. Seriously? It doesn't matter that much. Yes, I am enough of a nerd to get why 2005 is wrong and model years production years blah blah blah. It's not that important. Yes, 2005 is wrong, but it's not that important because this is an encyclopedia, not a car catalog. We don't attack anyone over things like this. Bad call, Swarm. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Expecially as it's explicitly saying flouting Wikipedia policy is OK. @Swarm:, reporting the "actual location in history as opposed to the completely meaningless model year" for American cars is WP:SYNTH, as the only year that is reported in all sources as "Cars of X year" is model year. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I am both American (Texas) and British (W. Midlands), so the "nationality" claim isn't me attacking a differing nationality. Doesn't make it okay, but pointing out the context in that case. As someone that grew up in both places to a degree, I am not an outsider looking on in and deciding that "Americans are xxx". In this case, I have been seeing that many fellow Americans are misled by a complicated system of model years, created by automotive marketing divisions, which down the road cause confusion after initial introduction has passed. In annoyance and studying this (what I saw as a disconcerting phenomenon in person or on car forums), I hoped that Wikipedia's widespread influence would help to alleviate this issue, if I helped fix things. I have handled it in a very heavy-handed manner, when with some patience and respect, I could get consensus on such topics without resorting to personal attacks or edit-warring. I must ask though, if there is an element of subjectivity in your observations? Until this ANI, we haven't really had any discussion or co-edited. Is it that your personal offence from my prejudiced statement "American ****", as being the overwhelming reason here? And the rest of my gross pattern of behaviour, just supports things? They are a number of users that have unfairly insulted Americans on this same topic and have not been addressed for such personal attacks (directed also at me). Please remember that, as no one should be made to feel bad because of their background. I accept that I was wrong to say that, but have heard similar (from a user I shall not name). My talk page will highlight that.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
QED. This right here: perpetually avoiding the issue, avoiding responsibility, changing the subject, and always the excuses, endless excuses, rationalizations. This is why I don't think a topic ban will work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an issue with how you are presenting this, as it now comes across as no longer being objective and perceived as being rather personal on your part. Others are presenting things objectively, with little-to-moderate emotion and a neutral point of view. Even for 1292simon, they have tried to remain as neutral as possible (when not addressing me). I did not say that I am right about making such insulting statements about other Americans. I have now only expressed concern, with any of that being used in a comical context within this discussion. It is up to me how I interact with people moving forward, in being presented with serious evidence against me, but more so administration to decide if enough is enough and rightfully penalize or dismiss me.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose block, indefinite or otherwise. Swarm is quite right about Carmaker1's frustration, and probably about the reasons for it. On the other hand, i do believe that a sanction of some kind is required: All too often rude and nasty comments from editors who are long-term/aggressive/factually correct are allowed to slide. I suggest a topic ban from automobiles in general or, with a finer focus, from automobiles' dates, for three months; this will allow Carmaker1 to realise and reflect and calm himself. After that, we'll see if he has a renewed maturity or still is rude to people unnecessarily. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose block at this time. Suggest crafting limited sanctions to improve the editing environment on those pages, down the lines of what Lindsay suggests above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Topic ban suggestion: (I don't personally think a topic ban will work but if this is what we want to try, then...) An automobiles or model year topic ban kind of misses the target. There are plenty of hostile edit summaries on non-car topics. The topic that is the problem is the topic of other editors. I would suggest a ban on any edit summary, on any page, that makes any reference, directly or indirectly, towards other contributors, construed broadly. It's fine to say content was in error, but characterizing the intelligence or abilities of whomever wrote the content is off limits. Since complements can be interpreted as sarcasm, even neutral or positive mention of other contributors is banned. Any mention whatsoever of who wrote what in the article, what their motivation was, whether they are knowledgeable or not, malevolent or not, is prohibited. Carmaker1's edit summaries should consist of nothing except a description of what was changed, and/or why, with no mention at all of whomever wrote the previous article content. In short: no ad hominem in edit summaries. WP:NPA says it plainly: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

    Any mention of other editors by Carmaker1 should be limited to an appropriate noticeboard, or a user talk page. This might be extended to include any mention of other editors in article talk pages, but the immediate problem here seems to be edit summaries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

    • This is a good suggestion, but it doesn't address the SYNTH-pushing. But it does address the even more serious issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I believe a similar sanction was put in place during the Rambling Man Arbcom case. I'd say this is the best option at this point. As is often espoused, ANI does not rule on content and this is not entirely a content issue, at least not one that can't be dealt with on a talk page. This is most certainly a behavioural issue, which can most certainly be addressed here. There is agreement that Carmaker1's content contributions are generally solid and not really as much of a problem as the edit summary attacks, so a targeted sanction as Dennis Bratland suggests makes sense. Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think I agree with Blackmane. WP:SYNTH and WP:I-SAW-IT are content issues outside the scope of ANI. Yes, it's *better* for these facts to have verifiable sources, just like it's better to have the correct model year without any OBOEs. But those things can be resolved on article talk pages and aren't blockable offenses. It's unhelpful, but not terrible, to say "this is true because I was there". I think Carmaker1's unverifiable eyewitness reporting is probably factually correct, and not defamatory toward a living person, so the "harm" is somewhat academic. The problem is when Carmaker1 says things to the effect of "if you weren't there, don't edit" and "anyone who hasn't worked in the industry shouldn't touch this article" etc. This is all about WP:OWN, WP:BITE, and WP:NPA. If he never mentions other editors, then he can't order them off his turf. The reason I believe he won't be able to do that is his frequent citations of WP:TRIVIA which he has either not read or not understood, as well as WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE, which he also seems to not comprehend. Carmaker1's comment on my talk page that I could be blocked for "ordering" him to read an MOS page suggests poor reading comprehension or some other issue that makes it impossible for them to understand how Wikipedia works. It might be an ESL issue or pig headedness or I don't know what, but the evidence I see is that Carmaker1 won't be able to adhere to a topic ban. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
            • I asked you for assistance, then I was given a sarcastic and condescending response. I am glad you welcomed retaining/restoring the content I had added (then omitted), but scolding another user (the way you did) is something I am already guilty of and is part of what this ANI indef discussion relates to. Unacceptable personal attacks. Claiming "I have better things to worry about" in that context can be perceived as a personal attack, when my discussion with you on your talk page didn't pertain to that. I have to say, I am extremely guilty of saying offensive things, but I am wondering how acceptable it is to imply I might have ESL issues or that you could be blocked for ordering me around. I stated that the nature you addressed, was perceived as ordering me around and threatening. That again is making things personal and has a condescending tone. Tit for tat behaviour is something I should refrain from for the better good (on top of outright bullying), but I cannot say you are entirely pointing things out in a civil, constructive, and objective manner the way that other individuals have been. The approach has been somewhat cynical and that can create animosity, which is what I have done in the recent past and is now being brought to light, due to the strong nature of it as of late.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Oh, I agree that in and of itself OR/SYNTH isn't an admin-intervention issue, but when it becomes a persistent pattern of behavior it, in and of itself, becomes disruptive, which is. Whether or not that part of this issue is at that point, though, I freely admit I can't for-certain say, and the WP:OWN (and the bite/npa that follows from it) is the most significant issue here. (I'll also note that while Carmaker1 has said A Lot Of The Right Things in response to criticisms above, the manner in which he says it is...well I can't tell if it's earnest or "this is The Right Thing To Say, so I'm saying it". Tone is, alas, impossible to tell on the Internet.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • And since I keep leaving it out: I do support Dennis Bratland's proposal here, in lieu of a block, at least to try. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Well, it is actually "earnest" for once (no lies about that). In terms of responding to you and everyone that has been civil in addressing this matter. You very excellently pointed out various WP pages to me, that I have been weirdly ignorant of (all these years) and I can see where many times I have failed to follow guidelines based on them. The real past issue is, it was never really spelled out to me what I was doing wrong. I cannot be using private one-on-one discussion or electronic chats with car designers and other engineers about a model development programme, then decide to include it in an article on Wikipedia, thinly supported by a web link (independent of my private discussion). Also, it has occurred to me I have been using Wikipedia, to channel out my "discoveries" to the global public about the automotive and entertainment industries, based on myself as a source and using multiple links to piece together information. Hoping that because "it's accurate", everyone else magically agrees and it remains in an article. I cannot recall which WP that stated it isn't acceptable (use multiple links), but I wasn't necessarily aware. Clearly when on a occasion, other users might try to remind me of such guidelines and remove certain information from an article on that basis, I took it upon myself to make it personal via edit summaries or talk pages. This is what happens when someone dares to make it that they are the original source, which for many reasons, just isn't acceptable here. It is my fault for doing that and then feeling offended, when I should have maintained a neutral point of view in the first place and not used personal discoveries for Wikipedia.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
            • I agree with you on that. However, at this point, the OR/SYNTH discussion hasn't reached that stage yet, not to mention that this post is largely about their behaviour, it would make sense to pick the low hanging fruit and deal with the problem as it is presented. Trying to fix everything at once, only leads to another one of those epic discussion that ANI is famous for, usually leading to a lot of heat but little light being cast on the matter. Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
              • How would the behavioural issue be resolved is my question? On my part, it is very easy fix that. However, Wikipedia policy I do understand is of great importance. I have abused WP:BITE and WP:NPV, plus many others "WPs". I have said in defense that it is because of past bad experiences, during my early editing years (2007-2011), but I realize that just because I didn't understand how to report incidents to ANI (didn't really know how), never warranted me the minute I logged in, to occasionally abuse people that don't follow my viewpoint or "trust my expertise". Again I can change that and be genuine about it, but I can't speak for others on this matter and say it resolves things. Alternatively, I am rather shocked that Ramloner33 was a sock account. My actions have such a large impact, to the point other users are willing to create additional accounts to see my negativity disappear (rather shocking)? I really had no idea that my submissions make such a difference (puzzled on that). I assumed traffic in the articles I frequent was so slow, that no one really notices what I submit (edit summaries and recent edits clearly show up globally in), save for a very few users (percentage wise).--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
                • I didn't say "resolved", I said "deal with". Resolving the behavioural issue that has been brought to ANI is up to you, however, neutral editors can deal with an issue by levying sanctions and restrictions. It is then up to the sanctioned editor to either a) reflect on why the sanction was levied or b) continue with the behaviour that led to the sanction and get blocked. At this point in time, the issue we're trying to deal with is the way you're interacting with others and not how others interact with you, as that hasn't been brought up as an issue. If that does become an issue, then feel free to open your own ANI post and members of the community here will look in to it. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Limited sanctions. I think the chance to improve - as per either Lindsay's proposal (three month cool-down period for automobiles) or Dennis Bratland's proposal (not mentioning other editors in Edit Summaries) - is worth a try. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Formal topic ban suggestion[edit]

Ok, since the supports above are all over the place, let's narrow it down a bit. Per Dennis Bratland, Carmaker1 is prohibited for 3 months from making any reference, broadly construed, to other editors in edit summaries. (Broadly construed includes just about everything short of a WP:EWN report.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Support --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --Toasted Meter (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support With reservations already noted above which you'd probably prefer I not even mention again so I'll just keep that to myself, OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- 1292simon (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support civility is important. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Carmaker1 is a good editor, this is a good reminder that a lot of latitude can be extended but it is not infinite and members of the community will do what needs to be done to ensure WP is as good an environment to edit as possible. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - think a short topic ban (3-6 months) would allow them to edit others fields and see how things are normally done. On a side note....has anyone ever suggest 2 dates?...as in model year and market release date. Bought my 2007 sports car in Dec 2005 and got it March 2006.--Moxy (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The Tban is actually a ban on commenting on the editor rather than a TBan from the topic area. Blackmane (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
At least regarding model years, that has always been my idea. On the side of global editors, I understood the need to support inclusion of dates in real time. As someone that is also American, I strongly favour the use of model years in addition to actual calendar years (and even months), as a titling or designator. The problem I've had is getting everyone on the same page. At this point in the year, I can't see myself calling (in example) a brand new redesign a 2017 model. My goal has been to highlight a pattern in the marketplace where next year's model is introduced the preceding calendar year by having both listed within an article. Hopefully everyone else agrees so that people are not mistaking U.S. model years for actual introductory dates. What I have an issue with is where someone writes, "The current Mercedes-Benz S-class W222 was first revealed and introduced in 2014, with semi-autonomous driving capabilities." That would read that inaccurate, since CEO Dr. Dieter Zetsche personally unveiled it in 2013. Or even more pertinently, Chevrolet's compact Corvair was engineered in the 1960s (released 1959 as a MY 1960, so late 50s). As (also) a writer, I have always been very particular about historical accuracy, especially regarding timelines. Whether that's pedantic or trivial to others is the question. The bigger issue with me understandably, has been my original research and egoism.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, hopefully this will allow things to be resolved - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - with some concerns about enforcement; i fear seeing this back here again, one way or another. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Accounts possibly linked to digital marketing firm[edit]

It seems a number of accounts have been created over time which indicate to be related by virtue of their naming conventions and appear to be related to a digital marketing firm. I pondered raising a username violation or sock incident, however the case appears to me more subtle. At first, there is no direct indication of sockpuppetry (i.e. the users are not visibly coordinated) and many users don't have (publicly visible) edit history - they just sit there. The users in question are User:IProspectIRL, User:IProspectHongKong, User:IProspectIE, User:IProspector, User:Iprospect, User:Iprospect01, User:Iprospect12, User:Iprospectie, User:Iprospectph. It is my believe they are connected to the British PR firm IProspect which happens to have locations in Ireland, Philippines, Hong Kong etc. which are indicated in the names.
Most recently, IProspectIE has been active with promotional edits such as this and this] in addition to creating Clayton Hotels and Clayton Hotel Cork City. The edit history of this user indicates work mostly on corporate topics in Ireland. Most notably for the other users, the rewrite of the article Wynn Macau, edits to AIG which is a client of IProspect according to this.
It may be worth taking the edit pattern and IP addresses as basis to find out if other users may exist under less obvious user names. Communication with User Talk:IProspectIE has been attempted, but so far no response. I was wondering if admins have any views if this is sufficient to block the existing users on the basis of this evidence. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi again[edit]

Despite being globally banned, this former user actively continues editing and actively participates in the discussions. Last evening, they removed (without consensus of course) dozens of hatnotes from the articles of Moscow metro stations (similar to this edit). There is apparently nothing which can be done about this, but please if you see them block on sight and mass-revert the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

See discussion elsewhere and the relevant SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ne0Freedom[edit]

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

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

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

There's a DS notice on his Talk, which refers to this: [58].

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

He's also reverting Doc James here: [59].

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

  • On the narrow behavioral matter, he's edit warring for which he's never been warned. I have just done so, so the ball is again in his court. If he abandons his campaign based on that warning, then we'll be done. If he persists, we have grounds for a block. --Jayron32 16:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The references ([60] and [61]) should be good enough for citing "food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading". --Ne0 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not the correct place to litigate the validity of sources or the inclusion of article text. You should develop a consensus using the article talk page or at WP:RSN. This noticeboard is on the narrow topic of the behavior of editors. You've now been warned to not edit war. Please proceed with discussions and allow consensus to develop one way or another before proceeding, and also allow for the possibility that consensus may go against you. --Jayron32 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I see the old saw that usernames containing Truth and Freedom, among others, are usually not here for encyclopedia building still holds true. Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:CGTW#15 strikes again! Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Also WP:OWB #72. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I need to save these links! Blackmane (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It's odd that no one has created user:IamaPOVpushingSPA yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Shhh, don't give them ideas! - The Bushranger One ping only 12:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion on the talk page of the irradiation article as I reverted JzG for other reasons, but found no way to inform JzG as his talk page is blocked. Not looking for any help, just attempting to notify him of the change.2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Your “reasons” failed to account for the fact that the paragraph is not supported by the source, notwithstanding the fact that the source is inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:AGF and whatnot, but this really does look like a case of 'oh no, my account is being watched on this topic! I know, I just won't sign in, nobody will know it's me!' - The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Especialyl given the hysterically conspiracist tone of both the account and the IP. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The Ip is not neo, it is me, I am sick of the bullying and name calling. I gave plenty of reasons for my reversion and was simply being polite and trying to contact you as you are so arrogant as to have a block on talk page to stop "lowlife IPs" like me. The bad grammer was due to using speech to text. This JzG|Guy person has acted like a bully on all occasions. I wish someone would write him up. I have been maintaining the Irradiation page for over 5 years. I am not a conspiracy theorist as is clearly evident by my changes, all the work I have done to moderate the article from crazies like you and neo is lost when you remove content that explains why Neo's perspective is biased. Show some respect. By the way the consensus is that you were wrong, that the deletion of the whole section was wrong. Before you delete READ. THe paragraph WAS supported by bouth the first second, and the source you oviously failed to read being the third. 2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Your "reasons" did not address the removal. The paragraph in question stated a tendentious and evidentially unsupported opinion as fact, and made a generalised statement about the views of a class of group based on primary reference to a member of the class, being an activist group with a long history of backing anti-science propaganda. WP:RSN agreed the content was problematic. Reinserting it was equally problematic. Your riposte is that you stated a reason for reversion, albeit that the reason did not address the reason for removal and ran counter to the RSN discussion. And based on that, everybody who disagrees with you is the problem. And do you not think we might have seen this before? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Extreme incivility by User:Contaldo80[edit]

The user has been continually rude to User:Claíomh Solais.

He said "I think you need to speak to some sort of therapist. They might be able to help you"

When I told him on his talk page it was a breach of WP:CIVILITY he told me to "Fuck off"Michael O'hara (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, he should've not done that. --Jayron32 17:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Whilst C80 should not have told Michael O'Hara to fuck off, his initial response to Claíomh Solais was completely reasonable. Claíomh Solais had posted a section entitled "Enforcing Anglocentric cultural effeminacy on article as political bias", claiming, basically, that Hispanic males are homophobic (nonsense), followed by "there is an ongoing attempt a Yankification, particularly through the Achilles heels of Uruguay and Argentina" - in other words, that there is an attempt to make homophobia unacceptable in SA - leading to the obvious outcome that Claíomh Solais is claiming that such is acceptable and that Americans are trying to stop that. It is unfortunate that the editor enraged by such obvious stupidity is the one who ends up getting blocked; the edits of Claíomh Solais should be scrutinised closely from this point on. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that one editor is espousing largely silly and unsupportable ideas does not entitle others to engage in uncivil behavior. If Claíomh Solais's edits need scrutiny, then provide some diffs. Those are two separate, if admittedly related, issues. Grandpallama (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The diffs are in the link provided by the OP and my comment. And you will note that I did say that C80 should not have told MOH to "fuck off" even if I understand why he did. However, if you really need some, here's a spectacularly misogynistic post and here's one claiming that misogyny needs to go in scare quotes. That should do for now, no? Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
My point was that regardless of whether or not Claíomh Solais needs further scrutiny, his being asinine doesn't somehow invalidate a block for incivility toward him. They are still two separate issues, and it's not "unfortunate" that the block occurred for an editor who was "enraged." It might be unfortunate that his is the only block, but you don't get a pass just because you're dealing with someone who is completely over the top. Grandpallama (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly I'd lose my temper too if confronted with asininity like that which Claíomh Solais is espousing.--WaltCip (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Any admin is welcome to lift my block if they wish to do so. For example, this may be a case where it's best dealt with by a warning from an uninvolved admin, rather than a block. Specifically, if you believe the user was baited here and you'd have dealt with it with a warning, please go and lift my block. At the moment, the primary concern appears to be that the other side, here, needs some serious scrutiny, too. That's probably true. --Yamla (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Even considering the extenuating circumstances, a 24hr block seems reasonable to me. I'd let it stand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Not opposed to Yamla's block but Black Kite's diffs has me thinking Claíomh Solais needs to be addressed too. Bishonen have an ARBAP2 notice, but the polemics that user is spewing is beyond any "line in the sand". A "final warning" would seem warranted. Edit: see also these diffs which include gems like homosexual "rights" and effeminate liberal screeching: [62] [63]. The sexist language in the latter diff has no place on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy about Michael O'hara's approach. His warning to Contaldo80 seems context-deaf, and what does the "continually rude to Claíomh Solais" refer to? Can we have a diff or two to illustrate the continualness, please? Anyway, since we're talking about sanctioning Claíomh Solais too, he should also be alerted, and I've just done so. I'll post a final warning to him in a minute. (Re. the pronoun, I seem to be losing my political correctness: I can't believe Claíomh Solais is not a "he".) Bishonen | talk 10:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

Apologies for the delay in replying to this. Been very busy. Contaldo does seem to have a wider issue with general catty rudeness when people disagree with him or challenge him in general. It doesn't particularly bother me on a personal level, I'm a big boy, but I don't think it is very constructive when it comes to what matters; collaborating on articles.

I am more of a content guy. Specifically in this case, I was challenging POV bias on the article of Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela. As it stands the article reads like a hit piece against the subject, while articles on controversial American politicians like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in comparison are far more balanced and even handed. Part of the smears used in the article against Maduro (as is unfortunately common on articles of anti-imperialist or non-neoliberal political leaders on Wikipedia), is the playing of the "homophobia" card.

Now, as you can see from some of the more knee-jerk responses to this very thread, topics like homosexuality, feminism and transgenderism are particularly hot button issues (or sacred calfs) for bourgeois Anglo-Saxons in particular, but what we need to recognise, is that this is not so for almost all of the rest of the world outside of Western Europe and North America. My issue here is that it is a violation of our NPOV policies to enforce Anglocentric cultural standards to basically create an attack piece against a leader of a Latin American nation (in this case the president of Venezuela). Now, certain demographies, may not like that, but I do not see this as disruptive or warranting rudeness, as I am simply trying to keep Wikipedia articles within our own guidelines on neutrality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political activist group. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais: Do you understand why you were given a final warning though? Your comment does not address your behavioral issues at all. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. You haven't addressed the issues mentioned above at all, and indeed this particular screed ("Now, certain demographies may not like that, but I do not see this as disruptive or warranting rudeness") suggests you aren't particularly well suited to a collaborative encyclopedia. All creeds are represented here, and if you persist in casting aspersions against groups of people, your time here may be limited. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hang-on, I've just been told that I am guilty of "general catty rudeness" (feline = effeminate?) and that I am a "bourgeois Anglo-Saxon" of which little more should be expected. These aren't personal attacks that warrant a censure? I think an administrator needs to take a careful look at the edits by Claíomh Solais made over a period of time. They include statements such as "Enforcing Anglocentric cultural effeminacy on article as political bias" and reference to "ongoing attempt a Yankification, particularly through the Achilles heels of Uruguay and Argentina" plus "the section is meant to make Maduro look like a bad guy by appealing to liberal Anglocentric views of sexuality (where homosexuality is lionised) and the general Anglo-American cultural dislike of confident, masculine men" for Nicolas Maduro. Then again "but is rather an estrogen induced passive-aggressive statement of "support third-wave feminism or we will call you nasty names" for Manosphere. Additionally ""Homophobia" is a politicised neologism, obviously it is laughable to place it on here. In the Abrahamic religions, God is credited with destroying Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire for their engagement in homosexual activities. Are we now going to have a "Homophobia" section for the[God in Christianity and other articles to appease the militant minority?" for John Chrysostom. Plus in a number of places he adds "British" or "American" into human rights organisations of for individuals to suggest that there is a "liberal west" out of touch and imposing a world view on the rest of the world. The polemic and politicking across a range of articles is shocking. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is, Contaldo80. That's why I've given Claíomh Solais a final warning that I hope he understands is a mere whisker from an indefinite block. There's no way he'll be allowed to go on in the same way. As effeminate as I am (being an actual woman), I'll put a quick stop to it unless somebody else gets there first. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC).
@BlackKite. Yes, all creeds are represented, including ones which reject the values system of Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism. There are 7.3 billion people in the world and the overwhelming majority of them (ie - Latin America, the Islamic world, Africa, China, Eastern Europe, etc) do not adhere to Anglo-Saxon liberal values, so attempting to enforce the social preferences of the middle-classes of London and New York on articles of Latin American socialist leaders like Nicolas Maduro would be POV and clearly bias against the subject. Can you point out any Wikipedia policy which states in article content only Anglo-Saxon views have currency and the rest of mere humanity need to just go along with it and no editor is allowed to question such content on article talkpages? With the issue of homosexuality in particular, outside of the Anglo-led West, very few places embrace it and especially in the form of the American-created manifestation of LGBT culture. Why should everybody from medieval Greek Christians, to Arab Islamic clerics and South American socialists by evaluated from the Anglo-"Western" stance on this issue, rather than a more balanced account, which takes into consideration their own cultural mores? Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Case in point - "social preferences of the middle-classes of London"?! There is clearly an axe that this particular editor wants to grind. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, are you digging yourself a giant, black hole right now. Contrary to others, while I see some offensive beliefs and some antagonistic language, I don't see any personal attacks; however, your viewpoint is so clearly that of someone who is on a crusade that I don't see how you could possibly be prepared to collaborate effectively here. Contaldo80 earned his (rightfully brief) incivility block, but your comments suggest your editing is the deeper, more serious issue. Grandpallama (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: The OP, User:Michael O'hara has been blocked as a confirmed sock. Mojoworker (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Article creations by Noname83746[edit]

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

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

Disruption by User:Jan CZ[edit]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jan_CZ

He is removing Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states in Taiwan and Kosovo etc. I have no time to revert all of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talkcontribs)

May I get some talk page relief, please?[edit]

I was involved with a little dust-up with User:Jamesharrison2014 at White House press corps several days ago, regarding his addition of a non-notable person whose press corp membership is questionable (both person and org have been sent to Afd by another user btw). Thereafter he and a friend left a warning templates on my talk page, which I removed per my understanding of how WP:OWNTALK. As you ca see from my talk page history, this person is coming back every day to restore the message. I left a terse message on the 11th, and a more thorough one yesterday requesting a cessation to this, but it hasn't worked so I came here.

I don't want punishment or blocked or any of those things, just someone to go to this user and stay "stop". Thank you. User will be notified after I click this, per instructions at the top. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've duly issued a {{uw-harass1}} warning; I've intentionally used the generic template to make it clear that this is unacceptable behaviour from anyone and that he's not being singled out in particular. If it continues, let me know and I'll issue something stronger. This is a very new user, and he likely doesn't realise either that you're perfectly within your rights to remove threads from your talk (and that this is taken as an acknowledgement that you've read them), nor that Wikipedia's rules on editwarring and harassment apply to the whole project, not just articles. ‑ Iridescent 13:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the help. ValarianB (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that the user Harrison has had no hesitation about deleting Valarian's messages from his own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, Jamesharrison2014 is declaring an IP editors comments on the talk page to be personal attacks and removing them, link to removal. The comments seems snarky, and accuse Jamesharrison of being Moates himself, so I don't know. ValarianB (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs, since that removal came immediately after my telling him you're perfectly within your rights to remove threads from your talk (and that this is taken as an acknowledgement that you've read them), I'd consider his removal of my warning perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. As far as I'm concerned all that matters is whether he's willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, not whether he needs to bear a Mark of Cain on his talkpage; if he feels he'd be better served by blanking and starting with a clean slate, he's welcome to. @ValarianB, while the IP comments are pretty borderline they're certainly potentially interpreted as attacks so unless Jamesharrison2014 is going to make a habit of removing things because he doesn't like them, I wouldn't lose sleep over them. New editors, particularly those used to other sites where there's less of a culture of collaboration, do sometimes take a while to adjust to what is and isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 01:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It is worth noting that this user has removed comments from the article talk namespace and at the same time kept reinserting comments on Valarian’s user talk page. See [64] Billhpike (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

OR and refusal to obtain consensus from User:Nonesense101[edit]

Jeremy Browne, 11th Marquess of Sligo was an Irish nobleman who died in 2014, and is generally acknowledged (by other works of reference and contemporary obituaries) to have been the Marquess of Sligo. Nonesense101 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, has been persistently editing his article to claim that he was either illegitimate or adopted, and therefore never inherited the peerage. 72 (talk · contribs) and I have several times attempted to explain (at User_talk:Nonesense101, hence the lack of discussion on article talk) that this constitutes WP:Original research, but he has repeatedly re-inserted the claims into the article. I think a block is appropriate at this point, as he's been warned several times, but as I may be involved in the content dispute, I'd like someone else to assess the situation, which is generally contained in the history of that article and the user's talk page. Choess (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block for the repeated additions of unsourced content. I'm not too keen on their stay here however, as their user page states they are here to "Putting right false information". WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes to mind. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors placing burden of proof on contributor for unfounded claims[edit]

I would like to request that whoever weighs in on this issue does not have a relationship with either of the two editors who are making unsubstantiated claims against me.

I entered some information on Robert Cahalan's Wikipedia page. My edits continue to be undone. And the main reason I am being given on a talk page that one of the Wiki editors created for me -- is that I have a relationship with Robert Cahalan.

Initially, I was given no justification by the Wiki editor for why it was decided I had this alleged "relationship." But eventually, on the talk page, I was given no reason for this claim but was told not to use Wikipedia to promote someone -- or for financial gain.

So a claim based on suspicion alone was apparently given the weight of authority.

Nonetheless, I wrote back explaining how I was familiar with Cahalan. I was assigned a story on him by the Greenbelt News Review; I wrote two stories on him in all, as best I recall. And produced a news video on him. I also wrote stories on several top NASA scientists given I was reporting for Greenbelt, MD, the home of NASA Goddard. I added that Cahalan had recently emailed me to contribute to Wikipedia (knowing I was a writer who had already written an article on him.) When Cahalan emailed, he shared that he was having troubles with Wikipedia and clearly stated his purpose for contacting me was related to my Greenbelt News Review article on him. I decided it wouldn't take much time to respond because I could use information from the interviews with him and other scientists that I had already published, which required little effort.

After explaining how I knew Cahalan -- Aha! a new Wiki editor weighed in asserting that I had just supplied evidence of the relationship (that the first editor had known about even before the evidence.) And that was that Cahalan had emailed me. The new editor cited this reason to me on the talk page. I responded that although I appreciated his or her zeal for objectivity, it is a non sequitur to claim someone who I've met through interviews emailing me equates to a relationship.

If this is all it takes to have a relationship -- then I have a lot more friends than I ever realized. And the homeless people I pass on the street who ask me for money have a relationship with me because I sometimes respond. In the case of Cahalan, it cost me little effort to rehash and quote what I'd written on him already. He did not pay me for this nor offer payment or reward.

In the U.S. justice system, someone making claims against another person has the burden of proof. But these Wikipedia editors have felt at liberty to place the the burden of proof on me. Is this Wikipedia's standard operating procedure with contributors? I also have no relationship with the Pope or LeBron James either, though I have been paid to write news articles on them, several articles in fact. And I seem to recall liking a few tweets from both. Does this mean that I should keep my hands off editing any Wiki pages on LeBron or Pope Francis. Because if told I had a relationship with them, I would be at a loss to know how to use Wikipedia's appeal system to prove I didn't.

I thought this Wikipedia venture would take little effort; and I have multiple times come close to dropping the whole thing because it has become a time drain. But the process has annoyed me enough that I am not inclined to drop it just yet: time-waster though it be.

It is my understanding that I need to notify the editors in question of this further appeal. I will post a link for them to see on the talk page mentioned above. If I need to do something further, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarnonsupragrammaticos (talkcontribs) 17:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking over the editing history on the page, both the edits done under your current account and those done prior under an IP address that look at first glance to be yours, I see that they were all reverted for reasons other than your having a conflict of interest. There were three reversions of your edits done, with the reasons "Unsourced and not written using a WP:NPOV" and "Revert addition of external links and unsourced content" on two of them, and the third being clear from looking at the material it reverted, as the article page itself is not the place to discuss the editing of the article (we do that on the talk pages.) Your user talk page was templated with a conflict of interest notice, which is not a statement that you have such a conflict but rather is to tell you what to do if you have a conflict... and saying that you had just talked to the subject of the article for hours is indeed a reasonable reason for someone to raise the question of such a conflict. Your deleted statement also suggested that you were making edits based on your own conversations with the subject and related folks which were done for the purpose of editing the Wikipedia page, which I'm sure sounds as bold move to help contribute to Wikipedia, but runs into our guidelines about "original research". After having had your work reverted by other editors, my suggestion to you is that you discuss the material you wish to add to the article on the Talk page for the article in question and reach consensus with the other editors before readding. This is what we consider the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.
And comparisons to the US justice system are not appropriate. No one is being put into jail here. This is a collaborative creation environment, and our goals are fruitful collaboration. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nate, First, thank you for giving me reasons and detailing them.

I have not talked to Cahalan for hours other than to interview him for newspaper articles that I wrote years ago, not for Wikipedia. I also spoke to his colleagues for this same purpose years ago. And there are hundreds if not thousands of people in Greenbelt that I have spoken to for hours then produced news articles or features on them. I thought that since I'd already done the work, I would use information from the old article, confirming it with current sources (like published NASA publications) -- and it would be fast.

As for the stated problems with the page, they existed before my contributions. So I understood those being issues with previous content. When they persisted, I over cited my sources in case this was an issue.

Yet, still my contributions were undone. And yes, I tried to figure out fast why (by writing them in the page itself). It takes quite some time to figure out Wikipedia's system. Thus it is probably wise to just not contribute anymore or to become a regular contributor who devotes a lot of time to Wikipedia. There is a learning curve that does not work well for a casual contributor.

When I finally heard from Wikipedia specifically on my contribution, a relationship/conflict of interest was assumed. If you look at the comment from the second editor he or she states: "One of the indicators of a conflict of interest is that you are editing an article at the request or direction of the subject. If Cahalan emailed you, then that situation applies here."

I wondered whether Wikipedia seriously thought a contributor couldn't write objectively if the contributor had received an email about contributing information already collected -- and offering no money or reward?

I did not think I would be put in jail. In the U.S. justice system many court cases do not involve criminal issues. I am merely stating the burden of proof for no relationship should not be placed on me based on suspicion.

I've got to run. And my annoyance level has significantly decreased because you took time out to explain where Wikipedia was coming from and because you do not seem to be accusing me of something that is not true. I'll leave it in Wikipedia's hands at this point. If you don't accept my contributions; I can no longer spend time on this. I merely wanted a decent explanation and you have provided that.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarnonsupragrammaticos (talkcontribs) 18:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I can see why Mr. Calahan and the OP are frustrated, and justifiably so. I also looked through the history and, correct me if I'm wrong but I couldn't find a single constructive addition of content to the article. The only thing I found were edits reverting Calahan and the OP, an edit to remove a non-existent category, and tag-bombing (there's 8 tags on the article currently). To someone who has never edited before, it would seem like they are just there to ruin his article. To Caesarnonsupragrammaticos: If you still wish to have these changes in the article, I'd recommend you read Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit, then post your proposed changes on the talk page of the article and post {{request edit}} underneath it. To editors: I think we could have handled this one better. Per BLPKIND we shouldn't have initiated communication with this user with a big template, and though he is editing with a COI, we should have encouraged him to at least post proposed edits somewhere, as they may have some value in them. Pinguinn 🐧 02:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinguinn. Thank you. Your requests are quite reasonable and helpful. Nonetheless, at this point, I'm going to pause and perhaps cease my efforts because the time involved in trying to defend my contributions has already been more than I had expected. You nailed it when you said, "To someone who has never edited before, it would seem like they are just there to ruin his article." You are clearly a reasonable person (I also thought Nate made a decent effort). Yet, I don't think you will be the person I am dealing with regarding edits. But it is comforting to know you've heard me out and spent a good amount of time investigating the conflict. And had you not done this, I doubt I would have tried to contribute to Wikipedia again on Cahalan or any topic. But now, I will at least keep that open as a possibility. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarnonsupragrammaticos (talkcontribs) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tidied the article up a little, and cleared out all the unnecessary cite tags (the references for all bar one were right there in external links). fish&karate 12:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
And I've reminded User:Melcous about not biting newcomers. fish&karate 12:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Shows that need to have a season to begin with[edit]

Everyone on Wikipedia are removing seasons from every show, but we must know what season starts. For example Jball remove season 1 of vampirina and he cause a disruptive editing. So everyone we all must have a season to know when it started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.82.168 (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, which are not handled here. Have you opened a discussion on the article talk page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24[edit]

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

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

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

Upon review of Olsen24's edit history, I note that virtually the entirety of their participation on Wikipedia has been with respect to this article, and that they participate to what might charitably be called a punctilious level of detail. There does appear to be a well-reasoned talk page consensus that the article does not need to contain unsourced assertions that specific bus numbers are out of service (presumably for a short period) while accident damage or the like is repaired. I note that Olsen24 has only ever made two talk page edits, and has not participated in the discussions at issue despite being pinged and asked for their opinion. This being the case, I tend to agree that a longer block is necessary to curtail this editor's tendency to revert consensus-based removal of unsourced trivial information. bd2412 T 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please block Olsen24 indefinetly, Olsen24 keeps making disruptive edits and reverting other users edit disruptively. SportsFan007 (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007
Olsen24 has continued edit warring (including with SportsFan007) since I opened this AN/I thread. They have made zero attempt to communicate with other users, nor provided useful edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor does not respond to several requests for cooperation[edit]

Teachable moment. Learn from the master: Cullen328. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not sure if User:Keeterlg has never seen the messages on their Talk page from various editors - Keeterlg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - or if they are simply ignoring requests for cooperation. User talk:Keeterlg (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Most recently, User:Keeterlg, for the third time, added good content to an article (Rachel Maddow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and added a reliable reference, but instead of citing the reference in a footnote, they typed the bare reference into the body of the article (diff).

I am flummoxed because of the repeated one-way communication. I am open to suggestions. Thanks   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

One good possibility is to properly format the reference, and thank the inexperienced editor for their contributions, rather than bringing them to ANI. You cannot expect relatively inexperienced editors to be fully conversant with all of our arcane procedures. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Amen. If you care about an article, you should be thrilled that someone has added good content, and happy to add the final formatting touches. EEng 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree in principle with both of you. Did you read User:Keeterlg's Talk page though? Other editors before me have tried to reach out to this editor but User:Keeterlg has never responded. (By the way, those editors and I have thanked User:Keeterlg for their edits.) I am fine with simply accepting this as "the way it is" for whatever reason. I came here to ascertain if there might be some avenue for education and communication about which I am unaware. I also wondered how often editors--especially those who have not created a user page--do not realize they have messages on their Talk page. Feel free to respond, but otherwise I consider this resolved as you both suggested, i.e., User:Keeterlg provides good contributions to Wikipedia, even if User:Keeterlg does not wish to learn more about editing.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I added this message to User:Keeterlg's Talk page: "See the page cited earlier for details, but this has been resolved. If you wish to learn more about how to best cite references in a Wikipedia article, see the post immediately below ("Adding references can be easy".) I would also be happy to help you. All the best." Thank you both for your feedback.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

45.251.33.34 and Sri Aurobindo[edit]

45.251.33.34 (talk · contribs) seems to be polishing up Sri Aurobindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by repeatedly prepending "Sri" to "Aurobindo", removing sources, bolding unnecessarily, changing "died" to "left His body" as well as not responding to recommendations I have left on their talk page. Would someone please ask the anon to stop? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:DHeyward[edit]

Can somebody ask DHeyward exactly what they found to be "obvious trolling" by my post here? I would do it my self- in fact, I have done), but was reverted without coment. For an experienced editor, this is curious behaviour. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

John seems to have had a similar experience w/ "Serial Number 54129" in a completely different topic area. I simply went into DENY mode and SN seems upset that I won't engage his obvious desire for drama. Anyway, DENY. --DHeyward (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, other people have had / are having a similar experience with that user; @SchroCat and Cassianto:, for example over exactly the same matter (which is, as you note, "in a completely different topic area"). The reason we're here, DHeyward, is because you make these allegations- trolling, vandalism? repeatedly -but make absolutely no explanation as to what you're talking about, or why. In fact, they are, buntly, unfounded personal attacks which you have NO RIGHT to make, and I request that you explain yourself or withdraw them. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So, having accused 54129 of trolling, when called out on it, you call him a troll/vandal again here (by invoking WP:DENY - read it). I would seriously think about redacting both of them, or it may not go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No, the behaviour is all I'm citing, not the editor. SN brought this here because I removed my comment from another users talk page. He had used my comment in an unproductive fashion so I removed my comment so as to no longer be involved. That is the definition of attention seeking behavior. SN is behaving as if SN wants to fight battles on user talk pages and noticeboards and there is nothing wrong with denying SN the opportunity. DENY isn't about personally attacking editors as you claim or it would be deleted as a violation of policy. DENY is an essay about not rewarding the behaviours. I should not have to explain this. --DHeyward (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
How is this "using my comment in an unproductive fashion"? It looks like they're agreeing with you? If there's context we need to understand this, you and John should provide it, because based on the diffs provided so far it seriously looks like the two of you have been ridiculously touchy with the OP for no good reason, and are doubling down by calling him a troll (while providing zero evidence if any trolling behavior) when he calls you out for it. If there's more to this, explain the situation more clearly and provide some actual evidence. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You think I'm the party being touchy when in fact we are here because SN filed an ANI because I deleted my comment from a user talk page? That's "interesting." --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@DHeyward: I think you're missing the point. We're here because there was literally no other way of getting a response from you. You deleted my edit. I (politely, but possibly too formally?) asked you not do so. You proceeded to roll me back. The latter action is very much one you are entitled to take; but, when you have already referred to my actions as a "trolling game" and "not helpful" with no subsequent explanation, you must see that this is really the only place left. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
My response in a nutshell is and was "I don't want to be associated with your comment. Since you didn't want to delete your comment I'm withdrawing from the discussion. I am deleting my question." That's it. Why do you need more than that? Just stop creating more and more drama. There are seriously no deeper meanings than that. --DHeyward (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Why didn't you say that in first place, and why did you call the request for an explanation for your actions "trolling"? If you had said that when first asked, that would have been fine, but by describing the action as trolling, you've bought the rest of this onto your own head. (Again, if you say, yes, I messed up and shouldn't have done", then it's a step towards closing this matter down. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you could stop evading the main point and answer the original - and disturbing - points: 1. Why do you think SN's post (in which he agreed with you) was "unhelpful"?; 2. On what basis did you think it appropriate to ignore talk page guidelines and delete the comments of another user; 3. What makes the request for an explanation for your actions "trolling"? I've seen editors be blocked for an awful lot less than this. (A word of advice, if you think you have made a mistake in your approach, it would be a good idea to say that, and everyone can move on: if you think you've behaved appropriately, then your approach is problematic and you have breached several guidelines and the civility policy. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward You might want think about redacting this entire section, before the WP:BOOMERANG comes around. Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 11:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Just to clarify, but I started this section, not DHeyward  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 I thought for sure that DHeyward was the one who started this thread. Struck out my comments, and feel free to call me stupid. Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the ping, DHeyward. I invite others to inspect User talk:Serial Number 54129#Query and see what conclusions they come up with. You'll note that I was not the first to use the T-word, but I'm afraid this user's behaviour seems (in my example) to go right down the middle of our working definition of trolling. I make no comment on this other matter (I may read it later and make a further comment), but when several people point out that you look, sound and act like a duck, you may in fact be a duck. --John (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ...a discusion which was started by your WP:CANVASsing, John, as discussed here  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Canvassing is a very serious allegation, Serial Number 54129. Which centralised noticeboard did you post your complaint at? Where can I see your evidence that my notifications crossed the line into canvassing territory? Or was it another unsubstantiated aspersion? --John (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment It's beginning to look like trolling is defined as "anything I say it is" by certain users. We hope (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would advise all editors here to move on and find something productive to do. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Looking at Serial Number's follow-up comments here, I'd say DHeyward's assessment is correct. You're all being trolled by giving this report even a smidgen of attention. My suggestion is that an uninvolved, aware administrator see it for what it is and close this report immediately. Otherwise, it will just go on and on with jab/flame/burn response after response, just like a trolling-motivated social media post. AN/I isn't meant to be Facebook or Twitter, let's not let this report take it (any farther) that direction. -- ψλ 15:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Winkelvi, I'd disagree with that. Looking at this comment, I am unsure why it should be deleted by anyone, let alone an admin. That breaches the talk page guidelines. To then call it trolling when a serious question is asked for an explanation seems to be uncivil and uncalled for. DHeyward should not have removed that comment and should not be so uncivil as to go around calling people trolls just for a polite and reasonable request for an explanation. This is unedifying behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you should [AGF that my report was soundly-intentioned (note I asked for no action from DH other than explanations, and none against him), and I'll AGF that your remark isn't based on something as recent as this. In any case suggesting that someone is trying to turn AN/I into Facebook or Twitter is frankly bizarre. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you really should AGF, since now that I have dug a little deeper, it appears you have had what I assume is a screen name change. Until this moment, I had no clue you are the editor once known as Fortuna. -- ψλ 17:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Many comments here are based on the premise that every post is precious so DHeyward was out of line. However, the context makes it clear what was going on. DHeyward wanted to ask a simple question about an admin action, and did not want a dramafest. The question has no hint of admin fault—it is a request for information. Serial Number 54129's coment added nothing but it completely changed DHeyward's intention by making a drama of the issue. Please don't do that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, If DHeyward had explained that at the time, that would, I am sure, been understood and accepted. He didn't tho. He doubled down by calling a user acting in good faith a troll. That's really not very good. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just stop. My comments were clear that I did not wish to engage in the trolling game. That is not calling someone a troll. I tried to remove the unhelpful comment. Please note that it was also removed by the admin without comment. SN did not restore it when the admin removed it. Nor did he complain or demand explanation. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess why SN created all this drama, and continued to feed it, long after his unhelpful comment was removed by the admin because it was very plain as to what it was. --DHeyward (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just stop what? Thinking you have not acted terribly well? Stop thinking that people should not call good faith questions "trolling"? The more you try and stick your head in the sand over what is poor behaviour, the more I think you have done wrong, know you have done wrong, and are unable to acknowledge that you have erred. It comes across as rather arrogant to breach guidelines by removing posts without adequate explanation and then accusingly someone of trolling for having the temerity for asking an explanation. This is damned shoddy stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • No, what's clear is that you refactored my post on another user's talk (slapping WP:TPO firmly in the face in doing so), with no explanation ("unhelpful" != explanation), which is both a courtesy and fundamental communication. When I asked you to explain yourself, you ignored me, casting WP:ASPERSIONS. That you then still, twenty four hours later, not only claim to have no idea why you are here (when it's been explained multiple times), but continue the aspersions, is concerning, if less surprising now than I would have found it yesterday. As for Johnuniq's point, it doesn't hold water: I had merely come across the same article, had the same question, and asked (and was, incidentally, happy enough with the answer). Asking a question does not, again, equals drama, and fo claiming it creates it is disingenuous at best. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 09:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Your unhelpful comment is still refactored, though not by me. And if you're happy with the answer, it's more proof that your comment was not needed as the answer was provided without your comment being present. I'm not the only one who saw your comment as trolling. I made it clear that I thought it was trolling. You keep doubling down on drama. Go restore your comment, over admin refactoring, if you feel so strongly that it wasn't trolling. Your beef isn't with me anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

IP harassment[edit]

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can anything be done about the IP hopping vandal persistently vandalizing my talk page (User talk:Bennv3771) since 11 December? Bennv3771 (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: G'day, Bennv, I have semi protected your talk page for three days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
A couple of blocks handed out too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Swingoswingo’s disruptive editing and anti-Islamic agenda[edit]

Swingoswingo has been indef'ed per WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For a fairly long time, Swingoswingo’s usual practice on Wikipedia has been to intentionally add better source needed or additional source needed tags to the properly sourced contents in Islam-related pages, and then remove those sourced contents on the pretext that better source has not been given. Some recent examples are: adding tag and then deleting that sourced content. Another typical example is this deletion. In 2016-17 period, user Eperoton expressed their concern twice, here and here, regarding the above issue. But Swingoswingo’s disrupting editing continued. Recently, after noticing multiple cases of illegal tagging and content deletion, I expressed my own concern on the user’s talk-page.

But this is not the issue that brought me here. The thing that has brought me here is the comment Swingoswingo has made in response to my concern:

I appreciate your communication. However, as carefully as you observe my edits (stalking is a bad habit but never mind), I hope you have observed Muhammad and his actions equally. Is this the right place to continue misguiding millions—nay, billions—of poor audiences about this man? It’s like trying to defend (in their respective articles) Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Chengis Khan, and yes Timur who was Muhammad’s follower himself.
Of course, the vast majority of Muslim sources are biased. They have the burdensome task of upholding the crescent flag after all, a task which Western fools numbering in thousands have made easy. But their taqiyah is not going to work all the time. Most of the Muslim sources you see have already been refuted on other sites and I am ready to refute anything you come across. The wiki may be gullible and even helpless like any innocent but I am not. The academicians and so-called scholars are politically correct liars, and yes flimsy. The media are similarly flimsy, more painful than ISIS. Truly unfit for any genuine sourcing out here. What sane thought can possible make them defend Muhammad and the early Muslims? Many terror victims, rape victims etc. are indirectly suffering over decades because of these bootlickers and many more are in danger of getting wiped out in slow and steady genocide because of the same, flimsy, scholars and media. Here’s a nice way to summarize these flimsy guys: “Even if Caesar had stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less.” Replace Caesar with your favorite terror group ;-)
Once again, who is flimsier, me or Muhammad?
Unfortunately for the frequent melodrama of that persecution by Meccans, and for the trumpeters of this theory, Muhammad himself did not know the name of the first martyr (Actually I’d say he didn’t care as long as they die in hordes and kill and loot for him, but let’s put that aside). Then there were contradictory stories of the first martyr. So what knowledge do these funny academicians have that we don’t? Is Allah talking to them and they are hiding that from us? Yea, could be! They will be in grave danger if they call themselves his messengers (You know what happened to the Bahai and Ahmediya). Do these pandering scholars have the balance sheets or ledgers to show that Meccans spent Muslim property on caravans? No dear, no such proofs survived the conquest of Arabia. These are the real flimsy excuses to justify Muhammad’s caravan raids. If hundreds of Banu Qurayza and their women and children had colluded against him, he would be dead and have lost the war – Yet another flimsy lie to justify a massacre.
I can challenge any of them in a debate and checkmate them because it is very easy to defeat lies with truth. But they are so arrogant that they rarely respond to debate requests, or they know they will loose. No one even knows how many of these people exist. Coz it is they whose arguments are utterly flimsy.
Yeah I know that “Verifiability not truth”…. But readers, just rethink about this VNT line for 2 minutes. I am doing a history degree and I have lost all faith in 80 per cent of the history articles here. The site becomes hugely unreliable if it quotes liars and deceivers. Considering how ubiquitous the wiki is, it is not a fit place for lies and it shouldn’t ever be, especially for dangerous lies that ought to be challenged and quashed at first sight. Eperoton decided to believe an RS called Lapidus even when I pointed out that Lapidus wrote one of the most laughable sentences ever about Arabia’s churches in some random book whose existence nobody would know of if it were not quoted on WP. Just being an RS doesn’t mean you should lie freely, should you? Could be a mistake by Lapidus, it happens. But why should WP and its audience be at the receiving end because of such fantasies about Islam’s history?
I guess you must be aware of the volume of taqiya all around. I am a POV editor? Most Muslim with lots of dhimmi sources are POV sources themselves. And everyone instead condemns the non-Muslims who dare to speak out their mind (read truth) online or in a book. U know the labels they have got: Racist, islamophobe, xenophobe, hate group et. al.
“Wikipedia is a project where editors come to create, develop, and enrich articles.” Are primary sources the correct way to enrich an article? That too, it’s the sugarcoated Meccan verses and sweet lullaby ahadith that form the QUOTEFARMS. ;-)
“Usually, not every sentence does need a source.” That’s a carte blanche dude. A perfect way to insert more and more misinformation and spread it in forks! I have myself had to remove lots of flimsy websites like sunnipath and way2islam because people believe in those fairy tales and spread them all around. I can go on and suggest even stricter measures, but the reader is as naïve as those pagan Meccans, unless someone opens his eyes, so I am taking a break here. Swingoswingo (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that the comment is somewhat subjective, not objective; and can be read as a racist comment, I fear. Also note that Swingoswingo elsewhere cries for “better source” and “additional source” even for sourced content, but in their own content, they use such cheap and notoriously biased sources as 'The Religion of Peace'. Given the above situation, I doubt how much Swingoswingo is fit to continue their editing in Wikipedia in general, and in Islam-related articles in particular, especially when Swingoswingo thinks that the vast majority of Muslim sources are biased, and The academicians and so-called scholars are politically correct liars, and yes flimsy, and especially when the problem is actually with Swingoswingo’s non-conformist attitude. -AsceticRosé 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me, even notwithstanding the actual nature of their editing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Very problematic editing. We definitely need some administrative action here. And I'm sure that Swingoswingo has edited Wikipedia before editing as Swingoswingo, but this is not a sock case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That screed alone would warrant a t-ban on all things Islam, broadly construed, IMHO. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've blocked him indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I don't see anything redeeming towards the mission of Wikipedia coming from that account. --Jayron32 16:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Aygunnaghiyeva[edit]

48 hour EW block. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has made 41 edits in his lifespan on wiki. All of his "article edits" were limited to two articles; Jalil Mammadguluzadeh and Kamancheh.

  • The only other article touched, the Kamancheh page, shows extremely disruptively behaviour as well. There, "Aygunnaghiyeva" tried to change the word "Armenian" into "Azerbaijani" at all costs, on 3 separate occassions. (Rv #1, Rv #2, Rv #3).

Looking at the compelling evidence, it is safe to say that "Aygunnaghiyeva" is absolutely not here to build this encyclopedia. No counter sources, no reasoning. Ignoring every single warning. Just blunt reverting and changing, because he clearly doesn't like seeing what actual academics say. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

His comments on talk page ([65]) prove that he is WP:NOTHERE. Seems he's a single-purpose account who just wants to own a specific article. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've blocked him for 48 hours for edit warring; though as an aside, please make sure warnings, when issued, are tailored to the specific problem at hand. The generic "vandalism" warnings issued to this user recently aren't helpful at all; he's not vandalizing. He's (in his own mind) trying to make things correct, therefore he is NOT VANDALIZING. He's doing other things wrong, but it is really incumbant upon all users to warn appropriately. Templates aren't even necessary, you can just write someone and tell them what they are doing wrong, but if you insist on using templates, use the right one. --Jayron32 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Why is reverting sourced edits four times not considered vandalism? In any event, I use the following format for new perceived offenders:

Warning icon
==Month/Year==
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at [[:]], Username/This IP will be blocked from editing privileges.~~~~ Quis separabit? 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


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

Continuous harassment and hounding by User:Icewhiz[edit]

An attempt at humor that, unfortunatly, fell flat, and apologigies for said flat-falling have been extended. The users are reminded to be filled with the spirit of the season, if there are future civility issues amongst this jolly group then there might not be such a happy(ish?) ending possible. Just don't let your heart grow three sizes, that is bad for your health. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The reported user was warned by an admin to stop "continued dragging me through the mud" and to not "chase me around". I had also asked him to stop hounding me. Now, the reported user has awarded Sir Joseph a controversial barnstar. As it's seen, the barnstar title is "The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar" and reads "For your defense of Hanukkah from residents of the former Seleucid Empire."

Me and Sir Joseph, whom was awarded by the reported user, were discussing whether some materials in Hanukkah needed inline citations (See this Edit war report, Talk:Hanukkah#Recent reverts about ref headers and Talk:Hanukkah#Aggressive and unnecessary tagging). My user page demonstrates that I come from Iran and the "residents of the former Seleucid Empire" certainly is a sarcastic reference to me. I'm here to report both his continued harassment and hounding. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 18:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: The user has zero edits in Hanukkah. --Mhhossein talk 18:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the harassment and hounding? What you are doing is filing a frivolous complaint. You have not supplied any diffs showing harassment or hounding. I suggest an immediate close before someone decides to BOOMERANG, since apparently at ANI that is how it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
BOOMERANG this baseless complaint - and I might add not the first baseless complaint by this user. Contrary to Mhhossein's accusations, I happened to see Sir Joseph's talk page following interaction with Joseph in a few other articles recently and seeing Hanukkah on the main page. I commended Joseph on his good work on the article. Mhhossein's conduct should be examined regarding his editing there, NPA, and frivilous complaints such as this one, edit warring against Joseph, or an baaeless SPI case he opened ahainst me a couple of months ago.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There's no boomerang here. Whilst normally I'd be replying to this type of report with a "why can't you all play nicely with each other?" type of post, this time I'm going to ask - @Icewhiz:, what did you mean by that barnstar? As he points out, you've already been told by another admin to stop interacting with him. Yes, SJ's work on Hanukkah was great, but that's not what the barnstar says. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Not to get too involved here, but how is Icewhiz putting a barnstar on my page interacting with Mhossein? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem - you're not involved here - but read what the barnstar says. If you can enlighten me, that's great. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Until this ANI thread I didn't know that it was referring to Mhossein, if that is what Icewhiz even meant. I was reading it as tongue in cheek about the people tagging the article and not wanting it on the front page. Not necessarily against any specific individual. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem was, of course, that many of the people tagging the article - quite rightly, until you and others fixed it - couldn't be described as Icewhiz does. I'll await Icewhiz's reply, there's no rush here. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I meant to commend Joseph for his edits on Hanukkah. The Seleucid Empire was mentioned due to it being connected to the holiday, in an attempt to be witty - this being the Hanukkah article during Hanukkah. I did contemplate a bit regarding which barnstar was right, as there was not an exact fit, but I really did not spend too much time on the selection or the text. I did think Joseph deserved a kudos after I saw his editing on the article and the edit warring complaint (closed with no violation). I am sorry Mhhossein took umbrage, but truly I thought this a semi private comment to Joseph.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm the admin mentioned by the OP, and I find it somewhat of a stunning coincidence that my office today is again out of coffee and the heater is again not working, not well anway, it's certainly not keeping up with the −22 °C (−8 °F) windchill. I really have nothing to offer here and my fingers are cold, so I'm just going to propose that Icewhiz and Mhhossein be interaction banned. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That may be a good idea, but I could also live with a warning for both parties to stick to commenting on edits, not editors. Icewhiz, your thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I won't be around much to respond this evening, but that is essentially what I tried to do here and here and here and here and possibly elsewhere that the interaction tool isn't picking up (it's also crashing a lot). There comes a point where two (or three) editors who just can't get along should be prevented from doing so, for everyone else's sake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
To clarify I mentioned the Seleucids due to Hanukkah in an attempt at wit (the Seleucid empire playing a major role in the story). I was not attempting to refer to a specific editor (and the Seleucids, IIRC never controlled all of modern Iran and lost control of what they did have a bit before or after Hanukkah (in a different conflict)). I am sorry if this was misconstrued, and in retrospect I probably should have sent a wikilove message and not the barnstar. I have been civil towards Mhossein, and when Ivanvector told me and Dr.K to drop the stick following dispute resolution at Ali Khamenei, I did so, and stepped away.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(after ec) This is true insofar as dropping the stick. I'll leave the rest for folks without pressing IRL stuff to do to review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we're good here. Can we close this with a note that any future interactions between these editors that may be seen to be uncivil may be met with sanctions? Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit war between two users on the same school IP[edit]

Blocked by another admin for 6 months. I would have blocked myself had they not. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There appear to be multiple users on User:140.198.160.63 reverting each other in an edit war. The edit histories of their Talk page, the Talk page of User:140.198.160.64 and Sergecross73's Talk page shows that this is a school IP range. Requesting additional intervention in the matter. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


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

WP:UNCIVIL by User:MPants at work and User:Niteshift36[edit]

WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here: Talk:Alex_Jones_(radio_host)#Survey_-_A_or_B_followed_by_your_reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomtooth32 (talkcontribs) 20:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Frivolous waste of time. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Diff please? No one is going to read through that to find what you considered uncivil. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it's pretty obvious, if you take a look at that section. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, I was uncivil by being willing to explain third grade level concepts, but not being willing to explain freshman college level concepts. Or possibly because I use the word "fuck" a lot. (Mostly due to the fucking pointlessness of that sort of discussion, but whatever.) Niteshift was uncivil by pointing out that they understood where I was coming from. But by all means, let the fucking circus begin. Fuck, fuck fuckity fuck fuck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Boomerang is called for here... --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OP is trying to waste more people's time after already wasting people's time. Also, interesting (and very recent) editing history. Yeah, WP:BOOMERANG. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, Wisdomtooth32 violated 3RR at Paul Craig Roberts. I was nice enough to post a 3RR warning and note that they made four reverts in 24 hours. The response from the editor was to copy the 3RR warning and four revert note to my talk, although I made only one revert. The editor appears fond of game playing, and has now discovered notice boards. Who has time for this? O3000 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing sanctionable going on there except the OP's WP:IDHT behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

And now he's making rather pointy edits adding NPOV tags to articles and removing conspiracy theorist categories from others. I have reverted them all so far, but we're at the point where he's lashing out by vandalizing so... block please? --Tarage (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not I, but Wikipedia policy that forbids POV notices from being taken down while neutrality is still being discussed in the Talk page. Wikipedia is ruled by rules, not by rulers. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
For someone opining about the rules, you sure don't have a grasp on them at all. One would THINK after so many other editors reverted you that you'd take the hint. What a magical world you must live in. --Tarage (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked Wisdomtooth32 for 31h, because he seems to be losing it. See also [66]. I don't think he will last here much longer. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh good lord he went there too? --Tarage (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I was starting a BOOMERANG section below but it appears JzG blocked the user for 31 hours for disruption already. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

An editor going by User:Rural Lyra and User:86.179.200.63 has been edit-warring over an extended period of time on the Congressional Black Caucus article to describe the organisation as racist] without providing much in the way of sourcing. I believe describing an organisation with a small, identifiable membership as racist without any citations to back this up is a violation of the BLP policy and have made this clear to them. Nevertheless, they persist in readding the content without discussion or so much as leaving edit summaries, see [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] going back to September. When the page was semi-protected to prevent the disruptive editing from their IP address they simply switched back to the Rural Lyra account and readded the content anyway. Their talk pages show they have been made aware of concerns about their edits to other articles and have simply ignored them entirely. In my opinion, it is becoming clear that this user is engaging in disruption and POV-pushing and has shown no interest in discussing their behaviour. Can anything be done about this? --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible SEO / paid editing[edit]

Sascha Noak edits in Nattydread2012's sandbox, which is weird. Lots of deleted spam articles, several remaining articles which look distinctly dodgy. Check Lance Bachmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example, also 1SEO.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and User:Nattydread2012/sandbox. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Big Lebowski and List of Blue's Clues episodes[edit]

So I have been warned not to make disruptive edits on the Big Lebowski and List of Blue's Clues episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.39.132 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but this thing reeks of either WP:LTA, or a sock. The case is familiar, but I can't put my finger on it. Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 00:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Rev-del ES?[edit]

Done. Please read the big pink box and contact administators privately for revdel in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this ES need rev-delling? 1!. It makes absolutely no sense in the context. Thanks L3X1 (distænt write) 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, as the context is the addition. Done. --NeilN talk to me 03:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Twelvestitches[edit]

Twelvestitches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a NOTHERE attack account on Pacific Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Radical environmentalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Soft water path (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), with a bizarre focus on opposing water conservation. They have been insistently adding a rant to Pacific Institute about nonexistent criticism; that rant is wholly unrelated to the article subject, written in an unencyclopediac style, scientifically incorrect, and contains cited sources that don't actually support the claims. (I was alerted to this by a non-editor friend of mine, who noticed the disruption they were causing.) They've also tried to label the institute as a radical group.

When their rants are removed, they no-comment revert, and they did not reply to a message previously left on their talk page. (Beauty School Dropout also reverted the removal once, but I believe that was a mistake during recent change patrol.) Although they don't have a lot of editing history, given their combative attitude and total lack of productive edits so far, I don't think they're editing in good faith nor likely to become a productive editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The insertion of unsourced original research about anything is essentially vandalism and should be treated as such. If they decline to engage in discussion and don't respond to this ANI ping, I see no reason why a topic ban shouldn't be imposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
No, stop that. The insertion of unsourced original research is NOT essentially vandalism. It's not even a little bit vandalism. It and vandalism don't occupy the same time zone. Vandalism is intent to harm Wikipedia. POV-pushing, unsourced, political rants may be sanctionable offenses, but please don't call them vandalism. In a sick, misguided, terrible way this person obviously thinks that they are helping Wikipedia by correcting what they perceive as errors. That's not vandalism. Now, saying that doesn't mean that what they are doing is OK, or should be allowed to continue. But please don't throw that word around willy-nilly. It has meaning, and when you use it incorrectly, it muddies the waters. Use precise language. --Jayron32 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree insofar as the behavior has continued, despite reverts and warnings. A single example of such behavior can be treated with good faith; this is now well beyond that point. The user in question has thus far entirely refused to engage in talk page discussion, has not listened to other editors attempting to explain why their edits are wrong, and by all appearances simply intends to keep doing what they're doing indefinitely unless stopped. That is, in my opinion, the behavior of a vandal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification Pi.1415926535. What I believed I had reverted was a page-blanking incident that I believe didn't even involve the parties in this case, and if I was wrong, I do apologize. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No kidding, I really want to urge people to stop using legal language like defendant and so on here. It leaves the wrong impression about how this place works. EEng 06:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, E. I was just trying to be polite, but I will gladly edit my post if that would be better. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ana Yancy Clavel article[edit]

this article is a joke. I put in the info to propose it for deletion. but how do I do that?


I am a new editor,so when I have questions where do I go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talkcontribs) 10:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You can ask questions how to use or edit Wikipedia at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk or at the Teahouse: Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)