Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

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

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

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

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

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

Break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 3

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

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

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

Film Fan and edit warring to restore synthesis

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

In January 2016, Film Fan (talk · contribs) was put under a voluntary 1RR restriction because of extensive edit warring. I don't know whether this is still binding, but it follows an indefinite block for edit warring in October 2013. About two weeks ago, in Peter Rabbit (film), Film Fan reverted me when I removed an unsourced country to the infobox (diff). After I warned him for this, he added a citation that labels one of the production companies as Australian – not the film itself. I explained on the talk page that this is synthesis that ignores the instructions in the template. The discussion went nowhere. On 19 November, Slightlymad asked me to intervene at BPM (Beats per Minute), where Film Fan was edit warring to restore what he believed to be synthesis. I said that due to my previous dispute with Film Fan, it would be best if I didn't get involved and suggested bringing the concerns here to ANI. Today, Lugnuts (talk · contribs) also asked me to intervene. Lugnuts raised the issue of sock puppetry, but I don't think there's any. I want to be clear that I have not run a checkuser, though. What I see is multiple experienced editors saying that something is synthesis (see this talk page discussion for a brief exchange and, unrelatedly, this archived discussion I started a while ago about the same issue). Film Fan once again brushed off their concerns and continued to edit war, while hypocritically telling others to use the talk page. He's already made three reverts in the past 24 hours at BPM (Beats per Minute), and he shows no sign of stopping. His contributions are similarly full of edit warring, including Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (1, 2), Mom and Dad (2017 film) (1, 2, 3), etc. I would recommend restoring the indefinite block for Film Fan because of a long history of disruptive edit warring despite the 1RR restriction, which was supposed to stop this behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I used the talk page. What are you supposed to do if other users refuse to? I thought the revert rule was stop and take it to the talk page, which I did. The edit was then made again weeks later, without any further addition to the conversation, which remains with the last two of my comments unanswered. I tried to direct the other user back to that conversation with no luck. Also, I did suggest the second user was a sock puppet, and I do believe that whether or not that's the case, there must be a link between them because I've never before come across an editor trying to claim that labelling a critically acclaimed film as "critically acclaimed" is somehow problematic. It's sourced, and there are many articles that correctly state that the subject is "critically acclaimed". Regardless of that, I engaged in a debate, or at least tried to. By the way, the nationality of the production companies of a film denote the nationality of the film.

That said, I admit I have been a little eager to jump the gun in recent weeks, and signs of my previous short temper have appeared again, which I'll unashamedly admit is due to being recently bereaved, but would like to point to my many useful edits, and the fact that until recent weeks, I went on a long run of good behavior (two years), which I can commit to returning to with a strong warning. That's the required wake-up call. I have a lot to offer the community. — Film Fan 15:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: do you know if that one revert restriction ever rescinded? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction was not rescinded and should still be in effect. I agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate that, based on the evidence here, the improvement that we looked forward to in January 2016 has not occurred. It's time to restore the original indef block. The user has been blocked 12 times, and as you see here the problem is continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a long time since the last block and I was good for most of that time. All I need is a warning and I can get on with doing my useful edits (mostly film poster uploads) without any problem. — Film Fan 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we do not jump straight to an indefinite block for one slight wobble, given Film Fan has demonstrated 23 months of perfectly productive and collegiate editing. Film Fan please consider this thread your warning, and just bear in mind if you're unhappy about a fine detail of a particular article that Wikipedia has over 5 million other articles, of which the majority will have many more things far more wrong with them. fish&karate 12:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's far from a "slight wobble" - since the last block there have been many violations of the 1RR, it's just that most people haven't bothered to raise them in any formal way. Even when they're done on the user's talkpage, they met with comments of "lol fuck off". Here's another talkpage warning from earlier in the year by admin Diannaa, which was reverted by FF. And another warning by an admin that was just reverted. Even while we're having this discussion, they're making multiple reverts on another poster! This is a net drain to the project to allow this nonsense to continue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not make multiple reverts on that poster. I reverted myself, and then reverted once. But thanks, Lugnuts, I knew you'd be supportive, as ever. For what it's worth, 80% of my blocks in years gone by would not have occurred if not for your invaluable input. — Film Fan 18:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"...and then reverted once." - To quote EdJohnston - "The 1RR restriction was not rescinded and should still be in effect." Looking at recent contributions, there's a slow-burning edit-war at Mom and Dad (2017 film), with you reverting one, two, three times. Another "slight blip"? And that's before I start to dig any deeper. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That information is all above. You've been trying to get my blocked for 5+ years because I outwitted you once. Move on. Letting go of little niggly annoyances is the healthiest thing for all involved. — Film Fan 14:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I see you now drop down to personal attacks. Sorry, I only deal in facts, not lies. Here's some more edit-warring from recent months that went un-noticed: The Blackcoat's Daughter from September - one, two, three. Miniseries from September - one, two. It (2017 film) from November - one, two. So these, plus all the examples given, above, show multiple instances of edit-warring and violations of the 1RR imposed by @EdJohnston:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You're such a lovely bloke. Always with the best of intentions. — Film Fan 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's some good perspective. And I realise it's not worth losing all editing privileges for the sake of one small problem in an article. — Film Fan 13:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support disciplinary action I only had a couple interactions with this user (from a long time ago) and he struck me as particularly hostile. Now I realize he had been blocked 12 times!!! (I didn't even think this was possible) and still wants another pass. We all lose our tempers sometimes, but we also got to man up for our actions. Wikipedia isn't kindergarten, you don't get 13th chances. Lugnuts' research above is particularly telling, and a quick glance at his talk page shows several insults or rude comments against User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:ScrapIronIV, User:TheMovieGuy, User:Yoshiman6464, User:Lugnuts, User:Max Tomos — all within the past year. Sorry, but I think it's clear his behaviors won't improve, at least not to the level required by WP:Collaborations. Yes, he does have positive contributions like uploading many "perfect" film posters but they pale in comparison with the time and morale wasted over him. Frankly he doesn't bother me much since we rarely edit the same article (I edit almost every day and never encountered him in the past year), but it'll be disappointing to me if WP takes no action against such behaviors. Just my 2 cents. Timmyshin (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reminding me, Timmyshin. I was attempting to discuss about the Your Name poster since he changed it to the English poster without prior discussion. At first, I attempted to change the poster back on 30 September, but then the edit was reverted the next day, with the comment “See Talk Page”. I quickly undid the edit and gave my comments on the main talk page. His reasoning for changing the was that “Wikipedia specifically recommends using English-language box art for video games, even if the games don't come from English-language countries” and that “There is no rule about what country the poster should come from”, even though WP:FilmPoster suggests to use the original theatrical poster. He eventually complied with using the original Japanese Poster. In addition, I also tried adding to the discussion on his talk page, but then he undid my edits, telling me to discuss on the film’s talk page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support disciplinary action My interaction with this dude was extremely hostile. We got into a war over the poster for Phantom Thread. I reverted his uploaded version of it (it was in extremely poor quality, basically a photograph of a new poster for the film) in favor of the previously released poster. I stated that once the new poster was made available in a reasonable quality, then it could update the previously released teaser poster, however, he kept reverting it back to the inferior quality version and then he slapped me with the threat of a block on my talk page! TheMovieGuy

Indeed. It's not just the constant edit-warring, but the hostility and tendentious editing that go hand-in-hand with this editor's modus operandi. There's yet another slow-burning edit war at Gore (film) with edits made by @Rusted AutoParts: simply reverted, saying use the talkpage, but when Rusted AutoParts asks direct questions to FF on multiple occasions, there is just silence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such edit war there, Lugnuts, and I have absolutely never been guilty of tendentious editing, but thanks once again for your marvellous effort. You are just super. — Film Fan 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t refer to it as an edit war either but Film Fan there was no established consensus for any wording. After a month I thought of another word to use that described both situations but you still reverted, pointing to the talk page, where I left you two messages asking why that went ignored. Rusted AutoParts 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And if the talk page is ignored by the other users, you have consensus by being the only voice, so go ahead and revert. And I'm done arguing a small point, and it's not an issue for this conversation anyway. Lugnuts is just desperate to have me blocked, for personal reasons. — Film Fan 19:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I find the edit war at File:Phantom Thread.png uneasy. "it is no less official than the first one. Give it up."? Instead of using your instinct and common sense of WP:BDR, you just went ahead reverted a bunch times. I'm not saying the other user wasn't at fault either. But I do have to agree with the other user. I don't know if ignoring BDR is a habit of Film Fan. Two years after the last block seems too long ago to go ahead and say that. I am also troubled about the hostility of their comments on their talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It is well established at this point that in recent weeks I have had something of a relapse, but many of my edits are very valuable, and no one is going to benefit from a block. I'm back on the right track now and and a warning is all I need. Thanks for everyone's contributions. — Film Fan 11:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring BDR is another one of FF's traits, along with his hostility and edit-warring, all mentioned above by multiple users. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked Film Fan for 48 hours. Please see my blocking rationale here, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The behavior I was blocked for was not what this thread was about, and not something that had ever been pointed out as problematic, and was in fact something I learned directly from Lugnuts. Using the original namespace for a file allows the file history to remain intact and be called upon at any time if required. As I mentioned on my own talk page, if you're telling me that using the original namespace for files doesn't matter (thus deleting any file history) then fine, but no one has ever told me that before. It's pretty unfair being blocked for something that didn't even have a warning attached. — Film Fan 11:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I don't want to drag this out any further, and contrary what FF may or may not believe, I don't want to kick a man when he's down. I strongly suggest that when the 48hr block expires that Film Fan adheres to a voluntary WP:0RR on all articles (with the exception of obvious vandalism) for 3 or maybe 6 months, before going back to the 1RR as mentioned above. If he is sincere about changing his ways, then this should not be an issue, otherwise it's back to longer, if not indef, blocks. I'd be grateful if someone who isn't involved, but can take time to just read through this thread, add that in the closing notes. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Somewhat off-topic tongue-in-cheek comment Reading this thread is what taught me of the existence of an upcoming Hollywood film adaptation of Peter Rabbit. I suddenly feel very depressed.

Significantly more serious comment I agree with Alex's action here. Restoring an indef block because, two years after its repeal, there was one violation of an essential unblock condition would be overdoing it. It doesn't appear, based on FF's comments here, that he has been causing endless disruption and violating every policy we have on a near-constant basis, and I've literally seen recipients of a WP:STANDARDOFFER get away with just that for months on end. That was probably an extreme case that wasn't addressed appropriately by the admin corps (partly because the user in question was being shielded by editing in one of those problematic topic areas where everyone violates all of our content policies and some even our conduct policies on a fairly regular basis), but carrot-before-stick approach definitely feels better here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Worse still, Peter Rabbit is being voice by James Corden. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and WP:OWN behavior

• Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been very persistent in replacing the images in this list with images they took, for example [2] and [3]. They have also been reverting other users' edits to the article without explanation, including readding information deemed unencyclopedic and removing citation needed tags without explanation. Attempts have been made to discuss on the article talk page and user's talk page, but the user has refused most attempts at discussion. There have been numerous 3RR violations, and two blocks were issued as well as a full protection of the article involved, but the edit warring has persisted. I'm requesting here that some sort of more extensive action be taken, whether it be an extended block or a topic ban. I have notified the user in question - meanwhile, pinging other users interested in the case: @Pi.1415926535, Mtattrain, and SportsFan007: – Train2104 (t • c) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

> Admittedly, the user in question has contributed positively in some ways, such as removing much trivial information and providing some reasonable images, but once he/she started replacing almost every image and reverting any edit that did not agree with his/her edits, the line was crossed. Mtattrain (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He just hit <SAVE>.

• Tell me again why we have fancrufty articles on every model of bus in a given city (including notations on specific individual buses that are out of service because e.g. they were in an accident), on individual but stops, and so on? We even have an editnotice for this kind of thing: {{railfan editnotice}}. EEng 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I created said editnotice in an attempt to stem the expansion of such content. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Not working, apparently. Do we have the technology to send a painful electric shock to these people when they hit <SAVE>? EEng 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

All electrical shocks aside, Olsen24 has shown no indication that they understand why they are being reverted, nor why much of the information they have been adding is trivial. I don't see them likely to suddenly start engaging productively, or stopping their habit of adding their own images. (I've dealt with a similar issue of vanity images on MBTA Bus, and that user also refuses to accept critiques of their photographs.)

Mtattrain, I think you need to calm down some, and you also need to think more about the relevance of the information you are adding. Lists such as these should be a high-level overview of a fleet. Production year, fuel type, total number of buses, and an indication of units saved in museum collections are appropriate for that. Powertrain details, daily updates of which buses are in service, and a listing of units removed from service due to accidents are not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dearchiving this as it has not been acted upon and the user's behavior continues. Forgive me if this is against ANI practice... – Train2104 (t • c) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support block per OWN and repeated refusal to get the point. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a long block is needed. But, I think that a block of about a week is needed, in addition to the implementation of a topic ban from bus-related articles if they edit war again in the next six months on bus articles. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Oops, forgot to read something. Anyways, I don't think a long block is needed; the only thing that is needed is a topic ban from buses, appealable in six months. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is about their uploading of grainy unneeded images, inability to communicate (even now, looking at their talk page they seem to be in denial about the quality of their images)) and editwarring. A block is needed here to stop this pattern of behaviour; past blocks have proven futile. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

> Pi.1415926535, I suppose that what I have been adding isn't needed, it is just very strange that such trivia is now being pointed. If administrator editors don't think of such information highly, though, I'll start removing the specific details. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> I guess I've been venting too much steam over Olsen24, admittedly. To be fair, however, as many users have been stating, the mentioned user hasn't been contributing the best content. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> Even with multiple (sometimes seemingly forceful) administrators warning user Olsen24, the user is failing to discuss on article talk pages. Someone should either let user Olsen24 know about the function of talk pages on articles, or take some other kind of action. Mtattrain (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Chas. Caltrop for the third time

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• First AN/I report (29 October 2017): [4]
• Second AN/I report (18 November 2017): [5]

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, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (The one time he did respond, it was to denigrate the intelligence of the person making the complaint. [11]. 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. [12] 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. [13] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A reply from Chas, Caltrop

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know.

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something sanctionable

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

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

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

Diffs of Chas edit warring, November

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

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

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3 (for blanking a section)

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

diff 4

diff 5

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

diff 6

Multiple reverts against Chas on the Leninism page:

diff 7

diff 8

Multiple reverts against Chas on the Bananana Republic page:

diff 9

diff 10

Reverts on the Newspeak page:

diff 11

Revert on the World Communism page:

diff 12.

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

diff 13

diff 14

diff 15

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

diff 16

diff 17

diff 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various infringements

On top of the previous diffs of edit warring

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

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

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

Diff Zzz complaining about Chas edit warring. No reply.

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

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

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

People trying to open discussions with Chas

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

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

Diff FreeKnowledgeCreator once again (different page). No reply

Diff MWAK on Chas' talk page. No reply.

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

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

Users complaining of lack of proper edit summaries (obfuscation)

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

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

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

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

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

• The editor does use edit summaries, as can be seen in his contributions: [14]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Diff Again, same user.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributory copyright infringement on Windows Media Center

• Windows Media Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 50.39.196.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello.

The editor from 50.39.196.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaged in contributory copyright infringement in Windows Media Center article. This user has created a section, euphemistically called "Unofficial Windows 10 Port", dedicated to assisting access to an illegitimately distributed copy of Windows Media Center and documenting its releases.

This is, of course, a violation of our Wikipedia:Copyrights policy and the United States laws:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. [...] Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [15]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

I have deleted this content (worth 18 kilobytes!) but revision supression and action against this warez distributor is still required.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar edits added by this user (and subsequently removed) at Windows Media Center Extender. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like every revision on Windows Media Center going back to August 31, 2016 may need to be revdel'd, along with an entire year's worth of revisions on the other articles, since nobody caught this until now. Well spotted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've revdeled the Windows Media Center edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan, Mendaliv, Eggishorn, and Codename Lisa: It's unclear whether all of the problematical edits have now been revdelled, or only those on the Windows Media Center article. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

On Windows Media Center Extender, 50.39.etc's edits from this one through this one are still visible in the page history and are similarly problematic to the ones previously revdell'ed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Colonies Chris

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

---

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

There has been a long-running tendency of this editor making a number of edits using a script, some of which are disputed. Specifically, the practice of removing State/province after city even in cases where City, State is used for consistency (like tables and infoboxes in basketball and other sport-related articles see example here). He cites WP:USPLACE as the basis for these edits, but that section does not address dropping “State” except in the case of naming articles. For sport articles, keeping State intact does serve a purposes for the reader. In addition to adopting a consistent format that makes infoboxes scannable, use of State in college recruiting tables allows a reader to discern how national or regional a school’s recruiting base. A basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table. My issue with this user is that he applies these changes with minimal policy backing, against existing consensus, and as yet to isten to the several editors who ave objected. I have been involved in discussions at least back to July 2016, then again in October of that year. The editor stopped this behavior, but then started up again recently. The editor never listens to objections, despite multiple editors expressing similar concerns, so I feel like ANI is the last resort. I was warned that this editor does listen or change behavior, but I have tried to discuss directly at each instance. I would like this editor to stop removing State after city in sport infoboxes and tables. One of the issues is this editor edits via script, so he may make multiple changes with one click. It is undue burden for editors like me to sort through all of these changes to revert the one area in question - he can remove it from his script. Worth noting that other editors have a similar concern about this editor converting State/province abbreviations to full names in tables, but I do not have a strong opinion on this. At issue, though, is the same type of response - not listening and “enforcing” non-existing (or open to interpretation) policy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, for US places article titling conventions generally control how cities are referred to in articles -- see MOS:PN#Place_names. Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate. I'll also say, however (stimulated by one of the diffs you supplied) I'm pretty sure we almost never use the two-digit postal abbreviations for states (e.g. CA) but rather the older-style abbreviations instead (e.g. Calif.), where abbreviation is warranted; but I don't recall if that's said anywhere or just implicit in MOS:PN combined with WP:USPLACE. [Later: Well, see MOS:POSTABBR ]. EEng 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

...my observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

USPLACE most certainly does not mandate ALWAYS dropping State after major cities. The right move would be to try and change/clarify the guideline if one is passionate that this SHOULD be the case. What would not be the right move is to bludgeon 100s of articles with your interpretation of how the guidance should be applied in the face of multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the guidance over the course of years. Sports projects have the leeway to include State for major city in tables/infoboxes for consistency and scannability (I leave it alone in prose). Let’s focus on the editor behavior here. Rikster2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, upon review, MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers. “New York” vs. “Nueva York” is addressed, but “Cincinnati” vs. “Cincinnati, Ohio” is not and both Cincinnati variants are correct via language or history. It also doesn’t address tables or infoboxes where internal consistency may be desired. I don’t see the value to the reader to drop the State from 3 out of 35 entries in a college sports schedule, just because an article is named “Minneapolis” instead of “Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nobody said anything about "mandating", so calm down.
• As for "MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers": No, what MOS:PN#Place_names says is In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which in turn gives detailed guidelines on when to use modifiers, and which. As for tables and infoboxes, I already said, "Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate", so again – calm down. Given that someone's now pointed us to MOS:POSTABBR, that leaves the question, when abbreviation is warranted as in an infobox, of whether the two-letter modern postal abbreviations should be used e.g. CA versus the older Calif. and so on; for non-US readers the latter gives them at least a fighting chance of figuring out what's what. But that's just off the top of my head.

EEng 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am calm, and you should be too. I am not even contesting the use of abbreviations, as I said in the first statement. I merely said that others have contested this and have experienced the same editor behavior in response. the ANI is about how a user responds/behaves to content and guideline differences of opinion. It’s doubtful we are going to set/clarify guidelines in this discussion. The point is that there is not clear line that this user is correct, so it’s inappropriate to cast it that way. How we come to agreements about gray areas in guidance is a central part of how Wikipedia operates. If I just wanted to debate and clarify policy this isn’t where I would have taken it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• You said he is doing this via script? WP:BOTPOL should apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• First, to clarify what I'm actually doing. I make a lot of minor gnoming edits, and among those - not on their own but as part of a larger package of changes - I also expand US state abbreviations (in line with the MOS at MOS:POSTABBR) and remove the state where the city is well-known, according to the AP convention described at WP:USPLACE, which is used widely within WP. A reader gains nothing from the non-news that New York City is in New York State, or that Los Angeles is in California. I find the argument about visual inconsistency in a table pretty unconvincing - is a reader really going to find their understanding disrupted by the omission of the state from cities known worldwide like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Chicago? Nor am I convinced by the argument that 'a basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table' - how many readers can locate relevant cities without reference to a map? And a trip from one side of a state to another can be far longer than to a neighbouring city in another state. In summary, Rikster2 may say I don't listen to objections - what that really means is that he and I have different opinions and I don't choose to stop making improvements simply because he doesn't like them. That said, I do generally try to avoid basketball-related articles, simply to avoid this sort of hassle. (In contrast, I've made a large number of similar changes to football-related articles - a question about whether this was acceptable was raised; only one editor seriously objected but gained no support from other editors). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• well, not really an “I don’t like it” case. More of a “I expect if someone is mass-implementing changes that they will stop doing so once a difference of opinion is raised about a non-consensus set of edits” thing. I am not the only editor who has talked to you about this issue over time and, as I pointed out to you in October, you never stopped making the edits in question long enough to have a discussion before continuing to move forward. Per WP:CYCLE, my typical experience has been that an editor would pause in the disputed editing to have the discussion and Drive to some sort of agreement. You never have done this. Also, while I question if ANI is the place to talk policy, there is no question that your propensity to remove State is not clearly in WP:USPLACE today. There is a reasonable discussion to be had as to if State should always be removed, but pushing through edits is not furthering it. I never said a reader can’t figure out Cleveland is in Ohio, but removing it from a list slows down the scannability of those tables. And, yes, states are important to college athletics - coaches are evaluated by how well they recruit their home state (which is harder to scan for the reader if removed from some). Just because YOU don’t think they are needed doesn’t mean there isn’t value for including State in some cases (like tables and infoboxes). Also, in my opinion, consistency of like pages matters for aetsthetics and general reading of like pages. Regardless, you act like there is a bright line guideline that you are enforcing where this is not the case and I am not the only editor to call you on it. Also, I hadn’t thought about it but User:Only in death is right about WP:BOTPOL. At that guideline it clearly states that part of the criteria in using scripts/bots is that edits being driven should only be performing tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus to remove State in every instance. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That is worth discussing for schedule tables. Now I have a suggestion for you - just take the removal of State out of your script. It’s not a change for which there is clear consensus, has been disputed, and if you remove it you are making edits for which it seems like you have better backing from a policy perspective (like full State name vs. abbreviation). Would solve 90% of the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The same behavior can be seen at American football and ice hockey pages. Nobody is against removing the state in the text ("New York City" instead of "New York City, New York"), but tables and infoboxes are a completely different story. This has been objected not once and not twice, but Colonies Chris just ignores it. We list "City, State" for consistency reasons, and it should stay that way. It is very strange and not consistent when you see "Toronto" in one column, while other columns list "Toronto, Ontario", and people that are not editing Wikipedia might get confused and either remove the state from every instance containing it or re-add it. Furthermore, sometimes the bot he is using makes wrong edits. Such as, "GA" stands for "Goals against" on ice hockey's pages, but his bot corrects it to "Georgia", which is nowhere near the intended meaning. As for "If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables" – some tables are already huge so we do not need another column to make it even more problematic, and that is why some tables contain abbreviations. However, I do not really care about the removal of states' abbreviations, but common sense should be there when removing them. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• • RE; inappropriate conversion of GA; when this happened, did you notify me about it? (No, you didn't.) If you had done so, three things would have happened (a) I would have fixed it (b) I would have apologised (c) I would have fixed my script. But since you didn't bother to notify me (just stored it up for later use against me, it seems) none of those things happened. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have had a quickish look at their contribution history and it appears it does fall under BOTPOL due to the automated nature of the edits. Which requires consensus *before* making these edits by automation. Since I havnt seen any such consensus anywhere, I am going to page an experienced BAG member to take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was archived with no administrator action or moderation. Now that the discussion was archived, the editor is back at it (note the removal of “Indiana” from “Indianapolis, Indiana”). And also, another editor has voiced concern with the practice. We need a call here. Should the script have to take out the provision removing State as has been suggested? Rikster2 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• In previous comments, you have claimed that the state is important because of tabular consistency - but none of the changes I made in the article you link to were related to tables. You have also complained that you need the state to judge coaches' performance in recruiting home state players - but none of my changes concerned that either. Fine, bring in an admin if you like. I made about 65 improvements to that page, of which 6 involved removing the state on major cities - all entirely in accordance with guidelines, as I've described above. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing State after city is NOT MOS and there is NOT consensus to remove it in all cases. As has been pointed out, WP:BOTPOL applies and this should not be in your script. Also, I find it interesting that you waited until this discussion was archived to start running this script again after sitting out for awhile. What’s behind that? I want an admin to weigh in - you and I have gone as far as we are going to on this issue. Rikster2 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, don’t pretend like some of the edits don’t deal with exactly the issue I was talking about. But the point is internal consistency (within an article or across like articles) of templates and infoboxes is certainly something that has value to many. I am frankly not concerned if I revert a number of edits I don’t disagree with in the process of reverting edits that we have discussed time and time and time again. Why is my time less valuable than yours? It takes me twice as much time to revert only the edits in dispute when you are able to just remove the disputed changes from your script (and you should). Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As I am the editor that most recently raised the concern on their talk page, I think Rikster2 has a point. It is not necessarily the fact that Colonies Chris is using the bot, but it is that they dispute when people question their use of it and sometimes seems to have a bit of a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude about it. ("My edits reflect agreed community guidelines. I don't need to provide further justification. You need to have a clear reason for overriding those - so far, all I've seen is an appeal to 'consistency' and nothing to explain how this consistency is any help to our readers. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)" in response to other editors disagreeing with the removal to consistency in a table.) While most of their edits are great, I also think the bot should be subject to review. As I pointed out in This edit, the bot arguably made the league member table visibly worse, leaving all different styles of naming. There is no guideline about place names specifically for usage in list tables and infoboxes, except for where projects have agreed upon one, that I know of. Specifically for tables, I feel WP:NORULES should apply and just use common sense as most editors prefer the consistency in the tables. As pointed multiple times by multiple parties, I think we are just asking for a little more cooperation and less condescending reactions (calling our criticism "petty harassment") from Colonies Chris. Yosemiter (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rikster, have you opened a discussion at an article or project talk page about this? ANI seems premature. And some of your reverts are quite puzzling, like this one where you edit summary misrepresents the change and moves back toward the less-preferred postal codes. Perhaps you can find a case where your version is defensibly better in some respect, and put the discussion there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, over a year ago (in addition to the multiple times I have addressed this with the editor in question directly, links to at least three of these comments going back about 18 months are in the first statement). Also, the template documentation (example) shows City, State as preferred for basketball templates and infoboxes. However, I am not the person trying to force non-consensus edits using a script (which sounds like it goes against WP:BOTPOL) - it feels like the person who wants to add this to a script involving a number of other more non-controversial edits is the one who needs to Drive a consensus before doing so. Chris has never tried to start an article/policy conversation on this topic and in my opinion hasn’t undertaken a conversation on the matter in good faith even when brought to his talk page (did not stop making the same types of edits when called on it, even long enough to have a discussion). As for my edits - I didn’t at all misrepresent the edit. I said the removal of State wasn’t consensus or MOS and that he should fix his script and try again. The time/effort to pick through his script’s edits to fix the one piece that doesn’t have consensus should not be pushed to users like me just because someone is too lazy or stubborn to take the controversial item out and instead plows on. After 18 months, ANI is not at all premature. Rikster2 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2 What do you expect to happen in this ANI case? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already made the suggestion that Colonies Chris should be compelled to remove the part of his script that removes State from his script per WP:BOTPOL, as this is an edit type that does not reflect consensus and has been disputed many times by many editors. Rikster2 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Youy do realise that you have accused me of both continuing to make edit despite your objections, and - as if I had some sinister plan - stopping making edits while it was under discussion here! Yes, I paused making those edits while this discussion was live. But when it ended up archived without reaching any conclusion, I resumed. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know about a sinister plan, but it is demonstrably true that you have continued to make these sorts of edits despite my (and other editors’) objections over many months. And you just said yourself that you stopped editing then resumed when this ANI was archived by a bot after 72 hours without comment. Is there a complaint in there somewhere? Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AWBRULES states: "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. @Colonies Chris: Please demonstrate that consensus exists for any further removal of states from tables and infoboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is already a consensus, as evidenced by MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE and MOS:PN#Place_names. The fact that some editors chhoose not to accept that consensus doesn't invalidate it. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

POSTABBR is irrelevant as no one in this discussion is disputing use of full State name vs. abbreviation. The other two guidelines do NOT indicate consensus that State is dropped in all cases, including tables, templates and infoboxes were consistency is desired. This is like saying that “Bill Clinton” can never be referred to as “William Jefferson Clinton” in a list because the article is called “Bill.” If a template or list has a CIty, State format there is nothing in those guidelines that mandates (or even explicitly suggests) dropping State for the handful of cities that don’t list it in their article title. If you want the guideline to explicitly call this out, then the burden is on you to facilitate that discussion before plowing forward with hundreds of articles. You have made a significant assumption about what is and is not consensus here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which includes WP:USPLACE, states: "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus." Moreover, WP:PG reads: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." As multiple editors have given similar good-faith rationales to keep the states, the WP:AWBRULES policy places the onus on you, the AWB operator, to gain broader consensus to follow the guideline for this case and disallow the "common sense" exception. What is the urgency to bypass policy to force an MOS change via automation? If there is consensus, the changes you desire will happen soon enough.—Bagumba (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: If an editor manually turned a table with a cities column from this:

City
Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, NC
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA

to this:

City
Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, North Carolina
New York City
Philadelphia

on a highly viewed page such as the National Hockey League it would have been reverted in an instant. Your bot is making questionable stylistic edits to tables and infoboxes, while also making the good edits in prose. No one is arguing against POSTABBR. We are simply asking you to review your bot's edits because as seen in the above table, it is considered unacceptable by consensus. It is therefore creating more work for other editors because then we have to through and cleanup after your bot (much of which has fallen on Rikster2's interests, hence their frustration). Yosemiter (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into the NHL page that you complain of; it wasn't at first clear to me how some inconsistencies arose (e.g. "Buffalo, NY" on one line, but just a couple of lines below, "Sunrise, Florida", expanded from "Sunrise, FL". Then I realised that the source of the problem was the already-present inconsistency; the first was encoded as "[[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|NY]]" (two separate links, disregarding the advice at MOS:LINKSTYLE "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link") The example you provide above has the same internal inconsistency. So you're complaining that my actions have made visible your inconsistency and disregard of good practice. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yosemiter appeared to be saying that your edits took a consistent format of using state postal codes and converted it to use a mix of postal codes (Buffalo, NY), fully expanded state names (Raleigh, North Carolina), and no state names at all (New York City). And you seem to be saying that your scripts were limited to producing garbage in, garbage out.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct, I was trying to point out your script, while correctly trying to fix POSTABBR, took NOTBROKEN and consistent links and a typically understandable format, and made it an ugly hodgepodge styles (I pointed out the four different versions that ended up on the page instead of 31, I know about the Sunrise expansion, I just used the Raleigh example instead). It was NOT inconsistent before, so not "already-present" (they all had the "improper" format you point out). It was something that could easily have been fixed, by you, if you actually reviewed your bot's edits (something that I ended up doing while keep it consistent and not using abbreviations). Yet you continue to argue that your bot is just fine and perfect. My complaint is that you are causing other editors to clean up after YOUR bot instead of just realizing and accepting that there is an issue. Yosemiter (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, cutting through all of the above: the "bot" Colonies Chris is running is AutoWikiBrowser. And WP:AWB rule number three states:

Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale.

• Q.E.D., these edits are controversial, and, therefore, according to the AWB terms of use, must be stopped until a consensus to make them is established, and by 'them' that is 'these specific edits, by Colonies Chris, using AWB' - i.e. the claims by Colonies Chris that "MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE, and MOS:PN#Place_names" give him consensus are not sufficient for these automated edits to continue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with The Bushranger. Chris is no doubt acting in good faith but depending on AWB to get the job done is a bad idea. I've seen errors on numerous occasions, and I've seen controversial edits, on numerous occasions discussed on his talk page. I would go with The Bushranger, and perhaps currently limit Chris' AWB use to simple format fixes, typos etc, and not changing wikilinks etc for the time being. Whether Chris should then be allowed to use AWB going forward is another discussion. But to solve the current issue (which is recurrent) we should limit Chris' AWB scripts to nominal and completely uncontroversial changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• So, where are we with this? - Since Bushranger had his “admin hall ht” on with his comments is taking state removal out of the script the verdict here? I’m not going to let this fall off the page without resolution until there is closure, so I have to ask. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It was in fact my intent to make that a resolution of the issue - I left it open to allow Chris to respond; he chose not to, so I'm going to go ahead and "properly" close this now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with The Bushranger and The Rambling Man. These are controversial edits and should not be done with AWB. As for what happens next, someone will have to close this at some point and document the consensus - for the moment, I think that just requires waiting (and keeping the section open to prevent premature archiving). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• More: Expanding state abbrev w/o consensus Chris also continues to expand state abbreviations despite objections raised earlier to them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_College_football#Schedule_tables:_State_Abbreviations_vs_spelled_out. MOS:ABBR allows for abbreviations in tables, but Chris feels they can use their own judgement and continue with the disputed changes on AWB. They need to understand that tables can be treated differently from body text, and the AWB operator is responsibile for establishing consensus when there is a dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Failure to comply with WP:CITEVAR at Yugoslav coup d'état

• Yugoslav coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:CITEVAR

The subject article was promoted to GA in 2013 and has been pretty stable until November. For a number of years it has used the sfn template ({{sfn|Bloggs|2018|p=12}}) for citations, ie shortened footnotes linking to the full citation in the References section. On 24 November, User:Axxxion began to edit the article, adding material, apparently from a reliable source, and initially using the sfn template (see these edits). There was some argy-bargy over their changes to the article outside of the new material. Axxxion then began adding further information, some from at least one unreliable source but others that appear to be reliable, but now using the bare reference system (<ref></ref>) for citations (see here and here). I objected to this on the basis that the citation style has been established for this article, and Axxxion has failed to use it and therefore to comply with WP:CITEVAR. I believe it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to make the edits to do so in accordance with the existing citation style used in the article in question. I also believe it should not be my job to find the full details of the sources he wishes to use and then to create short and long citations using the correct style. I moved the new material and citations to the talk page of the article so that Axxxion could work on them there to bring them into line with the citation style already in use in the article, but he continues to reinsert them over my objections. I have even offered (here) to demonstrate how to do it using one of the citations he wishes to use, but my offer has been rebuffed. As it is turning into an edit war, I have asked for full protection of the article for a week so this issue can be resolved. I seek a consensus decision on this matter from uninvolved admins and experienced editors. I have advised Axxxion of this thread (here). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh sheesh. Adding valid encylopedic info to articles is far more important to the project than farting around with those templates. If the references are sufficient for human readers to find the sources, we're doing our job writing an encyclopedia even if we're not providing enough unpaid labor to satisfy the scraping companies. You don't have any responsibility to add the templates and it's fine to leave that task for editors who like doing that sort of thing. If nobody else wants to do it either, that tells me the templates are more trouble than they're worth.

I don't believe that the GA status of the article is in any way imperiled by the citation styles being inconsistent. Can you imagine a GA review decertifying the article over something like that? At worst someone who cares about the damn templates would fix them. As someone who doesn't care about templates, I'm perfectly satisfied if it never gets done. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:GACR: "Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style." (emphasis mine). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken this to dispute resolution, @Peacemaker67:? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, yeah, I understand that a perfect editor would add good content and format their citations in a consistent style, but we tolerate imperfection in this project. I'm much happier with an editor contributing good content with inconsistently styled citations, than one who gets all their templates formatted perfectly but doesn't contribute any useful content. My guess is that taking the matter to dispute resolution won't improve the situation and will probably make it worse. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, I have a fair amount of experience with various forms of DR, and essentially I did not think any form of DR would be useful here, largely due to the interaction I've already had with Axxxion on the page and his talk page. I would add that I have reviewed over 175 GAs, and I have always applied the standard that inline citations should use a consistent style. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how protecting the article will help either. I really just wouldn't worry about this. If you feel strongly enough about the missing templates to be willing to fix them, then fix them. If not, just leave the mixed style alone and maybe someone else will fix it later. I'd only escalate or protect the page if someone adds the templates and Axxion edit wars to take them back out. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, every one here. I find it quite indicative that some people on this thread are condemning arbitrary action in the article in question by Peacemaker doing so anonymously. Apparently they feel potentially intimidated by this admin. Fortunately, we are not here in Russ Wiki, where even such discussion, as I know very well from my experience, would be unthinkable. I believe his stance is obviously ridiculous and his action is so obviously disruptive and unproductive, that i only have to thank him for initiating this thread.Axxxion (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, I do not mind Peacemaker (or any one else) making references consistent in style as he sees appropriate, but clearly that is not what he wants. He just massively deletes perfectly legitimate sourced material (in the last round of deletions he deleted the whole section completely - [16]). The impression one gets is that such edits seek to achieve one′s ownership of the article and keep it intact from any one else′s edits, apparently using it as a fetish to boost one′s traumatised ego.Axxxion (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of the above said, I see it imperative that @Peacemaker67: should be barred from editing this article. And his administrator′s status should be reviewed as well.Axxxion (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, Peacemaker offered you help formatting the references here and you didn't take it. Why? Peacemaker has a great deal of experience writing high-quality content, and exposure to their editing techniques can only help you improve your own skills. I simply don't understand why you wouldn't take advantage of their knowledge. Also, I highly doubt they will receive either a topic ban or have their admin tools removed as a result of this one report, so proposing that won't help your case. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, he is welcome to fix the problem if he sees one -- I don′t. I do see a problem with his obvious finding some fault or other with my edits: look at the preceding deletions there by him: quite obvious he does not like the material itself, and just looking for a pretext.Axxxion (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• If I may: The sudden insistence on sfn templates, especially in GAs and FAs and by those who seek to improve articles to those levels, is a real barrier to content improvement. It's caused me to walk away from more than one article I could have improved. Those templates are impenetrable, and even more than the older citation templates (which are used in their "harv" variant for the citation definitions), they produce an output that is just odd to many of us in the humanities. That said, Axxxion was in the wrong here in giving up on using the established format in a GA, and in this pair of refs they added: <ref name="kommersblack">[http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2297059 „Черная рука" в Кремле (Black Hand in Kremlin)], Игор Бухаркин, Комменсарть, 21.05.2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.promacedonia.org/en/kms/5.html Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu]</ref> the first is a complete citation, but the second lacks necessary information. Peacemaker67 should have gritted their teeth and either formatted the citations to match, or left the article for a few days to see whether some wikignome would come along to do so, rather than removing what they admit are valid edits. The IP is right, the citation format is subordinate to content, even in a GA. NODEADLINE applies, although it's best not to leave the article with a mixed citation style for too long. But Axxxion didn't give sufficient information in one of those references, and that's imposing an unjustifiable burden on other editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks indeed for raising pertinent issues: quite frankly it is all beyond my ken and i just do not want to waste time on fixing a problem that does not really exist (See also my post just above). AND - Yes, ″this pair of refs they added″ - in fact three, which long pre-date my edits: that did not trouble Peacemaker until now: See ″Development of the coup″ section, a cluster of refs at end of 2nd para.Axxxion (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Another peanut gallery comment: If the edits are well-supported with verifiable sources and otherwise comply with WP:CCPOL, then complaints about how those sources are cited strikes me as navel-gazing concern with process over product. The reference to WP:CITEVAR in the OP here is also a bit of a double-edged sword: ...editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. The preference for a consistent citation style is merely that, a preference. Removing inconsistent cites and insisting on their being fixed to the remover's satisfaction is arguably more disruptive than putting them in in the first place. The assumption that DR processes will be non-fruitful before even trying them equally short-sighted. All in all, this complaint does not seem ripe for ANI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Apart from the additions at this particular article, I must say that I'm concerned about some of what I'm seeing from Axxxion. Above the comment I referenced earlier, they put "apparently using it as a fetish to boost one's traumatised ego", in reference to Peacemaker. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but I find this commentary completely unnecessary and over the line. When they say to comment on content, not the contributor, this is exactly what they are talking about. And then they call for Peacemaker to be topic-banned and possibly desysopped? After seeing that, I must say that I wouldn't blame Peacemaker if they didn't want to collaborate with somebody criticizing them like this. In addition, I don't understand why Axxxion would say "Sleep well and have nice dreams" to Peacemaker on the talk page of the article in question, or why they would use the phrase "beyond my ken" here (perhaps in response to this?). It would be great if someone could (at a minimum) warn Axxxion against making personal attacks and urge them to work in a more collegial manner. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with this and would ask that Axxxion avoid personalizing the issue, per Giants2008. But I'd also urge Peacemaker to relax about the formatting. To the extent possible we should edit with a song in our heart, rather than gritting our teeth (subject ourselves to wikistress). If an inconsequential thing like this gets you stressed, it's easiest to just leave it alone. The project won't die from it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Clicking the "index" link at the bottom of the "Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu" (The black hand strikes) page shows that it's a section of the 1959 book "Der König muss sterben" (the King must die) by Themistokles Papasissis, Berlin: Heinrich Bär, o.J.). Web search finds many references to this book, which is about the 1934 assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia. So maybe the footnote could be improved by mentioning the book explicitly, but it wasn't much of a mystery so imho the citation is mostly ok and wp:sofixit suffices. Fwiw, there appears to be an English edition of the book,[17] that might be useful for the article. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

By way of clarification: all those three refs at the end of the sentence containing mention of the Black Hand had been added long before I began editing that article and those refs did not cause any objections on the part of Peacemaker THEN (as can be seen from the diff i quoted above). I personally think that the mention of Black Hand is a bit contrived here and would rather have it deleted; but the link to Kommersant article contains valuable info on Simovich staying in Moscow for a fortnight shortly before the coup, which should be kept. Apropos my being personal, I actually tried to be impersonal by employing the pronoun ″one′s″ (if one reads my posts carefully). The feeling I referred to is understandable and common to many and perhaps all of us, who created an article and invested much of time and effort into it. But I do suggest that Peacemaker may have been personal in his attitude, as how else would one explain his raising this issue (that pre-dates my edits in the article) only after I began editing? The first minor incident we had was in the Russian Protective Corps article that contained an obvious factual mistake (about Shteifon′s death - See TalkPage there), while the source cited said sth entirely different. After some initial squabbling, the dispute there was settled in a reasonable manner. But already then, I got impression that Peacemaker tends to present a GA status of an article as an infallibility certificate, whereas quite clearly no one took the trouble (when vetting the article) to check the baseline facts. Axxxion (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Behavioral issues aside, I agree with Yngvadottir, the use of sfn can be offputting to an editor who wishes to either add new content or in particular copy sourced material from an article that doesn't use sfn to one that does. It isn't easy to do and I also have just given up at in the past as I simply didn't have time. Being more or less required for GA or FA is an imposition on the average editor who relies on the citation templates in the toolbar. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • While I can't speak for FAC, for 'tis an undiscovered country from which no traveler returns, if people are requiring these to pass GANs then {{trout}}s need to start being handed out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I see absolutely no problem with editors adding valid information to an article in which sfn is the current consistent referencing style, but not using sfn to reference the new information. As others have said above, as long as the ref is a valid one, and shows up in the notes, it's all good. I also see no problem with other editors taking that reference and converting it to sfn in order to maintain the consistent style, whether they're doing so for a GA or an FA or not. Like the Bushranger, I don't believe that sfn should be required to pass those standards, although a consistent style of any kind would be good. (And to note: I do not find the sfn style difficult to understand or use.)
      I have a particular referencing preference which seems natural to me, but I try to use sfn or cite templates if those seem to be consistently used throughout an article I'm editing - other referencing styles I'm not so familiar with. But, again, it's the content that matters, and the existence of a reference, not so much how it is expressed. (Except that I cordially dislike in-line external links, although I do use them occasionally, depending on circumstances) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:ELPOINTS #2 applies to those. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where the idea that sfn is required for FAC came in. There is no requirement for any citation style at FAC other than it be consistent within the article. None of the FAs I've worked on use sfn - they all use a system normally found in history texts. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Ealdgyth is right, everyone. None of the content processes even require citation templates. If you can format references well without the templates, more power to you. However, we do expect the citations to be formatted consistently, and that complete information be provided. Several of the references in the disputed content don't even have publishers listed. I can't speak to how GAN would handle such formatting, but the article wouldn't be able to pass FAC in that state. Reviewers would probably recommend that the references be converted to sfn, but only for the sake of consistency. If sfn wasn't being using, the reviewers wouldn't insist on it, and even if one did it wouldn't be actionable. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks you two for clearing that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
        • For clarity, I have never suggested that it is a requirement to use sfn at any class of article, only that articles should use just one style per CITEVAR and other policy/guidelines like MOS:FNNR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

COMMENT/REQUEST: As a matter of fact, I sought to use and did use the sfn style in that article and others for citations of books such as one by Sudoplatov -- I actually find it convenient for refs to books; but I fail to get my head around how it could be handled for refs to newspapers, etc. Likewise, I fail to understand how combining different styles impairs the quality of an article. Obviously, it is a case of mere nit-picking over WP legalisms.Axxxion (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pls dont delete knowledge for our readers simply base on ref style as its not a valid reason WP:DEL-REASON.....fix it WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. ".--Moxy (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed with the comments here. The disregard of the need for clear and consistent referencing standards in our better articles is gob-smacking to me. The referencing by Axxxion is shabby at best, but it appears that I am expected to spend a considerable period of time "fixing it" or just ignore it and hope someone else does (clearly not Axxxion, who is clearly too busy to do it properly in the first place). That's of course assuming the sources are actually reliable and that I can even work out what they are, in a couple of cases given that they are in Russian Cyrillic with no translations or link provided. How anyone thinks that's acceptable is beyond me. But I clearly on my own here, so I withdraw. I look forward to the next article on my watchlist that Axxxion decides to "improve". Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather gobsmacked myself that an administrator, having previously demonstrated to the community that they have the trust of the community in their good judgment and excellent knowledge of the rules, is reacting so poorly to the community's expression of doubt in their position. Where is anyone saying that you, personally, are expected to fix it, for example? The references to WP:SOFIXIT and related guidelines/essays say nothing more than it is generally accepted that removing verifiable information over a personal preference for consistency in something 99% of readers never see or use is a poor solution. You may choose to do some extra work or you may choose to ignore it as you see fit. Attempting to ANI some-one into compliance with your preferences, however, is probably the worst approach short of taking them to ArbCom. Why do I care? Because I patrol edit requests often and I will therefore often add information to semi-protected or edit-confirmed protected pages that are at least as "stable" as the article in the OP and I nearly always use the citation toolbar to cite sources. No-one has ever raised the suggestion that this citation inconsistency is worthy of so much as a passing comment, never mind attempted discipline. One or two have been converted after I added them but no fuss was raised. Why should Axxiom's edits be any different? Yes, they have reacted confrontationally and even uncivilly to these questions but they can very justifiably feel that they weren't doing anything wrong in the first place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I'm 100% with you on this one. I've dealt with editors who have tried to change citations in articles with longstanding, stable citation formats, in violation of WP:CITEVAR / WP:CITESTYLE, even after repeatedly being advised about the policy. The small handful of disruptive editors who persist in trying to make changes -- simply because it's their preferred format or they've seen their preferred style used in some other article -- are accomplishing nothing other than creating problems. What's happening here is an unfortunate example of this widespread problem.

If an editor is unaware of CITEVAR / CITESTYLE, I understand and I'll make the fixes; once the editor is familiar with policy and ignores it, then it's on them, especially where the editor actively works to needlessly change a stable style to impose their preference. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Alansohn, maybe you can clarify with a diff, but I haven't seen any claim in this thread so far that Axxxion has changed the style of any existing citation in the article. The claim I see is that Axxxion added new citations that weren't in the same format as the old ones, and explicitly said it was fine if someone wanted to adjust the new ones so they'd match. And I see at least two good editors saying that sfn templates are hard to use and that the citation toolbar thingy doesn't generate them, making them nothing but an annoying obstacle from a pure content perspective.

So it's understandable to me if someone contributing encyclopedic info isn't also willing to jump through technical hoops to satisfy the desires of metadata or MOS fetishists. I'd say there's only an actionable conflict if someone updates Axxxion's new citations to use sfn and then Axxxion changes them back. Otherwise, it sounds like you're free to update them or leave them alone as you see fit. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The comments about sfn being hard to use are utter nonsense. It is simple and clean, far better than bare refs, eliminates duplicate refs etc etc. For Eggishorn, I came here to get a view from admins and experienced editors about this issue, not to have Axxxion disciplined. At no stage have I suggested any such action. If you are going to have a crack, get your facts right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are 2 editors above who said they had walked away from contributing to affected articles because they didn't want to deal with sfn, and another (the person you opened the thread about) who goes ahead and contributes without using sfn (resulting in an ANI), so it's evident that not everyone perceives sfn the same way you do. Also there's apparently a toolbar pushbutton thing which(?) gets rid of the need to manually edit templates at all, but it doesn't do sfn. So if the toolbar's motivation (that people find templates complicated) is correct, then there's a huge difference between the toolbar and sfn.

Anyway, in the real world, good and bad things are said about wikipedia. Good things about its depth and completeness; bad things about mistakes in articles, conflicts between editors, etc. Nobody out there cares or even notices if the citations in an article don't all use the same format. So I still think the best approach is is to just relax, think of such inconsistencies as variety rather than as something that causes pain, etc. Fix it if you feel like doing so but it's not an obligation and it's not even slightly important: it ranks below an inconsequential but visible spelling error in my opinion. When I see spelling errors, sometimes I fix them and sometimes I don't bother. The project survives either way. That seems like a perfectly good approach to this citation formatting stuff as well. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Added: You asked for the page to be protected, and the idea of such protection is to prevent Axxxion from editing it until he or she is persuaded or coerced into using the sfn template, so that sounds to me like obstructing a productive editor. I'd oppose any such protection: rather, just treat sfn as optional. Use it if you want, otherwise don't. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

173 whatever. I asked for it to be protected so I could get a view here and stop the edit war while I did that. I think that was fair enough, you may disagree. I have already twice asked for the protecting admin to unprotect it so I can re-instate Axxxion's edits, per the consensus here that I am in the minority. That shows that I accept the community view, which I sought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: As long as the editor has not changed any pre-existing citations, they are free to use whatever citation style for their newly added citations as they please, even bare urls. If someone then wants to take the trouble conform those new citations to sfn or whatever, that's fine, but there is no stricture on how new citations must be formatted. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• That is clearly in conflict with CITEVAR. What is your policy basis for that opinion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, it is not. If you believe it is, please provide an exact quotation from the guideline. Wikipedia does not dictate how any editor adds a citation; in fact, most people add bare urls. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Have you even read it? "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Should, not must. The main point of WP:CITEVAR (which is a guideline, not a policy) is "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style" (emphasis mine); as long as an editor is not forcing their preferred style on pre-existing citations, they can be assumed to be acting in good faith. And of course, accurate and cited information should never ever be deleted or removed simply because someone doesn't like the way the citation(s) are formatted – that would clearly be tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• I just love the pulpit preaching you get here when you are a content creator and not a drama board loiterer. That's YOUR point/emphasis, I choose to emphasise editors showing a bit of respect for the content creator(s) who developed the article to GA and not making work for them by using bare citations with next to no information. But, as I say, I am clearly in the minority here. I'll not bring anything similar here in future. And you'll no doubt be happy with that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• In other words, you WP:OWN that article and so what you say goes, policies be damned. I'm a content creator above all, and if someone adds relevant cited info to an article I've created or written the bulk of, I'm grateful no matter how they format the cite, or whether they format it at all or just provide a bare url. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, if they don't follow the existing consistent style, and it bugs me, I just change it.
  Peacemaker67, please don't play the "content creator" card, it's rude to imply that other editors involved in this discussion are not content creators as well, or that their contributions to the encyclopedia in other areas are not valuable. Not everyone who participates in the "dramah boards" are free-riders, although certainly some are.
  I'm sure that you're annoyed by it, but the consensus here appears to be against your interpretation of the guideline -- the "should" versus "must" issue -- and holds that Axxxion (with whom I've had disputes, so please don't think I'm their apologist) did nothing wrong. I suggest it's time that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and get on with you content creation.
  Perhaps someone would like to close this thread? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I also have to express my dissapointment with such poor judgment of an wikipedia admin. Massive removal of cited text explained with the citation style and avoiding to get the point and acknowledge the issue based on apparent consensus, WP:IDHT behavior showed also at the article's talkpage where Peacemaker67 avoided to reply (diff) to straightforward question I asked him (diff) are indeed indication of WP:OWN behavior, as pointed here. Being content creator and having admin privileges in this case is an aggravating rather than a mitigating circumstance. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note that a comment by this user was requested by Axxxion here 3 times. In the future, we could do without such posts that leave the appearance of canvassing. They weren't even necessary, since the discussion wasn't exactly going against Axxxion to start with. Anyway, Antidiskriminator, those comments are from several days ago and Peacemaker has already asked for the article to be unprotected so the changes can be restored. At this point, I don't see how leaving this thread open is helpful in any way. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify - my comment here is based on Peacemaker67's invitation (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

page hijacked (Pleše became TreeHouse Ltd)

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.[[18]] The fifth edit was a move.[[19]] 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):

• Hornice to Global Rose
• Hvězdoňovice to Skipp A. Haynes Williamson
• Kostníky to Optibus (company)
• Lačnov to Maxim Cherniavskyi
• Lazinov to Josh Heller
• Lazníčky to GS RichCopy 360 Enterprise
• Letkov to Mohamed Ali Hilal
• Loukovice to Lee B. Sanders
• Maňovice to Vktior
• Nelešovice to Brian Frank LaBovick
• Nimpšov to Nimbagility
• Odunec to Intervision (band)
• Okarec to CellPhoneSignalBooster.us
• Pyšel to RealtyShares
• Rušinov to Stephen Schultz (lawyer)
• Rynárec to BDA (company)
• Samšín to Galit Goldfarb
• Tužice to Precision Software
• Týn nad Bečvou to Gregory Thomas Hill
• Zvěrkovice to Xorcom phone systems

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

• Kwielice to Florin Pierre Baeriswyl

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

Two more (both Polish villages):

• Kaczórki to Granite Telecommunications, LLC
• Kania Góra to Lenora Billings-Harris

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:

• Lomy (Třebíč District) to Wish (website)

...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)

• User:Geia Samr
• User:Ben Lenv
• User:Wyetna
• User:Awes Mepri
• User:Rvetmenz
• User:Faust Metewc
• User:Waqr Emane
• User:D.Pouera
• User:Histen Meaniiul
• User:Ruet Trel
• User:Oken Skaqi
• User:Regsk Laeo
• User:Tenletoc
• User:Iviesk
• User:Scoraln
• User:Satifndel
• User:Myers Lena
• User:Mowsrnr
• User:Jaema Leez
• User:Gremdei Nobdry
• User:Krmdnlira
• User:Leana.IZn
• User:Dinarme
• User:Veszente

2016 disambiguation hijackings

• Some of the disambiguation page moves from 2016 that were not reverted (it's likely that there are more):
• Capperonnier to Michael Wyche (Histsplit - Harison K blocked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Cicchetti to Chris Suharlim (Histsplit to Cicchetti (disambiguation) - National treasure of the west blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Copelin to Airwheel C5 (Histsplit - Sair Rez blocked.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Favio to MapD Technologies (WP:TWODABS, Dliunh blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Janick to Foreign Forest (Histsplit - Aleiv blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Podsiadło to MsdsDigital (Histsplit - Selena 2004 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Prokopov to Roland Frasier (WP:TWODABS, Prokopov (Znojmo District) > Prokopov, Canura blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Seimar to Seawings Lifestyle (Only other link on the dab page was a redlink. Staying ahead 998 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Siebenhirten to Showaround (Only other link on the dab page was a redlink, Siebenhirten (Vienna U-Bahn) > Siebenhirten. Yiau Ci blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Swindlehurst to SwimJim (Histsplit - Authts blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Tonello to The GLD Shop (Histsplit - Monkey 298 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Gokinjo to GoChange.co (Histsplit and Cadilacc blocked by another admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Shimozawa to Sex Toys 247 (Histsplit by another admin; Muller Salz blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

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

• Heisri to Adam S. Bold
• Karste to David Lee (entrepreneur)
• Lootvina to Shah Shapourifar (already reverted)
• Popsiküla to Shah Entertainment

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)

Administrative attention needed for these article hijacks

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)

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)

Disruptive editing from the congress IP

Today, an anonymous editor has disruptively edited pages Bears Ears National Monument and Knights Templar leaving rather inappropriate messages such as ...all sexual harassers in congress should resign... and other. This has been reflected on the https://twitter.com/congressedits bot page. This user is most likely trying to troll the bot, as he realized, that anything he does from the IP is going to go on Twitter. I believe the user should be blocked, as their actions compromise th bot. The editor also threatened to go to other IP addresses, in case they are blocked. Diffs - Knights Templar and Bears Ears National Monument - Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 17:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It honestly looks like garden-variety vandalism/trolling. I did send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee in the event a block might be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this motion to block. The troll also accused a Nintendo character of starting ISIS. Mannydantyla (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No edits for two hours - no need to block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Different IP, same prefix. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sergio Haziq

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

[20] Lots of disruptive editing. I recently spotted them when looking at the history of Rafael Coelho, which also features similar disruption by other accounts and IPs.2001:A61:370B:2E01:C43C:F690:D11B:206 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to have stopped editing 10 days ago. Also, next time, please provide WP:DIFFs, and describe the kinds of disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Civility and insults made by User:Nightscream

• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Splatty Tomato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting frustrated with repeated instances of subpar prose is one thing, but the way he condescended your work (i.e. "nor am I writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing" and "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") was definitely unwarranted and out of line. For what it's worth, he did at least apologize for his tone, which is much better than showing no remorse at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: That apology looked to be tongue-in-cheek to me, did you not see his closing statement "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." This isn't an apology, it's still an attack. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Must've somehow read it as a "I'm sorry but this needs to be said" sort of thing first time around. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And you brought this here why, exactly? To see how many of us agree with Nightscream? I agree with Nightscream. These comments were a bit tetchy, but nonetheless constructive and aimed at achieving a collaborative result. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Actions by User:Ckruschke may be in breach of WP:OWN

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

---

• Ckruschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• O Holy Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ckruschke has reverted several good additions to O Holy Night on the basis that "it is not meant to be added to". This is a ridiculous premise in direct opposition to the whole idea of expanding an encyclopaedia. I consider his/her actions to breach both WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The relevant diffs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. May we please have an administrative decision on the current status of the article, subject to any citations being needed. Thank you. CravinChillies 17:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think their edit summary is silly. As for citations, well, that list is terrible of course. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Imo that whole section "Notable Versions" is problematic and the article would not suffer from its being entirely deleted. Notable according to whom? It 's just a list of random editors' favs and devoid of encyclopedic value.Smeat75 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • While I quite agree with the animus against Josh Groban, I can't justify it encyclopedically. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Smeat75: WP:5P1 defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The recorded versions listed in the article are bona fide examples of the song and I cannot see how they could be deemed to breach WP:NOT, which is the only way content can be "unencyclopaedic". If there is no breach of WP:NOT, then a claim of "unencyclopaedic" is invalid and amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a pernicious syndrome that I see far too often on talk pages. In principle, the examples comply with WP:CCPOL except that a few more citations are needed per WP:V and these lines have been tagged accordingly to encourage provision of same. CravinChillies 14:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• This page used to be a mess with constant IP editors entering in their pet songs left and right. I inserted the comment "This is not a catch-all list - artists named only skim the surface - Do not add to list without a reliable source saying how it is notable." simply as a way to control the never ending IP editing and fancruft that people put on here. The songs/artists are all that have charted thus establishing some sort of notability - without some standard, it ends up being a catchall for every version (which is what it was five years ago). I've editted the page I think 35 times in 5 years. Most of it was keeping the wolves at bay. I guess if that means I "own" the page, then I apologize. That was not my intent. BTW, User:CravinChillies has edited the page six times in the three days he's been on the page. So I'm open to the administrators decision on this. If the page would be better served having someone watch it to keep the crap off, I can simply remove it from my watch list. No blood, no foul. I will say that it would have been nice to have User:CravinChillies contact me and discuss my edits or put something up on Talk first rather than running to put up an incident action first. I think that's usually how the process is supposed to work rather than cry foul and start to rewrite the page on your own... Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke
• WP:OWN seems to be invoked a lot by editors who meet resistance trying to add their "own" favorite content, against anyone who insists on standards and quality. We have way too much superficial and non-notable trivia – what I call "factoidism" – that cheapens the encyclopedia. Quite aside from CravinChillies being a bit quick to run to ANI, I think we should support anyone that insists on standards and resists trivialization. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• The appropriate page is not WP:OWN but WP:LAME. Talk pages are there for a reason. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the point of getting into an article talk page argument with someone who has made their position crystal clear by reverting bona fide content SIX TIMES. In my opinion, I thought administrators should deal with that but, so far, I am not seeing anything from administrators that comes within a mile of an actual decision. The most sensible and relevant comment above is by someone who isn't an administrator (but who doesn't necessarily agree with me). I have tried to improve the article by introducing some better quality into the intro and by providing citations. I have not seen any recent attempt by the other party to actually improve the article. And, btw, I am a lady editor – is this page some kind of boys only gathering? I have been warned about this by other editors, some of whom are disillusioned EX-editors. CravinChillies 12:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to get into an "argument" about it, you and the other editors can have a polite discussion and arrive at a consensus, which is exactly what article talk pages are for.Smeat75 (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes two to tangle, and if those six reverts are of the same content then there were six additions – yours? – and it's a matter of edit-warring. Even if it was different content, there is still a conduct problem. The underlying issue is whether specific content should be included, or not, for which – the point you don't see – the proper venue for discussion is on the Talk page. Which you have not attempted. If you will not discuss – or argue, which means to "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action," etc. — for your desired edits on the Talk page then you have no basis for complaint when they get reverted. And no reason for coming to ANI, as the conduct at fault is yours, for not discussing the matter at the right place.

As an aside (because ANI is not the place argue content issues) I point out that being bona fide (whatever that is supposed to signify in respect of content), or even verifiable, is not sufficient basis to guarantee inclusion of material. But that is a matter for the Talk page. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@CravinChillies: That something is true does not make it encyclopedic. It must have sufficient notability, see WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Paul August ☎ 21:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Unexplained changes and incomprehensible changes

LisburnThePriest (talk · contribs) has been creating new categories, many of which are simply wrong and against good logic. A band or performer may be of one genre at one point but to assume that they will remain in a genre permanently is not logical. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and related projects in the past. Also adding categories to subjects which don't apply such as these two for a band that has not been listed with the genres. All of this is done without discussion and without explanation. Requests on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

LisburnThePriest is engaging in genre warring, adding unsupported genres to band article, and also adding those same genres to categories related to the bands. The user ought to be blocked unless they communicate a realization that this behavior is disruptive, and express an intent to cite reliable sources and stick to those sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

One other thing of note is that LisburnThePriest's edits are far too advanced to be that of an editor who has only been around for a few months. The editor immediately started with category creation and similar edits. This is likely an alternate account or a sock. I don't have enough evidence to prove WP:DUCK though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IP harassment

IP User:128.252.25.54 is continuously harassing me and reverting my edits over my reversion of their disruption. See also the IP's edit filter log. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Eugene Gu

Eugene Gu is clearly running 2 alter-ego accounts in order to interject his name and company onto various wikipedia pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CranberryMuffin
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Frontierjustice&offset=&limit=500&target=Frontierjustice

• User:CranberryMuffin
• User:Frontierjustice

Both these accounts have a very clear and direct focus on linking his name on any medical pages. In addition, if you look at CranberryMuffin's history, the user makes a very detailed change, which only Eugene Gu himself would know, such as what program he wanted to transfer to as shown below. Plus why would a person who isn't a doctor know all these specific and obscure medical terms.

" A notable case has been that of Dr. Eugene Gu who has been subpoenaed by two separate Tennessee Congresswomen, Marsha Blackburn and Diane Black, while pursuing a general surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Gu has attempted for over a year to transfer into a general surgery program in California or on the West Coast but so far remains in Tennessee. "

I believe it is disingenuous for a person to simply add himself to wikipedia articles in order to bring visibility to his brand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk)

• I changed the title of this thread from the non-sensical "this can parasited his way into a bunch of different wikipedia pages. I tried to delete his changes but some power-hungry users got mad" to "Eugene Gu" Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• The thread immediately above this one seems to be about the same IP who posted this. Heiro

  Subsection'd. ansh666 04:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• The OP's one "contribution" to the article (at least using this IP number) was to add

  "This guy is actually crazy and created a wikipedia page for himself and inserted his name into the "notable alumni" of school he attended." [21]

  which was, of course, reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I can justify reverting this edit myself as a BLP violation / misplaced comment (was the comment meant to go on the Talk page instead?) IP has also been targeting me of all users, which justifies the thread above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the where he includes his own personal anecdote into an wikipedia article, which I tried to delete. [22] A "notable case" of transfer which cannot be found on any new websites or forums, but only in the mind of Eugene himself. Of course Jalen D. Folf, a furry lol, reverted my change without reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about the edits about Dr Gu (the ones that I looked, that the IP wanted removed, do for the most part look spammy and shoehorned into articles), following User Jd22292 around and refactoring his comments or doing stuff like this [23] seem like the IP is the one doing the harassing and should probably be on the watch for boomerangs. Heiro 04:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They did it after being warned as well. Shared IP so 31 hour block?©Geni (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Great! So you agree that the edits Eugene made about himself should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you're in revert wars over it, you should probably discuss it at the individual article talk pages and build a consensus with other editors per WP:BRD. Heiro 04:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In regards to this subject, I've already started the thread on the article's Talk page per WP:BRD. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And the IP is now off on a unilateral removal spree across multiple articles instead of taking it to the talk pages. Heiro 04:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This IP needs to be blocked, since they're being disruptive and not discussing their edit. Also, this appears to be related to abortion, sop Eugene Yu should be put under discretionary sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Now editing as 107.77.207.158 - same edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you and The Bushranger for dealing with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A Way Out (video game) Tommy Wiseau edits

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

---

• A Way Out (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a string of Tommy Wiseau edits since the game's The Game Awards announcement. I have tried to stop them, but they keep flooding the article. While I have tried to bring this up on the talk page, I have been assaulted personally on the page. Could you fellas please take care of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBuddy92 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of different vandals hitting at once, page should be locked. Heiro 05:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, check out the talk page. Been fighting in there too. TheBuddy92 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've protected three pages and two talk pages so far. All for ~2 days, so hopefully that stops it. Seems like there was a post on the /v/ board of 4chan. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

there's a LOT of random IP nonsense related to games from The Game Awards 2017 for some reason, no consistent IP and no pattern. --Masem (t) 05:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To add, there're adding things also related to Nazism/genocide/etc. The nonsense is obvious, but the flood is not fun to deal with :( --Masem (t) 05:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone with knowledge of regex add "https://twitter.com/Stryxo" to the external link blacklist? Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

4chan raid for the record.©Geni (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Some high profile Twitter users also took notice of the modified article, and that certainly didn't help. TheBuddy92 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Anti-Muslim comments

Gjirokastra15 has made some comments that show their own hatred towards Muslims and other people who do not share their religious ideas. Gjirokastra15 has compared Muslim Albanians to ISIS and accused them of working with Turks against Albanians. Some time ago Gjirokstra15 started a discussion on another editor's talk (all discussion in Albanian) where they accused the other editor of editing Islam in Albania articles and said that "ti si musliman e perqendrove PER Turqit. Kjo eshte diferenca jone edhe arsyeja perse ju si kolektiv keni punuar me dashje apo pa dashje per Turqit edhe kundra vete shqiptareve" (Translation: You as a Muslim worked for the Turks. This is the difference between us and the reason why you as a community have worked for the Turks against the Albanians), "Gjaku i te pareve te tu, ka shkuar deme" (Translation: The blood of your ancestors has gone useless) and "Mqs ke kaq kohe te lire , be nje mundim te studjosh testamentin e ri edhe krahasoje me ato qe meson ky sekt , edhe do ta kuptosh vete perse Jezusi nuk tu pa e vertet , sepse un kam nje eksperjence komplet tjeter" (Translation:As you have a lot of free time, you can study the New Testament and compare it to what the Jehovah sect says, and you will understand why you do not believe in Jesus). There Gjirokastra15 says that Turkey is said to be banned from NATO, it is at war with other countries because it has territorial claims over Iraq and Syria, Turkey will never enter EU, Turkey made Albania a ghetto and other political things [24]. Although the other edior's answers were very friendly and polite, Gjirokastra15 continued with their hatred. Today this uncivil editor responded my comment on a discussion saying "I suggest that you focus your energies on enriching the article of ISIS & kosovo ( as shown by your contributions history)" [25]. I have never edited ISIS page. I edit mostly Kosovo articles. Most of Kosovo Albanians are Muslims, hence are seen by some anti-Muslim Albanians as part of some kind of ISIS branch in Europe. I asked this used on their talk to accept they were wrong. Their answer was "i certainly demand that you stop polluting my user talk page" [26]. Gjiroskastra15 was asked by other editors to refrain from their behaviour but they refused. Admins should consider a topic ban on articles related to religion as this editor has already proved they can not hide their hatred to people who do not share their religious ideas. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

First let me point out that those fragments that are taken out of context are from a previous personal discussion with another editor in a friendly manner and are some months old. This person is truly accusing me of things that i have not said ( such as me comparing muslim albanians to Isis) , now such a heavy accusation is a very serious act of defamation and i demand from this user to bring the text that i have said such a thing. Second the editor is claiming that he has never edited an ISIS article , which is a lie : [27], [28] , [29]. His contributions history is none of my business , however this editor seems to think that i have no right in discussing or editing wikipedia. I have done nothing more than to discuss in the talk page and to restore a reversion for which i have been thanked twice by two very well established and respected editors. Last but not least , this editor seems to be in great knowledge of the talk page of the user rresnjari , and this makes me suspicious , thus i am tempted to ask for a wikipedia sockpuppet investigation. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I placed on my first comment here your own words (can you claim those are not your words?) and others are free to judge. On my edits on Equipment of ISIL, it was not a "lie". I did not remember them. I noticed an IP editor that belonged to the same range of a long-term Serbian IP vandal. I reported them to an administrator and reverted some of their edits, some of them happened to be on Equipment of ISIL page. Why did you tell me to "focus energies on enriching the article of ISIS & kosovo"? You are already asked by other editors to not bring up ISIL [30]. When did I say that you "have no right in discussing or editing wikipedia"??? Accusing me and Resnjari of sock puppetry enlarges the already long list of biased accusations made by you to us. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be specific , quantify/formulate what your request is , given the fact that you take segments from a personal discussion of mine with another editor that has no relation to the matter at hand. I expect an apology for your attempt of defaming me ( specifically i have NEVER compared the albanian muslims to ISIS) , and it is you who attempted to stop me from discussing on the talk page and started with the personal attacks as per wp:pa [31]. I will admit that it was not the most sane thing to say , however when taken in context one can understand that it was a manifestation of frustration given your illogical request.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can find my comment in the link you placed and verify if I "attempted to stop you from discussing on the talk page". You started a discussion and many editors participated there. I read the discussion, put there my opinion and reminded editors of WP:Forum. I recalled your comments on the talk of someone else too. Recalling your own words is not a personal attack. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact linked your comment above , and one can easily see that you were the one distrupting a rather civil & productive discussion. As per wp:boomerang i expect you to back up all those blatant accusations. Any administrator can see that i have been thanked twice for the previous edit of mine , and that i was in symphony with the other editors. It is better that you withdraw the case and agree that we both are at fault here....Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To the administrator: Please do google translate that discussion of mine which is in the albanian language and you will see that when in context that discussion was not even close to what this user is presenting it to be. In fact it is incredibly offending .... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an object lesson on why discussions on English Wikipedia should always be in English. Because the talk page discussion under scrutiny was totally in Albanian, only editors who are conversant with that language can understand what the heck is going on, and if there is any value in this complaint. There no way for the vast majority of en.wiki editors to comment or intercede because the participants might as well be speaking in code.

Is there an admin who speaks Albanian, or does anyone know a reliable admin on the Albanian Wikipedia who speaks good English and can unravel what's going on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15 You were thanked twice for starting that discussion, not for insulting me. Everyone can see other participants in the discussion condemned your insults [32][33]. Nobody asked me to be civil in the discussion because there is no problem with my comment. Apologize for what you have said and promise you will not insult people who do not share your religious beliefs again, and we all can collaborate with each other on articles we can contribute to. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Some other editors who participated in the discussion on the talk of Albania article speak Albanian. Admins on the Albanian Wikipedia know English as they edit the English Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have admitted that it was not the most sane thing to say , however you have in fact edited articles about ISIS , and it was you who attacked me first, specifically you said : and the person who opened this discussion is the same one who blamed problems of Albania on Muslims some time ago.. Starting from your first comment you exhibitted a hostile attitute towards me. Now if you want i can translate the whole discussion word per word and everyone will see that it was nothing like you present it to be. Last but not least i challenge you to find the text where i equate the albanian muslims with ISIS. I am starting to get incredibly offended by this hypocricy/victimization and exaggeration Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

We need an editor who speaks Albanian and translate all you wrote some time ago. After your reply to me today on the talk of Albania article, your words were condemned by other editors (Do you disagree with this?). Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can you two stop bickering for a moment? The accusation in Albanian set aside, the talk page comment was completely out of line, of course, and in contradiction with the comment above ("His contributions history is none of my business"). Ktrimi991, the bold sentence at the end of this comment is also unacceptable (no matter the evidence or the translation/mistranslation/interpretation of earlier comments). What would the two of you like an administrator to do? Block the both of you for personal attacks? Or can you see in this thread a lesson: a. keep it English; b. play the ball, not the man/woman? Because if y'all keep this up you will get blocked, singly or in tandem. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have accepted that it was completely out of line multiple times , however it is not me trying to ban him , neither i am searching his history for reasons to get him banned. I am still waiting for that text where i have equated the albanian muslims with ISIS , and i need to emphasize again that the quoted segments are out of context and have nothing to do with the matter at hand , rather it is a 6 months old discussion on the wall of another editor. This is my last comment regarding this matter Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies Gjirokastra15 was offered by another editor on their own talk to apologize for what they said. Gjirokastra's comment was condemned by other editors on the talk of Albania. The accusation in English set aside, I ask you to have someone translate what Gjirokastra said in Albanian. Gjirokastra15 will not say again what they said in Albanian as the next report would be fatal for them. Per this reason, you can block, ban, give Gjirokastra15 a medal, whatever you do the awful and shameful words Gjirokastra15 said will stay there forever as a symbol of the main reason why Albanians have suffered and will suffer a lot. Cheers to all.Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me like there's a pretty easy solution here. If you don't say it in English, you get blocked. Seems rational to me. --Tarage (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are 8 (!) administrators on the Albanian Wikipedia, and I have left a message in English on each of their talk pages, asking them, if they speak English well, to drop by here and try to help sort things out. In the meantime, I would agree with Tarage, all communication between these editors should be in English only -- save your Albanian for the Albanian Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand that up until today i have had no communication with this editor , neither in Albanian nor in English. You should also understand , that those quoted texts are from a discussion of mine with another editor which took place 6 months ago on his personall wall page and are out of context. I did not plan on commenting further however it became obvious that many editors ( for obvious reasons ) fail to understand this part. Now if it is a crime to think that Turkey today is manifesting neo-ottoman desires & has occupied Albania for 5 centuries, then i am guilty. However it will become evident that i have not said those things that this editor is accusing me that i have said regarding religion (specifically equating the Albanian muslims to ISIS), so the sooner the better. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would only say that the POV you have just stated "manifesting neo-ottoman desires and has occupied Albania for 5 centuries" could indeed be problematic when editing in this topic area, which if I am not mistake is a DS topic area with regards to Albania/Balkans. Not least of all because Turkey does not occupy Albania, and Wikipedia is not the right place to advocate for a thesis of broad neo-ottoman expansionist aspirations, especially if accusations of ISIS affiliation are somehow part of this. Though the personal comments on both sides may have been inappropriate as Drmies rightly points out, I think it would be helpful for Albanian speaking admins to verify the translations because the fundamental issue here may not only be the personal attacks. This would probably require looking at the editing pattern more closely.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The 5 century occupation is not a POV , i can find a myriad of sources regarding this ( albanian and english). However i have NEVER made any edits regarding Turkey or the ottoman empire , it is just a personal opinion of mine which i expressed on the wall of a fellow editor. Anyways let us wait the Albanian administrator who will confirm that i have never equated the Albanian muslims with Isis , and if that is the case which ... will be then you are also left with a clear case of 'malignant' defamation that its sole aim is to get me banned.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Albania is not under Turkish occupation today and it has no obvious relationship with Neo-Ottomanism in Turkey today. This is a different matter from any edits you have made, I understand that, but it is enough that I have some concerns. This edit for example: [34] removing a Brill source with quote as an unreliable source, because the surname of the author is Jazexhi? [35]? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh please , give me a break , i have given a whole paragraph explaining why this source was not reliable and it is not because of the surname. Specifically : 'The editor is bringing a dubious source which is citing a random person with the surname Jazexhi , it simply is unreliable , especially when considering the fact that the person cited is accusing the muslim community for accepting the census results in this article'. I gave a link where the same Jazexhi in an article of his was condemning the muslim community for accepting the census results. You simply cannot claim a book later that the muslim community has NOT accepted the census results. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But Jazexhi is not a "random person" he appears, to the casual observer, to be author of a book published by Brill. I don't know if besimtari.com is a RS, but assuming the citation is accurate, I am certain that Brill is. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. Re-read what i wrote above. Furthermore the official stance of the muslim community has been to accept the census, contrary to the Bektashi ( shia ) and the Orthodox community. For more please do consult the talk page of Albania , there is a plethora of comments there from various different Albanian editors.

Brill is highly respected and their yearbooks are pretty much standard references. Moreover the text (in the book and in our article) is just incredibly non-controversial: it simply says census results were questioned, and gives sources which question it. The book/series has four people on the editorial board and ten more editorial advisors. So yeah, that's pretty much the definition of a reliable source, and it is you who is missing the point. You keep this up, we will have serious doubts about your competence to edit in this area. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It was not the source the problem , rather the person writting that book. If you would be an Albanian you would know some of his opinions expressed publicly. Furthermore , you need to understand that the issue was the official stance of the religious communities and officially the muslim community has not questioned the census results , rather it has accepted them. While the bektashi and the orthodox have officially denied to recognize them. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

...any claims that Albania has been occupied by Turkey for five centuries would be the fringiest of the WP:FRINGE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So what if it is ? I have not made any edits regarding Turkey or the ottoman empire. You people seem to project your own expectations and then you built upon them. It is a personal POV of mine that i share during a discussion with another fellow editor. It is beyond belief what power lies in accusation Gjirokastra15 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, Gjiro has admitted that she was overly harsh in reaction to Ktrimi's initial comment and that this was over the top and unnecessary. She denies comparing Albanian Muslims to ISIS and et cetera. This case should be about whether that is what she said, and if so, does she understand why those are not acceptable things to say.

Seraphim System The Bushranger So what, she thinks that "Turkey occupied Albania for 5 centuries". I disagree but it's her personal view, expressed on a user talk page where the other side gave his viewpoints as well. For your information, there are many, both Albanians and non-Albanians, who would agree, and many who would disagree, again both Albanians and non-Albanians, with that statement "Turks occupied Albania for five centuries". Personally I am in the disagree column as I don't equate the Ottoman Empire with modern Turkey, and I also think "occupation" is a simplistic and emotional term. On the extreme of the other side, others may view Ottoman rule as bringing "Islamic civilization", wealth, opportunities etc to 'wild' Albanian mountaineers, or claim that the Ottomans and Islam "saved" Albanians from being assimilated by the evil Orthodox Slavs/Greeks. The author brought up by Seraphim, Olsi Jazexhi, for your information, falls under the latter category and he has used the pejorative "kaur" to refer to Christian Albanians. He also is a bit of a clown, for example in one piece about why Russia would be a good ally, he goes on about how Russian women are sexy; I wish I was making this up. On the other hand there are writers who use prejudicial vocabulary to refer to Islam in Albania, cherrypick only the negative aspects of Ottoman rule, and paint Muslims as occupier leftovers. I wish this wasn't the case, and both sides here are simplistic, chauvinistic etc but sadly not exactly fringe as they both have plenty of fans including in academia. Here on wikipedia I think we need to judge people by their actions, not what they think (or what we think they think). The one thing I have a problem with that Gjiro did, which is also what Ktrimi actually made this case about-- as Ktrimi cited me with a diff for criticizing-- was making inflamatory comments on article talkpages. This should be about that -- making incendiary comments -- not about believing what she believes. And I believe/hope Gjiro will not make such incendiary comments on talk pages again. --Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there is a distinct difference between the statements "Albania was occupied by Turkey for 5 centuries" and "Albania has been occupied by Turkey for 5 centuries". The former is a past event, the latter an ongoing present event. What The Bushranger wrote was "any claims that Albania has been occupied by Turkey for five centuries would be the fringiest of the WP:FRINGE, so he is refering to the belief in a current, ongoing occupation. Your (Calthinus) statements above were all in the past tense, about a past occupation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Gjirokastra meant a current or past occupation. She is indeed critical of what she calls "neo-Ottomanism" which I suppose would favor your point. However, her native language is not English, and although Albanian does have a simple past (i.e. "was occupied") as well as a present perfect ("has been occupied") in practice due to the influence of Italian, many young Albanians use the present perfect ("has been occupied") when they mean the simple past, as is done in many Romance languages and, increasingly, Albanian. If she did think Albania's currently under Turkish occupation, yes that's absolutely fringe, but seeing as she has never added that to the mainspace, what's the issue? Of course, if she did, we'd have a classic case of WP:NOTHERE... but she hasn't. --Calthinus (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The crux of the problem here is twofold. One, we had discussions occurring in a language other than English that may or may not have been personal attacks. Fine. I very much doubt we're going to get a good answer on that, and we have a very easy solution to it: If you type a message that isn't in English, you risk running a topic ban or a block. The time for that sort of thing has passed, and all parties are now aware that it is not acceptable. The second problem is a content dispute, which is not what this notice board is for. Continuing to argue that is pointless here. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Can all parties involved agree to take it back to the talk page, maybe start up an RFC? Surely more eyes will be watching now that it's been on this board. I'm not sure anything else is actionable right now. --Tarage (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A sensible comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the involved editors take a look at this thread just above, to see what can happen when editors dig in their heels and exhibit WP:IDHT behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Going to say a few words as a past thread on my talkpage was invoked here. Ktrimi991, i understand where your coming from but its not worth it and can better be worked out through a bit more dialogue on the talkpage. Gjirokastra15, that very unpleasant exchange last year on my talkpage, don't do it again. I turned the other cheek and am not going to make a deal of it here, but had i refered you to one of these forums (and translated the text) it would have not went well for you. Your a fellow Albanian and i feel that your energies as an editor could be spent toward addressing and making better articles in the Albanian wikiproject as there are so few editors. Focus on that. Also take into consideration that some terminology like "occupation" etc are problematic depending on their usage. Whatever views someone holds on the Ottoman Empire, in Albania as the wider Balkans in terms of sovereignty was for many centuries recognised by the wider world -hence not occupation -due to de jure international recognition after a conquest. Its why in non-nationalistic historiography the term "rule" is applied whether the context of events described regard something positive, negative or both simultaneously. With reflection both of you just call it a day. To the admins there is nothing here for further action. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

IP keeps reverting my edits

188.225.75.121 "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" on San Antonio TV station articles [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] I don't want to get into an edit war with an unknown user who may have probably vandalized other articles. My edits are in good faith and consistent with other TV station articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a link to where the editor left the edit you quoted here?[46] You also might want to beware the boomerang. I see that despite the fact that you did try to communicate with the IP editor, you did revert them a whole bunch of times.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. That was also even before you gave them an an actual level 2 warning[54], or reported them here to ANI.[55] Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit where the IP made that quote is here: [56] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the IP did not respond to your talk page comments before reverting. I'd suggest continuing with dispute resolution by getting uninvolved domain experts involved, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic

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

---

Year-old consensus is "X Line" for Moscow Metro lines. There are 16 lines, cf. Category:Moscow Metro lines (one article page currently lost), each line has a category page, and a route-template. The line names are per convention used as disambiguator for station articles if "Stationname (Moscow Metro)" is ambiguous. Since non-Moscow Metro articles also link to these there might be 1000 occurences of these line names.

Then 2017-12-08 02:10 to 02:20 User:Dicklyon hopped in [57] and moved

• MOVE: Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line to Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line - the line article does not exist anymore, the page currently contains the content of former Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line)
  • Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line to Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line
• MOVE: Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT to Template:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line RDT
• MOVE: Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) to Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line)
• MOVE: Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line)

A "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" was posted at WP:RMT, the names complying with year-old style were restored for:

• MOVE: Template:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line RDT to Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT
• MOVE:Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line)

• MOVE: Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) (station!) was put at Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line (line!) and the line article disappeared. [58]

2017-12-09 03:37 User:SMcCandlish hopped in and moved [59]

• MOVE: Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line)
• MOVE: Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line to Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line

2017-12-09 03:58 User:AlexTheWhovian stepped in and moved Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT a second time to a name against year-old convention for Moscow Metro. [60]

• MOVE: Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT to Template:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line RDT

User:Dicklyon is OK with restoring the page names as they were before his moves [61]. But User:AlexTheWhovian refuses to restore the names in the style that existed for years. Also he does not undelete the line article, despite being asked on his talk after he wrote at WP:RMT that he will deal with the pages.

What is "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" for if the single-handed controversial moves are not reverted? And how can English Wikipedia get back the article about the Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line (a line, not the station "Aviamotornaya")? 77.180.170.123 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that User:AlexTheWhovian resorted to remove content from the user talk page [62] 77.180.170.123 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian is permitted to remove content from his talk page. I think this is the same dispute that SMcCandlish posted about recently at WP:VPP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• RfC already opened at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles, and cross-referenced to the ongoing essentially duplicate but earlier discussion there about Chinese railway lines. This ANI is basically a WP:TALKFORK. On the substantive matter: Some one-country wikiproject is not in a position to make up its own "rules" that directly conflict with policies and guidelines (see WP:CONLEVEL policy and WP:PROJPAGE). The fact that some obscure articles have had bad style, against the article titles policy and the Manual of Style, for a year or so doesn't magically make them immune to correction and does not indicate a consensus about them at all; that's just a WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:CONTENTAGE argument to avoid.

  What the vexatious anon is not telling you is that just over a day ago, "an" anon (likely the same party, but who knows) unilaterally moved these articles, via WP:RM/TR [63], to names that do not comply with WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS / MOS:CAPS, or MOS:DASH. Those were the actually controversial moves, but cannot easily be undone because the original titles were immediately changed from redirects to disambiguation pages. Dicklyon later corrected these title problems, then the anon (bouncing around on various IP addresses, mostly in the 77.179.*, 78.55.*, 85.180.*, ranges) challenged that as "undiscussed". People patching up a mistake someone else made is not the mistake.

  Regardless, given that the number of articles this would affect one way or another is larger than the four at issue here, and given that this is a WP:CONSISTENCY matter that should be resolved in concert with another ongoing RfC about similar names, the RfC linked above is place for the community to come to a consensus about this.

  PS: "Another" anon (in 80.171.*, and probably the same party), continues to push the Russian rail line overcapitalization moves at RM/TR as we speak [64]. This needs to stop, since it's an RfC matter now. Surely the same party (now in 92.231.*, and a bit earlier at 213.39.186.16) is making WP:ICANTHEARYOU arguments at the RfC after they were already addressed at RM/TR. This is getting disruptive, even aside from the rapidfire IP-address hopping making it look like multiple editors (and avoiding WP:UWT warnings, {{DS/alert|at}} notices, and other usual process). This user was already warned by uninvolved parties they were being disruptive at RM [65], and also made repeated false accusations that those who disagree with this person are liars [66] including after the warning [67]; did it again here [68], and there was another of these somewhere, but I got tired of diffing.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Short-term range blocks requested: The disruption continues (as 92.231.182.37 then 77.179.78.253), now with a barrage of WP:BLUDGEON text-walling to derail the RfC [69]. I've refactored this mess to the "Extended discussion" section where it belongs [70], but the anon will not comply and is flailing [71], and did it again [72], received a 3RR warning [73][74], but just hopped IPs to 77.179.100.51 and did it again [75]. (At least there can no longer be any doubt they're all the same person.) The material is simply rehash of the points the anon has already made in the original !vote, and which (so far) 100% of RfC respondents are discounting. Further false accusations of dishonesty [76]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• It's continuing further, with a revert of part of the RfC itself (we're way beyond 3RR now), plus injections of the anon's "evidence" into the RfC wording [77], and yet another false claim I'm a liar [78], couched in WP:SANCTIONGAMING terms – believes it's okay to call other editors liars as long as the word "liar" isn't used. Additional IPs in use: 85.182.27.83 and 92.226.217.125 (that one to interleave personalized objections into the RfC intro [79]). It's time this was shut down. A complete mess is being made of this RfC by one WP:BLUDGEONer, and I would have a 3RR issue myself if I attempted to do anything further about it, so I ask an admin to refactor the anon's extraneous and redundant commentary into the "Extended discussion" section again, and remove the non-neutral material the anon injected into the RfC wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Anon (now as 80.171.194.5) did it again, at least the 5th revert on the same material on the same page in the last couple of hours [80]. This is now a mandatory 3RR block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a section named comments and to that policy/guideline specific subsections have been added. SMcCandlish moved that content downward. Re "yet another false claim I'm a liar" the provided diff showing the IP edit, does not contain such a claim. User:SMcCandlish claimed the untrue once again. The articles about Moscow Metro lived in peace - no move-warring. User:SMcCandlish hoppes in, makes false claims about capitalization, cf Category:Rail infrastructure in New York (state), Category:Monorails in the United States - a lot of upper case... 80.171.194.5 (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever excuses you think you have for revertwarring, they don't apply. WP:ANEW has been made aware [81] of this ANI thread, in lieu of opening a redundant ANEW form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic (part 2)

• To clarify what the argument is about, there seem to be these points:
  1. "Line" versus "line"; if a railway line goes to Xtown, is "the Xtown line" a proper name (the Xtown Line) or not?
  2. Hyphen versus en-dash versus em-dash: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes.
  3. Disambiguating when the same place has stations on two or more railway lines.
  4. And what else?

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That's the content dispute, which will be settled by the RfC. This ANI is about behavior. The anon opened it without an apparent focus (seemed to just be irritated about the situation), but has since then gone on a revert-warring and RfC-disruption rampage; the ANI is now about this behavior problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So, this was pretty inevitable. The IP has a history going back about a month or so of running about making move demands in multiple places , assuming that what they wanted was utterly unimpeachable and then becoming a bit hostile when they don’t get their way.[82]. It seems the IP has become more assertive recently and moving to make pretty broad demands across the system. As soon as things didn’t quite go their way, the response has become a bit more hostile and uncivil ranging from unsubstantiated charges [83] to insults in edit summaries [84] to the generally disruptive edits on the RfC as noted above. It might be worthwhile for an experienced editor preferably with some knowledge of Russian topics to at least take a shot at mentoring the IP. In this case, I think we’ve had a case of giving an inch leading to taking a mile. Some early success in getting requests approved without much resistance created a bit of a sense of undeserved self-righteousness. Now we may just have to tug the leash a little bit. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two ambiguous names involved, which were disambiguated by Anthony Appleyard (thanks a lot!):

• Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) // WP:RMTR
  • stated reason = There is another one Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Central Circle)
• Aviamotornaya (Moscow Metro) to Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) // WP:RMTR
  • stated reason = There are two, see Aviamotornaya (disambiguation). Precedent for disambiguator: Delovoy Tsentr (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) Afterwards the old name should redirect to Aviamotornaya (disambiguation)

User:Dicklyon later moved the pages again. This was opposed, since it introduced a new type of disambiguation "X line" instead of longstanding "X Line". User:Jenks24 restored - against year old consensus - the ambiguous names. If you want to change the naming system, go for it, but do it via discussion. As long as there is not agreement the old system should be used. User:Jenks24 - why don't you restore the current consensus way of naming for Moscow Metro stations? 92.226.217.9 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Shiftchange's continual personal attacks

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

---

User:Shiftchange is continually making nasty personal attacks against a number of users, alleging them of "paid editing" and/or baseless sockpuppet allegations for having disagreed with him about content issues. This has been progressively getting worse over the last couple of months, but it is starting to get out of hand. Today alone: [85] (against Kerry Raymond), [86] (against various editors), [87] (against me for the first time), [88] (against Kerry Raymond again). There was also a string of serious attacks against Kerry and others on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board beginning on around 16 October which appear to have been removed from that page's edit history, and for which he was requested to stop at the time. His edit history over the last couple of months demonstrates an escalating history of lashing out with personal attacks (if not overtly, very thinly veiled) against anyone who disagrees with him, even people (as Kerry and I have) who have worked with him fine in the past.

He has also just launched a nonsense sockpuppet request against Kerry Raymond, having continually (and baselessly) alleged for some time that she is the sockmaster of B20097, a difficult conservative editor with whom she has absolutely nothing in common with, in edit histories, political views or otherwise. He's also been abusing Wikipedia's email function to send nasty messages about other editors, as I received one about Kerry some time ago (happy to share to admins if need be, but not posting here).

Admin Nick-D suggested earlier today that these warranted a block (but that he couldn't impose one himself due to past interaction with Shiftchange), and I agree that this is necessary and have gone on long enough. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a content dispute which might warrant discussion, but Shiftchange's accusations of paid editing appear baseless. Unless Shiftchange has additional evidence to present, or is willing to back down, administrative action appears to be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. we must discuss the propaganda, intensely. The quotation of political statements. Its so pure and obvious. This is what I have been doing, discuss the propaganda, intensely. That hasn't happened adequately, so I have escalated my response, demonstrating what I know. We can still see the neutrality tag on Safe Schools Coalition Australia. Still unresolved. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on my experience on American Politics, there are always people who will make partisan edits without pay. Separately, your statements are somewhat incoherent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing prohibiting filing SPIs (if anything, it will most likely disprove his accusations), but Shiftchange, you must immediately stop these baseless accusations. Keep such comments/accusations/reports on WP:COIN, where they belong, and stop WP:HARASSING other editors with these accusations and aspersions, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Pinging Nick-D. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, I think that Shiftchange should be blocked for repeatedly making baseless accusations of paid editing against good faith editors and disrupting articles. This has been a long-running problem, with attempts by multiple editors asking them to stop it being unsuccessful - I'd include diffs to examples from the October discussion noted above, but the edits were oversighted by @Mailer diablo:, which by itself provides an indication of how out of line the comments were. Such accusations are among the most serious kinds of criticism which can be made against established Wikipedia editors, and Shiftchange is making them recklessly. For instance, in this case they're accusing The Drover's Wife of being a "paid operative" posting "propaganda" for reverting their disruptive attempts to remove a simple and neutral summary of a political party's policies (example) They are also threatening to turn up in person to disrupt a Wikimedia meet up to raise this issue [89] which seems to be a further and potentially quite serious escalation. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to the above as I'd missed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerry Raymond. This report started by Shiftchange is an utterly baseless slur. There are no similarities between the editing patterns of the two accounts, and Kerry is pretty much the definition of a Wikipedia editor (and Wikimedia contributor more generally) in good standing. This report is also a significant escalation, and grounds for a block in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

How can someone threaten to turn up at a meetup and have a discussion about paid editing? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is how you threatened to turn up at a meetup and have a discussion about paid editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

After that we talk about how to systemically remove the propaganda from our articles according to our policy of what Wikipedia is not. Why is that threatening to you? Can you see our policy on soapboxing? Not all expression, some is excluded. Banned and excluded from inclusion unlike my attendance at the meetup. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If I didn't have a COI in the sense that I know Shiftchange in person and have socialised on numerous occasions with Kerry, I would be blocking for this and the recent sordid history of aspersions as outlined above by User:The Drover's Wife. There's nothing wrong with raising an SPI case, but there is something wrong with raising one simply to harass with no valid basis, as it is occurring here. I am very disappointed by this turn of events, as until recently Shiftchange was an editor who I held in very high regard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC).

• From the SPI: [90] "The editor personally admitted it to me, I don't have diffs" - good grief, is this actually meant to be taken seriously? That's...I dunno, like the inverse of WP:BROTHER or something, where the little brother says "he did it!". I'm honestly speechless after reading that, and the linked "proposal". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• The SPI has been closed and archived for lack of evidence: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerry Raymond/Archive. Now we need a stricture on Shiftchange to stop his continued soapboxing, harassment, and personal attacks. He is currently disruptively litigating on WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and Talk:Katter's Australian Party with blanket accusations of propaganda: WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#All propaganda (trying to restart discussion in good faith); Talk:Katter's Australian Party#Paid editors and propaganda; WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Katter's Australian Party. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User: nagualdesign

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

---

Posting YouTube video of superman movie instead of a bots help video. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not an incident, just a joking response to a nonsensical question that is probably {{minnow}}-worthy but nothing more. To be honest, given you contributions so far, you are not going to have a bot approved. And since you ran directly to ANI within 73 minutes of your first post, have you previously edited under any other accounts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No other account associates with this IP TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Umm, WP:DNFTT would be useful: TheDeliveryGuy (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• @TheDeliveryGuy: It was obviously meant to mildly amuse you, and having read your original response I thought you understood that. Sorry I didn't reply but I was busy writing an enormous post about something slightly more important. I see now that you edited your response and have decided to take offense instead, and then waste everybody's time by bringing this to ANI. I suggest you stop being so silly and go do something else. nagualdesign 10:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Then the issues is that linked to this is nagualdesign is linked to other businesses in California and second proof is he may be a sock puppetry linked to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:32.218.36.178 also there more evidence against him that he may have a bunch of copyright warning in his talkpage. I will appreciate Every comment in this section. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The guy in California is called Joseph Bortoli (not sure of the spelling). My name's also Joe, and I also trade as nagualdesign, but I'm from the UK. Joseph and I have exchanged emails in the past, many years ago. It's all very fascinating, I'm sure. The sockpuppet thing is just ridiculous, and not worth commenting on. There are no copyright warnings on my talkpage, only discussions about me, a self-employed designer, asserting my own copyrights. I hope you appreciate this comment. Now shoo! nagualdesign 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm getting a strong sense that WP:CIR may be relevant here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am commenting because this kerfuffle started on my talk page while I was asleep. I share The Bushranger's concerns about the OP's competency. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

YMblanter abusing tools to subvert consensus to enforce his viewpoint, rude, belligerent, etc.

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

---

on Death of Daniel Shaver, user YMblanter abuses his tools to enforce the viewpoint of 1 editor against a consensus, claiming to restore to "good version" that only one editor supported, against 5 times as many that supported the actually good version. Refused to give reasons for his administrative actions. Generally rude and belligerent; abuses his tools and they should be removed before he can do more harm. Admitted to giving no fucks about consensus.2600:1017:B404:BD76:E0B5:71EF:2B77:1EF6 (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the diff, to be specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection was probably warranted. I see no reason to assume it wasn't done in good faith, but the edit summary of "reverted to the last good version" leaves you open to questions like this.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter's protection was perfectly warranted. I was literally on the page history about to do the same exact thing, and Ymblanter beat me to it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have restored to the version other than the one that the silent edit warring IP had 4 RR'ed to restore against multiple editors, and which is entirely uninformative...2600:1017:B404:BD76:50C:5EA7:4313:48DE (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I see loads of edit warring and zero attempts to discuss on the talk page, protection seems appropriate to me. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Good (indeed necessary) revert by Ymblanter, and if the OP can't see that the pre-revert version was a mess of BLP violations, it was necessary to protect the article as well. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

4 editors had restored that version; one vandal kept deleting it who was edit warring. Admin swoops in, and sides with the vandalizing edit warrior who had reverted to that version more than 3 timesover the 4 editors who had no made one more revert each. How does that possibly make sense? What is worse, he refuses to explain his actions. Consesnsus was for the version that this so-called admin reverted. He instead decided to reward the single, vandalizing edit warrior who kept deleting content without explanation over the objections of multiple editors and who remained within the rules. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:THEWRONGVERSION - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I indeed almost always keep the WP:THEWRONGVERSION, but since in this case there were heavy BLP violations in the last version, I reverted it, and this is exactly what pisses the OP off.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"So-called admin" is great. I should start using it. "So-called Wikipedia editor". "So-called IP user".--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And yes, the "four editors" were restoring a BLP mess, and "the single vandalizing edit warrior" was following policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

here (again) are the Diffs of multiple editors restoring this material, a single tome each, all of which was ignored so the single vandal who kept deleting well-sourced material with cosnensus for inclusion and reverted at least 4 times can whitewash the article and make it entirely uninformative ny the deletion of content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Daniel_Shaver&diff=814526011&oldid=814525997 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Daniel_Shaver&diff=814524792&oldid=814524743 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Daniel_Shaver&diff=814525093&oldid=814525018

The IP started personal attacks: [91] (see the edit summary).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

May be it is time to block them and to close the thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

“hey asshole” in response to your rudeness is not an “attack”. Again, you were rude. You intentionally deleted my comment with the diffs. Still trying to evade scrutiny and abuse your tools, are we? Your conduct in this thread is deplorable. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks everyone for the “humor” post. I guess it doesn’t really matter what version the admins revert to, so they shouldn’t bother to read the page history or assess which side has consensus first. They should just do what they like. Is that really the message?2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you were pointed out to WP:BLP several times already, starting from my talk page. You just prefer not to listen.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

what exactly violates BLP here? You’ve never said. And even on the theory there were 1-2 BLP violations, why not delete them individually, rather than the entire text added by several contributors? Surely even if there were some BLP violations, you can’t possibly think that the entire text added by multiple editors in several sections of the article was a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The only citation in that "well-sourced material" that was removed in the diff in question was from Vox.com, which is not a reliable source. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick before it comes back around on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

wait. Vox is not a reliable source? Even so, I could find hundreds of sources saying the same thing. There is widespread outrage over this verdict and the way that dictator Ymblanter’s version presents it is a sad embarassment to the project. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And yet you didn't, you kept reverting to a non-RS, BLP-violating version. "Widespread outrage" isn't a reliable source either. WP:BLP is the single most bright-line policy on Wikipedia behind WP:V, and if an article is violating BLP there is no such thing as edit warring to remove the violating content. In a case where multiple editors were edit-warring to restore it, protecting the non-violating version is the exact opposite of "a sad embarassment to the project". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought the key policy was "inform the readers." No one who reads that article would learn anything about it if they didn't go read the sources themselves. The version of the lead which was restored is certainly an embarrassment, in my view. For example, this is an article titled "Death of Daniel Shaver" which doesn't even mention he was killed in the lead, for crying out loud. It just says he was "shot." How quaint. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:50C:5EA7:4313:48DE (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the version you insist on also does not say he was killed. It says he was executed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, let us ask them: @Tobias994:, @Alpha3031:, why did you revert the text to versions containing blatant BLP violations and strongly non-neutral language?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, It looked like an semi-accidental deletion to me, as the revision I reverted left a dangling "Tex" and there was no edit summary. I didn't revert the second time it popped up on my feed since it looked like more objective language that time. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Abdulrahman Elsamni

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

---

I have tagged Abdulrahman Elsamni for speedy deletion because it is a cross wiki hoax that has been placed in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Swedish. The Italian, Swedish, Dutch and Portuguese versions are deleted yet, the others may follow soon. The person is not notable. However, the writer of the article is acting as an activist and is removing the speedy deletion tag again and again. Please can an administrator take over the control of the page? Thank you. Ymnes (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

He now continues with an IP user. I think the page should be deleted right away, just like it was don in Italian, Swedish, Portuguese and Dutch. It is clearly a hoax of a non notable person. Ymnes (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone block the page until the speedy deletion tag has been cleared? Ymnes (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article because of lack of notability. It does not seem to be a hoax, some of the cited literature mentions one work of A. Elsamni, but the work appears to be a master thesis, which is way blow our notability standards.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: After you deleted Abdulrahman Elsamni, he put it back there. Pleas can you delete it again and block the page space from being republished? Ymnes (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted again and blocked the uploader for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Knowing his perseverance for months yet, it's probaby best to block the article space too from being rewritten for several years. Ymnes (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It crossed and has been done yet. Ymnes (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Deltasaurus

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

---

Deltasaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user registered their account on 1 December 2017, barely a week ago. They have now created unreferenced and suspicious pages about historic animal/species/plant, and science related in large number. Many have failed basic verification if indeed they exist, I am not sure; but some might be hoax. 7 of his drafts have been nominated for deletion here and the discussion have some dissection of the verifiability of the draft contents by User: Lythronaxargestes. They creates articles both in draft and article spaces. They have already created six blatant hoax articles Draft:Lanternsaurus, Noelle 2, 2041 in film, Lanternsaurus, Draft:Wolverhampton Fossil Museum, and Draft:Frugis.Their talkpage is now full of speedy notifications, I think it is time for their contribs to be examined here before they leave what will take years to cleanup –Ammarpad (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

However, the user also has a number of other legitimate contributions. One of their creations, Ieldraan, was a curious mix of fact and fiction by the time I got to working on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The user has yet to respond to any communications. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The amount of clear hoaxes mixed into their productions so far indicates that we would be better off without their contributions, IMO. No one wants to have to wade through further offerings like Saldamosaurus, dutifully assuming good faith, when the bad faith has already been on display so blatantly. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to indef them. We really can't be wasting our time cleaning up after someone who might contribute something legitimate in among all the hoaxes. The lack of communication is also unimpressive - perhaps this will push them into responding. I'm not knowledgable about dinosaur topics so I'm not really in a position to evaluate their remaining contributions, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

comment: This user is a long-term hoaxer who has made several accounts and abused several IPs prior to "Deltasaurus," all of them have been banned for his hoax creations.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Saoirse Ronan

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

---

Davey2010 wants to revert to a poor version of the Saoirse Ronan article as opposed to a much-better version for reasons I can't fathom. When warned at this talk page, this was his abusive edit summary. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is not appropriate for you to just template him again after reporting here while you don't even notify him of this thread. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is clearly a content dispute; an editor with six years' tenure who doesn't know either that or what WP:DTTR is (over a phenomonally petty reason, might I add), should probably either read up on WP:BOOMERANG for wasting all our time. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I presume that the bigger lesson to learn on Wikipedia is to say fuck off to other editors and then walk away scot-free. Gotcha! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But it's appropriate to tell another editor to "fuck off"? And it's not okay for me to then tell that editor to not use personal attacks? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Torah has been adding various stuff to the article which was disputed (and she then was blocked for edit warring), I asked them to go to the talkpage to discuss their edits, I will accept fault for not adding your edits back the first time round but other than that I don't believe I've done anything wrong here, Also you were pointed to WP:DTTR so the very next thing you shouldn't do is template me!, This is a content dispute and as such belongs on the articles talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not Torah. You can't blindly revert me, and then ask me to fuck off, when I call you out on your mistake. That's just not done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I reinstated what I believed to be your edits, Well I can if you're going to template me with an Only Warning template, You didn't call me out on my mistake tho - had you said "Dave could you explain your reverts?" I then would've been more than happy to have a conversation with you but if you're only going to slap a pathetic warning on my talkpage without even trying to discuss it first then quite rightly I'm going to tell you to fuck off, Personal messages go along way in my book and they more helpful than a templated warning. –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate or not, it's hardly unsurprising :) Civility is not just about 'fuck' /et al,; see WP:CIV: Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with. Equally uncivil, some would say. Worth condidering alternatives, defintely. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It would have been a surprise if we treated others with a bit more respect. A warning template v/s an abusive message. If you consider the former to be a bigger infraction than the latter, then that's the big problem. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

70.44.154.16

• 70.44.154.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has removed [92], [93], [94] the information about Russian trolls and their involvement in the U.S. national anthem protests debate multiple times, citing 'lack of consensus'. I left a message on his talk page, explaining why statements made by a U.S. senator based on the evidence he had been provided with cannot be viewed as skeptical or 'unrelated to the subject'. I suggested to change the name of the section from 'Russian trolls' to 'Reactions' as a compromise (personally I don't think it's really needed). He hasn't replied yet. Page: U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present). His talk page: User talk:70.44.154.16. I noticed several warnings on his talk page and decided to report about his edits. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 0:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• User needs to stop or get blocked. They've been warned about DS before and should be blocked if they continue to remove well-phrased material with solid sourcing, and no discussion on the talk page. In the meantime some old racist troll came by via proxy--thank you Volunteer Marek and Shellwood. Bagumba, please suppress next time! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Re: supresss, yes, but I'm limited by slow phone access :-( 01:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: Hi! I replied to your message on my talk page. Speaking of this user, he tends to remove some information he doesn't like. Example: [95]. Check his contributions.Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
      • As Drmies notes, the IP might have other issues. To be fair, however, you have been the only one introducing the material. If it's that obvious of a keep, another editor besides yourself would !vote or insert it back. The edit warring, however, needs to stop between both of you.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
        • He did it first [96], removing an entire section using 'no consensus' as a pretext. I initiated a discussion on his talk page, explaining why this section should be kept. I even proposed to merge it with other reactions and eventually did it. There was no edit warring. There was a guy who wanted to remove something he doesn't like instead of discussing it first. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
          • You restored your preferred edit after a mere 20 minutes of WP:SILENCE, which is the weakest form of consensus. Get consensus from others on either the article or a relevant WikiProject talk page. Follow WP:DR.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
            • That might be the only mistake I have made. I'm a new editor, so I might forget some rules. But to be fair he hasn't replied yet (more than an hour passed). And he didn't give a single good reason why conclusions drawn by U.S. senator James Lankford should be removed. Discussion: User_talk:70.44.154.16#December_2017. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
              • He is notorious for removing the content he doesn't like. And he received multiple warnings. Example: User_talk:70.44.154.16#February_2017_2. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
                • Unless they're actively editing elsewhere and ignoring it, even an hour isn't long enough. Wait, like, a day, or at least overnight, for them to have a chance to respond. There is no deadline. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog Ban breaking/request of Enforcement and further actions

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

---

Case:

Jytdog has recently raised a ruckus in chitosan related articles. Specifically, he has arbitrary deleted some articles and included blatantly erroneous and flawed technical information in others. Chitosan is a natural molecule used as agricultural biopesticide and fertilizer (link). His editions where reverted by another user and the reasons for the reversion explained in the editions and on Jytdog talk page (link). As a consequence Jytdog started a harassment campaign in the name of COI against the user(link).

Reasons for ANI:

- Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted(link), that includes chitosan articles.

- His misuse of COI policies against other users to harass them seems to be a recurrent and not corrected behavior, even after sanctions (link)

- Jytdog's modus operandi based on deleting/merging articles to promote biased and personal opinions has been a recurrent topic for ANI (link)

- His deliberate or unintentional vandalism of chitosan related topics has resulted on a quality detriment of those articles, as reported by other users (link). This implies the loss of abundant work form many other users with the expertise and the willing to improve WP.

- In the light of the events, there are no indications that the edit pattern of Jytdog or his past attacks to other users (link) (link2) (link3) have changed after sanctions.

Requests:

- Immediate enforcement of the ban on agricultural chemicals on Jytdog

- Investigate other possible articles and users affected by Jytdog's none neutral edits and aggressive use of COI.

- Investigate possible actions to prevent further damage to WP by Jytdog and his attacks to other users, taking in consideration the (limited) results of previous bans and warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that posting this complaint are the first-ever edits by this IP. Considering the above, and the editor's obvious knowledge of Jytdog's past history, as well as Wikipedia "inside baseball", I suggest that nothing be done about this report until the IP has indentified what IPs they usually edit under, or what their regular account name is. I make this suggestion because the report reeks of retribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@104.193.226.178: I think the link you posted to this alleged "harassment campaign" may be wrong. Can you check if you linked to the correct page? I see a COI template and polite communication. I do not see harassment, and certainly not a campaign. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that Jytdog goes in a little too hard, but this is not harassment. I'd even be tempted to describe it as model behaviour when approaching a suspected COI situation. I am also not convinced about the link between Shrilk and "genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals". While Shrilk is made from a substance sometimes used as an agricultural chemical, if this were a valid link then Jytdog would not be able to edit articles on say, beer, since both beer and pesticides contain water. Like BMK, I am also curious as to how a fresh IP managed to stumble onto this case and be concerned enough to bring it straight to ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

@104.193.226.178: please log in to your account if you wish to attack users on this noticeboard. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

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

Noellesch9

• Noellesch9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maximiliano Korstanje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like Noellesch9 topic banned from Maximiliano Korstanje. The user's history consists solely of edits bigging up the subject and pleading with others to help him do so. For example, there have been repeated additions of a section on "theory and work" (e.g. [97]) with pretty much identical text, trying out an endless succession of different sources all of which that I have checked either turn out to be Korstanje himself, or not to mention him at all. I think this editor is associated with Korstanje. See also the COIN discussion. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• That seems very reasonable. I'll support it, including also topic banning the IP 181.29.25.187, compare the IP's talkpage. It's sort of unfortunate that nobody has given them a discretionary sanctions alert for BLPs, by posting the template {{subst:alert|blp}}, so that a single uninvolved admin could have topic banned them more simply. It's an obvious case of promotional editing, and they have received plenty of advice. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

Title of Pyotrch Wrangel

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

---

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

This may well be the wrong page for this, but I need attention from any Admin, as I am unable to rectify the botched (by me, incidentally) title of this article, nor address the issue on the relevant page. I was attempting to find a way to revert the title to Pyotr Wrangel, as this is the common practice for Russian names in WP, i.e. without patronymic (such as Vladimir Mayakovsky, Vladimir Putin, etc).Axxxion (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Unfair close of previous ANI

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

---

I'm an unregistered user collaborating on WP for the last 8+ years with small editions here an there, mostly on organic chemistry. Recently I raised an ANI (link) about a user "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted;" who was editing "Chitosan", a compound used as fertilizer and biopestizide.

The response to the ANI was closing it without investigation because I don't have a user. Is worth noticing that the user closing the topic has a strong opinion on the contribution of unregistered users like me and he is author of this (link). While I respect the decisions made on every arbitration, I believe this closure without investigation is strongly unfair. There is no rule about unregistered users not asking ANI and there is no report of edit wars or similar requiring to know past grudge between users.

I, somehow, was expecting an unbiased investigation of a ban break, not an scrutiny of my ideas about anonymity or a discussion on the polices about unregistered users (Shooting the messenger). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• In that case, I'll just add a note I didn't have time to add before the "Jytdog Ban breaking/request of Enforcement and further actions" thread above was closed: As Jytdog has pointed out on his page, the IP 104.193.226.178 geolocates to the workplace of Javier Fernandez, the inventor of the substance at issue above, Chitosan.[98] So does the IP 202.94.70.60, which Jytdog supposedly "harassed" by posting a COI notice. 202.94.70.60 has acknowledged a connection: "Prof. Javier is my math professor."[99] 104.193.226.178, do you have a similar connection? Are you the same person as 202.94.70.60?

About your complaint: I think the reason people assume you have an account is the wide and deep knowledge you demonstrate of Wikipedia history and conventions ("Wikipedia inside baseball", as Beyond My Ken says), which is hardly compatible with "collaborating on WP for the last 8+ years with small editions here and there". Bishonen | talk 13:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

I have no idea what is "Wikipedia inside baseball", and I didn't know that knowledge was required to edit articles on organic chemistry.

An user banned to edit agricultural chemicals is editing chitosan, an article on an agricultural chemical. How come the discussion is about COI or no COI of a different user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

Quote: "There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the dispute here exactly? I reported the edition of an article by a banned user, I don't see the dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

It may be a good idea to retract your false allegation about a "harassment campaign". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

When you have a discussion on "notability" of an article and a user starts requesting other participants identifications, transforming the discussion on the content of an article and its notability on COI or no COI of the participants, and in particular of those challenging his ideas... how do you call that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. Read WP:SIGN for more information. Lankiveil wrote: "I'd even be tempted to describe it as model behaviour when approaching a suspected COI situation.". Lankiveil is not wrong. Maybe you are unfamiliar with Conflict of Interest cases on Wikipedia and the way they are usually handled. In this case, asking about conflicts of interest was a reasonable thing to do, and it was done politely. You overreacted, and falsely accused someone of starting a "harassment campaign". I would recommend retracting that false allegation. If you want more information about conflicts of interest on Wikipedia you can read WP:COI. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your view that on a discussion on notability of an article, the "thing to do" is neglect the discussion on notability and conclude that the is no notability because one of the participants might have a COI. There are two invalid arguments there: One is a clear example of Ad hominem, because you are using a characteristic of the user (his COI) to demonstrate his arguments are wrong, you are not discussing his arguments. The other one is a Non sequitur, because you are producing conclusion on the notability of a topic based on arguments of COI of a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

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

Ongoing sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10

We have a continuation of #Abdulrahman Elsamni: one of the socks of the creator, blocked user User:AbdulRahman14, opened a DRV request. To start with, this is a page which has been created by a blocked user evading their block (they were blocked for a week) and must be deleted. Unfortunately, however, several users in good standing gave their opinions at this page, and some of them voted overturn, so that deleting the page may be not the best solution for the time being. However, socks continue to show up at the page, creating the effect of mass support, and, at the very least, it should be semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter is clearly abusing his rights. He deleted the page based on a false A7 tag and is making an edit war with all the people who do not agree with his decision. The page should not be overtaken from enwiki at the first place. This is the real problem. 216.105.171.51 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The deletion should be overturned because the deletion of the page is not on right basis. I ask other admins to intervene and solve this. It is not acceptable to delete pages and proper subjects to punish illegal users. Please intervene and stop this admin from abusing users just to make a point. XMalikShabazzX (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this sock indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)]

Keep shuting up our mouths. No surrender. 185.112.249.187 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Continual block evasion will get you nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They are now having fun at my talk page and at the Wikipedia article about me (probably also elsewhere).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny to hear trolls talk about someone else "having no real life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Asdfen

• Asdfen (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Persistent vandalism.[100][101][102][103] Cskamoscow100 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You should have welcome them first, and give some warning at least. That is not clear vandalism, they are only removing some information which they feel is critical in their view as their edit summaries show. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

He added some clearly unsourced information that was reverted by other users. It seemed that he was trying to push some agenda. That prompted me to file a report. That's it. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Cskamoscow100. I have warned Asdfen. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

@Cskamoscow100:, I am not saying you did wrong by reporting here. But at least not yet warned user-, not even welcomed newbie, we shouldn't say persistent vandalism because it's narrow concept. Also vandalism is reported at WP:AIV, where I am sure if you'd reported will be declined for insufficient warning. Last but not the least POV pushing is not persistent vandalism WP:Vandalism #NPOV contraventions, especially by newbie –Ammarpad (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

SPA's with obvious agendas don't require "welcoming". But Bishonen is right that the OP should have notified the user about this report. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems that he used this IP (Special:Contributions/84.52.164.122) before creating an account. [104] By the way, state-sponsored doping was proved by the IOC Inquiry Commission that suspended top Russian officials (including Vitaly Mutko) and banned them for life.[105] Cskamoscow100 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jean-Joseph Sanfourche

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

---

The page Jean-Joseph Sanfourche to completely disappeared in English exists in French and Spanish it is an act of vendalism--88.140.18.15 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the vandalism is in the French and Spanish Wikipedias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve given this its own sub-heading as it appears to have nothing to do with the Asdfen issue/Doping in Russia article reported immediately above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It was an expired PROD [106]. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued attempts to change the subject of the Knights Templar (Freemasonry) article

• Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Knights Templar (Freemasonry) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making edits to change the article, Knights Templar (Freemasonry) in an attempt to turn it into an article about a specific organization named, the Great Priory of England and Wales and its Provinces Overseas. If they would like to make an article about that organization they are welcome to, but using the namespace of an existing article rather than making a new one is unacceptable. They refuse to discuss the issue. I originally made a post here not realizing they had declared their intent on the talk page, but weeks have passed and they have not responded to the page talk or their personal talk. All they have done is reverted any attempt to edit the page back to its original subject. PeRshGo (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP brought this up on AN/I about two weeks ago, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Problematic WP:OWN behaviour

Brianrodgershfx (talk · contribs · count)

This user has insisted on re-inserting promotional content and violations of the WikiProject Radio Stations guidelines on articles such as Weatheradio Canada and CKHZ-FM, and reverting edits without any explanation at all. The user also displays an insistence on using primary sources, removing subscription-only sources, and adding trivial information such as current airstaff (which is usually not allowed per WikiProject Radio Stations guidelines unless sourced and notable). The user issued me a warning stating that I should not be the "Wikipedia police", accusing me of "[making] numerous deletions to Wikipedia pages that you have no affiliation with what so ever." an implication of ownership. The editor also deflected by asserting that I was violating WP:OWN because "one person does not decide what should or should not be on Wikipedia".

The editor User:198.33.159.251 had done the exact same things, although I believe that the user had only just registered for an account today. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential Violation

ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · logs) has been editing/removing content on select pages including but not limiting to former logos created by other users. This in my view is considered vandalism, and such behaviors today was reverted to prevent such behavior. This user has removed information on Weatheradio Canada that I have included as the main contributor of that Wikipedia page, that explains the whole service to Canadians. The user has also removed credible sources on CKHZ-FM, Evanov Radio Group, and replaced the source with a link unrelated to the addition to the service, and requires people to subscribe to the website to view news related material. Almost every local page in my area I have been editing he has been deleting, with no sufficient reason for doing so. Seeing his past revisions on many other pages, this seems to be a trend this user is doing, and is removing content the user does not want or like. The user is treating pages as his/her own and that is unacceptable. I can see deletions if they violated Wikipedia standards, but nothing I have added is in any violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have notified ViperSnake151, which should have been done by the OP. --Malerooster (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

He already knows. This is a counterattack to a section posted by Viper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. And is the brand-new user Brianrodgershfx the same as 198.33.159.251 (talk · contribs)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Wakari07 engaging in DE

Wakari07 is, in my opinion, engaging in DE by refusing to acknowledge a consensus that a news item he added in Portal:Current events/2017 December 9 in re Donald Trump's TV viewing habits is not notable. I have also counted at least 5 reversions by him in the past 24 hours, which also means he has violated 3RR. At the very least, Wakari07 should start a discussion on why it is notable. Actions need to be taken by this point, I believe. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack by Kleuske

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

I'm currently in an edit conflict with Kleuske. The tone she uses with me, can hardly be called a hallmark of civility. I've not reciprocated the hostility, nor do I intend to do so, but I do want it to stop. This user has a long history of personal conflicts (block, ArbCom) on the Dutch Wikipedia, which she has since left. Now I wasn't a part of those conflicts and understand they should not play a role on the English Wikipedia, but I do think this information is useful for the bigger picture.

Following my request for more civility, Kleuske told me to "go like her ass clean" by way of a link to the Mozart song. Given the conflict and history of this user, I do not consider this humor. Especially since she implies it to be "payback" for my genuine suggestion that she make take a (literal) stroll, instead of badgering me while I was busy writing a large, complicated rationale.

Could a moderator please try to get through to this user, so that a civil conversation can perhaps be possible, because this is "assuming bad faith" plain and simple. I ask for myself, but also for future users. Thank you. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Having begged for a proper source all afternoon, disputing a page move and explaining (inc. sources) why it's wrong (which was reverted promptly, several times), being told to take a hike and then being berated about "my style of communication" I got thoroughly fed up. As it turns out, AKAKIOS' own source flatly contradicts claims by Akakios and refers to the language in question as "oudnederfrankish" (old low franconian). [107]. This is not the first time AKAKIOS stood out to me by less than reasonable behavior [108]. Kleuske (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah... The request AKAKIOS referred to was for an ISBN-number for a source. It would have taken 20 seconds. Kleuske (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, do not try to turn this into a content-dispute. I've already explained to you why your assumption that this particular source is self contradictory, is false. But this not about content, this is about you continually addressing me (without any provocation on my side, everybody can check this with the diffs provided) in an unacceptable manner; with the latest remark about me "licking your ass clean" being the reason I filed this complaint. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm merely explaining why I got thoroughly fed up. Kleuske (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You had a reply within 2 hours. Is that reason to tell someone to go "lick your arse"? AKAKIOS (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that was after you berating me on my "style of communication". Kleuske (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Any administrator can see that your entire discourse with me has been uncordial and insulting from the beginning, not just after I made a remark about it. In which, by the way, I was not berating you (anyone can see that) but asked you why you were discussing the way you were/are and telling you that I find it unpleasant and nonconstructive. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And your own style of communication is beyond reproach, I suspect. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is! And even if it wasn't (which it isn't!) it would still not justify your behavior! AKAKIOS (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Wikipedia does not need "rationales" (WP:OR), it needs sources and sources is all I asked for. Not a wall of (unsourced) text teeming with original research, your opinion and WP:PEACOCK terms. Kleuske (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Again: don't make this about content. It's about you making a Personal Attack, something you did and I didn't (if I had, you would have already posted the diffs here). You told another user to "lick your arse clean". Does this not bother you? AKAKIOS (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I specifically told you after begging for a source, you ignoring WP:BRD, several assurances that the source was forthcoming, being treated to a garbled wall of text and finally being berated on my talkpage. Kleuske (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You asked for an ISBN, and got it within 2 hours. You asked for sources, and got them([109]) and then some. But again, and this is the 3rd time I'm saying this: this is not about content. It's about you showing rude and unacceptable behavior, culminating in telling someone to "go and lick your arse". Now you accused me of doing the same and I told you that I did not (daring you to provide proof) and told you that even if true, it would not justify your behavior in any way. Respond to that, instead of spreading incorrect accusations which have nothing to do with your Personal attack against me. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as the Mozart reference goes, that was a direct reponse to your style of communication, your refusal to abide by WP:BRD, trying to WP:OWN the article, getting WP:AGF shoved in my face, editwarring (in which I was an unwilling participant, but still) a refusal to properly cite sources (and flatly contradicting said source), being told to "go for a walk" (take a hike) and a garbled wall of text laced with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I have recently nominated Netherlandic sound shift for deletion, since the term simply does not exist and isn't mentioned in the sources you provide. If I check sources and they flatly contradict your claims, I get frustrated. Strange, but true. Kleuske (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You repeat your accusations, you can even make an untimely [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlandic sound shift|nominate a recent article I started for deletion]] to show your willingness in resolving this matter, but what you cannot do is excuse your behavior by suggesting I made similar remarks (once again, I did not, stop accusing me or provide evidence) or saying that you got frustrated. You are an adult. Adults do not tell others to "go and lick your arse clean" in a civil discussion. AKAKIOS (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• AKAKIOS is repeatedly adding unsourced/OR material (including making unsourced, and obviously wrong, changes on maps on Commons, maps that are used in multiple articles on multiple WPs; see messages from me on their talk page there), and simply refuses to stop. Even making false claims about their changes being sourced, when they obviously aren't. So it's no wonder other editors become frustrated... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The map in question has all it sources listed. You disputed the fact that Southern Scandinavia was sparsely inhabited (which my general source claims) and I asked for you to bring up a specific source that countered the claim. I even reverted my version to one which does show Southern Sweden as fully inhabited (as you claimed) with the edit summary " Assuming good faith, while waiting on sources for claims." ([110]) to show my constructiveness, this is still the current version and you haven't replied since. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)