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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(←) 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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "...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)[reply]

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

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

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

Questions about a new action by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 5/closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• First AN/I report (29 October 2017): [12]
• Second AN/I report (18 November 2017): [13]

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, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. (The one time he did respond, it was to denigrate the intelligence of the person making the complaint. [19]. 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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. [20] 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. [21] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [22]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

It's not the first time I've seen this happen since the ACTRIAL.  Fixed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me... Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now you bring it up. Same at Rapšach-->Evan M. Loomis. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Vlčetínec--> Jason D. Ballard Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

One more: Světce --> Tomorrow Lab by Rmleien. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to this, the user name used to create this article has 10 edits, and was created on Nov. 22nd.[[23]] The fifth edit was a move.[[24]] Am I missing something? The whole point of this is to bypass NPP. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Wyetna (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Awes Mepri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rvetmenz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Faust Metewc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Waqr Emane (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Histen Meaniiul (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ruet Trel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Regsk Laeo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tenletoc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Iviesk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Scoraln (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Satifndel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Myers Lena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mowsrnr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jaema Leez (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gremdei Nobdry (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krmdnlira (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Leana.IZn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dinarme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Veszente (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Stale for checkuser:

• User:Geia Samr
• User:Ben Lenv
• User:D.Pouera
• User:Oken Skaqi

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))[reply]
• 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))[reply]
• Copelin to Airwheel C5 (Histsplit - Sair Rez blocked.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Favio to MapD Technologies (WP:TWODABS, Dliunh blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Janick to Foreign Forest (Histsplit - Aleiv blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Podsiadło to MsdsDigital (Histsplit - Selena 2004 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Prokopov to Roland Frasier (WP:TWODABS, Prokopov (Znojmo District) > Prokopov, Canura blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• 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))[reply]
• 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))[reply]
• Swindlehurst to SwimJim (Histsplit - Authts blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Tonello to The GLD Shop (Histsplit - Monkey 298 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Gokinjo to GoChange.co (Histsplit and Cadilacc blocked by another admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Shimozawa to Sex Toys 247 (Histsplit by another admin; Muller Salz blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, and nuked all the sandboxes and anything else I could.

• Beli Gapnca (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Spouatnmal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jivenseh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Uvliena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Checkuser needed. Also the list of non-stale accounts above, please. MER-C 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kębliny to FormSwift.com

• Hazey Kewon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

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

• Kęsów to The IFL

• Chantelli (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

Just for the hell of it, I wrote a program to fetch all moves since 1 July by users with less than 30 edits and found two more:

• Lorenki to Atrium (company)
  • Luape Yuan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Toužetín to NTFRMHRE (already reverted)
  • Bretisne Leneia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I can dump the (somewhat ugly) output somewhere if you want to look at it. MER-C 20:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anything left to do with respect to this, point me to it. bd2412 T 03:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks. This trend is infuriating. bd2412 T 03:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If we don't unpatrol moved pages, what happens to drafts (in whatever namespace) over 30 days old that get moved to mainspace? Do they sit unnoticed by NPP? – Train2104 (t • c) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Seem silly, but place name seldom change, any change just like in Ukraine, would be a controversial move that requires discussion, may be lock all place name from moving, is a solution? Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting one class of page from this sort of move will just inspire the spammers to vandalize some other class of infrequently-watched page. A filter which prevents moves of pages with fewer than some number of watchers would stem this behaviour but could be quite disruptive. However, this is a class of spammers that are not just creating unsuitable content but also destroying good encyclopedic content in the process, and so some level of disruption may be warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with few watchers are more likely to need moving. I don't know if these can be prevented without also preventing improvements to many more pages, but improvements to Special:Tags and Special:RecentChanges make any new moves easier to find. Peter James (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, that's exactly the problem. Unpatrolling moved pages is a better solution as long as new page patrollers know to look for these sort of moves, and after I read up the thread I remembered that I was (one of) the one(s) that suggested that in the first place; I'd long forgotten about it. Whose arm do we have to twist? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#Unpatrol moved pages and phabricator:T159028. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an edit filter that identifies new accounts (<50 edits) executing page moves be helpful? There would be a lot of legit moves but its log would be a live centralized point to record such moves. Crow^Caw 18:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crow: See filter 877. I don't think it's suitable for forking at this time, but feel free to do so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's about what I had in mind anyway! Crow^Caw 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

877 isn't great, there's a lot of noise and obviously the spammers have already figured out not to use dab pages. Could one of you code-familiar gnomes make a report that could show something like "<new user> moved page <source small page> to <target small page>"? That would still have a lot of noise but then at least it should be obvious that a move is from a dab or stub or whatever to a completely unrelated title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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." [25]

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

• 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)[reply]

• Here is the where he includes his own personal anecdote into an wikipedia article, which I tried to delete. [26] 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)[reply]

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 [27] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

And the moment the original IP's block expired he came back and started making exactly the same edits, so now he gets to enjoy a block for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll got played by Eugene again. He basically ensured that nobody will remove his edits now by creating an annoying "troll" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.109.22 (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger Another block is required. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A rangeblock may be in order at this point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 [28]. 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)" [29]. 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" [30]. 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)[reply]

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 : [31], [32] , [33]. 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)[reply]

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 [34]. 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)[reply]

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 [35]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Gjirokastra15 You were thanked twice for starting that discussion, not for insulting me. Everyone can see other participants in the discussion condemned your insults [36][37]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [38] removing a Brill source with quote as an unreliable source, because the surname of the author is Jazexhi? [39]? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken I would suggest you read the discussion here carefully so you can have a better understanding of the situation. @Tarage The content dispute does not worry me as I have never taken part in that dispute. Cheers to all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest the you learn how to properly indent your comments so it doesn't look like you posted before someone else when you actually posted after they did -- which I fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resnjari Gjirokastra15 apologized on their talk, and this gives me hope he will not repeat his mistakes. I tried to work it out on his talk through dialogue but their response was offensive as it can easily be verified. After this report experienced editors will keep an eye on Gjirokastra15, this gives me hope too. Those words are not justifiable, and the most horrifying thing is that Gjirokastra15 says he has a Muslim background, hence every unpleasant word can be seen as firstly targeting his family/ancestors. I am happy this report helped. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrim991: "Gjirokastra15 says he has a Muslim background, hence every unpleasant word can be seen as firstly targeting his family/ancestors." Excuse me? What claim are you making here about the general behavior of Muslims? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken it to do with that exchange on my talkpage last. In short both Gjirokastra15 and i both come from Muslim backgrounds and both of us, his through conversion, my experience through my mother converting to Christianity when i was small - i am however of no particular faith now in my life. I really don't want to rehash all that conversation that went into an unsavory direction -as i said to Gjirokastra not to do it again, and for the rest of us lets just leave it at that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Gjirokastra15 actually said: Well i cannot apologize for something i have not said Calthinus, and i have clarified that i certainly do not think that , half of my family being of muslim background. (diff) he was the one that started with the personal attacks. Now that everything is over , i will admit that i did exaggerate, however it is a psychological reflex of mine to react harsh when i feel offended. ....I do stronly feel that @Ktrimi991 is unjustifiably sensitive regarding my comments .... (diff).

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I don't see that he admited that they wrote anti-Muslim comments nor they appologized for that. They apologized for being harsh toward Ktrimi991 during their discussion. Gjirokastra15 is accused for writing anti-Muslim comments. That is serious accusation. Wikipedia should not tollerate writing comments aimed against a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity.... If serious evidence is presented for such serious accusation, then they should be indef banned having in mind that they insist i am not gonna say that i do not believe most of the stuff i wrote (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. [45]) 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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]
• Dyck99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked per WP:DUCK. Identical edits. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen and JzG: Several editors from Korstanje's article are claiming to be editing it as part of a college class assignment. FWIW, FYI, etc. CityOfSilver 06:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I'm not very good with student assignments, and this looks far from a normal one, if what the purported instructor, User:Wellscholar9, says on CityOfSilver's page is true. (Even less so if it isn't true, but I'm trying to hold on to WP:AGF like a drowning woman to a spar.) I suggest that

• a) a Checkuser please check Noellesch9 and User:Wellscholar9, and
• b) somebody with the requisite skills and tact in the field of student editing please engage with Wellscholar9. Note that the IPs only turned up when Noellesch had undertaken to stop editing Maximiliano Korstanje after numerous warnings, so I'm very dubious about the whole thing. JzG had put pending changes on Maximiliano Korstanje, but in view of the recent disruption, that's hardly enough. I've changed it to semi. And thank you very much, CityOfSilver|. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bad ping, sorry; I'm pinging CityOfSilver again. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

On second thoughts I have also blocked Noellesch9 and the IP 181.29.25.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which Noellesch9 has explicitly claimed. That seems just the tip of the iceberg, though, and note that there are more articles being edited by this, well, group. Checkuser, please? @Bbb23 and Dougweller:. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Checkuser needed - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not runnning a check at this point just to find out if there are more accounts/users. I can't tell you how much time I've wasted in the past uncovering a large group of "socks" who then claim to be part of a classroom assignment that was never set up properly. Then, after a whole lot of back-and-forth, apologies by the instructor, etc., all the accounts have to be unblocked. My suggestion is you attempt to get to the bottom of the classroom issue first before pursuing more blocks. I won't decline the CU request, though, in case another CU feels differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing out the checkuser needed now. If someone wants to pursue that route, they should create an SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG, Bishonen, The Bushranger, and Bbb23: Just going on the messages they left here, I don't think a CU is needed. Noelle9 and Wellscholar9 have an extremely similar grasp of English where it's fully coherent but slightly imperfect, like they learned it as a second language. That's obviously not a problem but the linguistic tics are a bit similar. Also, Wellscholar9 claims to have "worked for Oxford University Press". Bbb23, do you think that's enough to just block per WP:DUCK? CityOfSilver 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bishonen, I support a WP:DUCK block. The idea that this is a class assignment is implausible, especially given the ongoing pattern of promotion of Korstanje, in particular. I have been reviewing articles which include large paragraphs giving extensive descriptions of Korstanje's perspective on various things, based always on his own published work, often in predatory open access journals. Astonishingly, a review shows that this was almost always added by Argentinian commercial (not academic) IP addresses. By an amazing coincidence, many of the edits to Korstanje's article are also by Argentinian commercial IP addresses - example 190.2.54.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I am calling WP:REFSPAM on this. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, JzG. I'd be glad to block the "Wikipedia in decline" IP, 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), too. A lot of warnings on their talkpage. And did you notice this recent edit from Wellscholar9? I don't know what User:Famousdog had been saying to provoke it. I can't find a journal called "Nova" — probably the name is actually longer. And what the hell is "Clarivate Masterfull book"? This is all so difficult. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Howzabout protecting the article for a while instead of doing an inevitable whack-a-mole series of blocks? This is a subject of very borderline notability. Something tells me en:wp will survive if the article stays protected until the "students" get bored and go away (or the term ends, or pretty much forever for that matter). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both ;-) Guy (Help!) 09:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've blocked Wellscholar9, and I see Oshwah has blocked 190.104.232.132, though only for 24 hours. That should probably be more, as it's static and seems to have been used (pretty disruptively) by the same person for years. Like I said above, I have protected the article, though maybe not for long enough; we'll see. Oh, and I've got the "Nova" thing: it refers to Nova Science Publishers, which 190.104.232.132 edited promotionally in 2016, and Famousdog very recently. So, Wellscholar9's edit to Famousdog's talkpage is another link between that account and 190.104.232.132. Bishonen | talk 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's the exact same behaviour on the exact same articles. This user is adding information that is completely unsourced and feels like original research. The new editor should also be aware that subscription-only sources are allowed and that primary sources are given less weight in articles in comparison to reliable, secondary sources (in fact, the fact we even have {{Subscription required}} should imply that this is an accepted behaviour), and that not all edits considered unfavourable to this user are considered vandalism. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What logos is he referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link he is referring to is from CKHZ-FM which contains a Press Release by Evanov Radio Group. This user deleted that link and replaced it with a link where a subscription was required. It would have been acceptable to include the Subscription Required link along with my original link, but should not be fair to completely replace a free viewing article with a subscription only link. The logos I was referring to are former logos of CKHZ-FM, this user deleted them which have been there for quite sometime, and is not uncommon to include former logos as seen on other Canadian television and radio stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"there for quite sometime" is not an excuse to violate the Non-free content policies. Decorative use of non-free images is not allowed, and how they are presented there amounts to a gallery, which does not always comply with said policies. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be part of this edit war. I think further input is needed to determine whether more than one fair-use image would be allowed there. As to press releases, as far as I know those are not considered particularly good sources. Ideally, a free source should be provided, but if one is not available, referring to a particular newspaper page is verifiable. The list of personalities appears to be unsourced. And, as I said earlier, this looks like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. Second time that's had to be linked from ANI reccently.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Brianrodgershfx is a new editor who does not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (see User talk: Brianrodgershfx#Non-free image use and User talk: Brianrodgershfx#What?) and the edit warring over these images and the content at CKHZ-FM is unfortunate. ViperSnake151 is correct in that this type of non-free use of former galleries in pretty much not allowed per WP:NFG and the fact the such galleries might exist in other articles is not a valid justification per WP:OTHERIMAGE. OTHERIMAGE is not really a justification for non-free use because not all files are licensed the same and it's possible that the files being used in these other articles are freely licensed or public domain, or the files are just also being used in violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

ViperSnake151 was bold in removing the files, but it might have been better to leave a clearer edit sum the "Not needed. Already mentioned elsewhere" explaining why. Now that the files have been re-added to the article, it would be better to move the discussion of their non-free use to FFD instead of just removing them again. Just from looking at the files, however, it seems possible that they might be below the threshold of originality for Canada or at the very least considered to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia, which is something which can be discussed at FFD.

As for the text content dispute, I don't see any attempt made by either editor to discuss things on the article talk page. I would suggest that the article be reverted back to the last stable revision here before the dispute began per WP:STATUSQUO and that both sides follow WP:DR and try to sort things out on the article talk page, including perhaps even asking for comments from relevant WikiProjects, etc. using {{Please see}} templates. Edit warring is not going to won by anyone and will likely lead at best warnings being issued or at worst somebody getting blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC+9)

Actually the "not needed/already mentioned elsewhere" was actually referring to another piece of disputed content, the blatant promotion that the station is on iHeartRadio. There was already a blurb about it with a secondary source on the page for the station's owner (although the user also insisted that it had to be sourced to a primary source because subscription-only sources are supposedly not allowed. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is new and is making some mistakes. That's not intended to be an excuse for any edit warring, but new editors are not as well versed in relevant policies and guidelines so sometimes they might not be quick to understand what's going on around them when reverts are fast and furious. The removal of the logo files was mixed in with the other changes you made in that edit, but there's was really no explanation given as to why. Non-free content use is tricky and even editors who have been here for years still make mistakes, so it's not really a big surprise that a new editor would not get why the files were removed. As for the other stuff, I still think the best thing to do here would be to engage in talk page discussion. I've tried explaining things to Brianrodgershfx's on his user talk, so maybe he will be amenable to hashing things out with you on the relevant article talk page. At this point, a block seems more punitive than preventive in my opinion, so maybe it's time to move on and get back to editing. As I posted above, you can FFD the files if you like to try and sort out (1) whether they are PD-logo and (2) to discuss their non-free use if they are not. FWIW, (1) seems possible, but (2) would almost certainly lead to the files being removed once again. However, at least there would be a consensus either way as to how the files should be handled. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wakari07, edit warring about anything involving American politics, and especially Donald Trump, is just inviting a block. Please read the discretionary sanctions info note I placed on your talk page and get consensus for your changes instead of reverting multiple times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my defence, I tried (forgive my ignorance) to raise this notice. I am currently engaged in trying to catch my train while a cabal is waiting for me, so I will probably get back to you shortly. Meanwhile, please feel free to add more hurtful feelings down here. Thank you all.Wakari07 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What "cabal" are you talking about? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wakari has engaged in insulting personal callouts and insults on a number of occasions already, in direct contravention of NPA. I am inclined to assume this is merely a continuation of such behavior. I believe actions need to be taken now on this issue as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ♠PMC♠: "a semi-ironic description of the efforts of people to maintain some order over the structure of the community". I'm part of a cabal who tries to make trains run in my country. It's often hectic and sometimes deranged. You see? I didn't mean "cannibal" or so, let's be clear...
• Kiteinthewind: since you don't hurt me, i wish you no harm.. Wakari07 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While editing December 9's current events, I repeatedly called to talk and form a consensus somewhere. Unfortunately I didn't see the day's talk page nor did I think of using it. I proposed my talk page section where I already put some thoughts. Some of the complainers could have pointed me to that stub of an argument. I repeat that I repeatedly called for discussion and got no link to a thread. That's a waste too.
• This story was heavily carried by the global media. Because it was described as a report based on solid research published by a most reputable source, I think it is newsworthy. It provides significant hard data, metrics. Data that helps people understand how the world really works. If we can't have this, social sciences describing human behaviour have no point either.
• There was an ip storm during the event. You're independent from "a bunch of numbers and letters"?
• My last point is to try to raise a discussion on valid sources *somewhere*. Wakari07 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cabal' has a certain meaning on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like having to go urgently where there's no toilet. Wakari07 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi fellow admins.

I think it would help if an uninvolved admin said something at Talk:Racial hygiene#Uncomfortable with all this especially the title.

The thread was originally started by an editor that wasn't even sure if the article should be there. I could see where that editor was coming from but removed some of the most off-topic aspects, to tidy it up a bit... and make it clearer what the title of the article actually refers to... so far so good.

There is an editor (Beyond My Ken) who does not want these off-topic aspects removed. I have explained that they are off topic, but apparently more detail is required. I have asked this editor why the content should be kept. This has not been answered. I have highlighted WP:ONUS. This has been ignored. I get accused of edit warring... repeatedly... with bold and italics... despite the fact that Beyond My Ken has reverted more times than me.

I am generally of the opinion that you need to talk about edits, to see each others point of view... but given this editor doesn't even want to say why the content should be kept, a bit of help would be appreciated. It may be that a third opinion on the content would move the conversation on... or it may be that an uninvolved admin asking Beyond My Ken to explain why the content should be kept would help.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No "fellow admin" here (talk about poisoning the waters!), just a "so-called editor".

Yaris678 is an admin, so why did he not follow WP:BRD? Why did he attempt to force in his changes twice after they were disputed, when there was no consensus to do so? Why does he still refuse to offer any specific arguments in support of his proposed changes, only general statements? Here, Yaris678 lauds the value of discussion, but on the talk page, he really hasn't followed through. It may be that his edits are correct, but other editors need to be convinced of that, and Yaris is for some reason reticent to justify his edits. I really don't get it -- all I did was ask for the normal amount of discussion for a disputed edit, and I'm taken to AN/I for that? Ye gods!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(general note) Dare I say, the bold and italics that frequent your writing can sometimes appear to be a bit intimidating and/or aggressive? Most likely not your intention, but it is something to keep in mind. !dave 19:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned before a number of times, it's intended to mimic the emphases of the ebb and flow of normal spoken language. If I wanted to SHOUT, I'd SHOUT, or even SHOUT.^**

But I think that the issue here is Yaris678's ignoring BRD and trying to force a disputed edit into an article without adequate discussion or consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(** Ok, sometimes I do speak very emphatically, but I'm still not shouting.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acquillion and Mendaliv having provided the necessary justification for the changes proposed by Yaris687, there seems to be little left to do here except perhaps to trout Yaris for using AN/I to get his way in a content dispute without having to himself provide the needed arguments to bring about a consensus. Not really very good behavior for an admin, I would say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken - Yaris678 stated above that you didn't provide any justification to argue that the content he removed should be kept. After reading through the talk page discussion between you two, I think there might be some confusion regarding when consensus is assumed. Your first response to the talk page discussion (here) states, "I've reverted your edits, as I do not see a consensus here for them", but I don't see any evidence of a current dispute on the article's talk page where consensus is being questioned in relation to these changes. Wikipedia's policy on consensus states that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Yaris678 simply responded to someone's concerns made back in September 2017, agreed, and made some edits to the article to try and resolve the concerns expressed. Where exactly was consensus under dispute here?

Namely, I think Yaris678 was looking to hear assertions from you as to why the content he removed wasn't off-topic so that he could start discussing them further with you and try and resolve the (now apparent) content dispute. But I notice that this discussion quickly spiraled towards accusations of edit warring and repeated responses from you stating that he hasn't provided a good enough argument as to why changes he made were valid in the first place (as if he needed to convince an empty room of people to the changes)... he didn't need to provide a hugely in-depth and compelling argument in the article's talk page until you responded and asked for them. Then, sure - now the changes are in question (and under dispute because you disagree with them), and he provided a response on top of the original discussion stating that the content was off-topic and didn't belong. He's asking for your argument in opposition to his findings, and he started this ANI because the discussion turned into a "your arguments didn't convince me so it must stay by default" vs "I gave you the reasons for removing the content, can you please respond with a rebuttal to them?" back-and-fourth circle of responses and he was confused and knew that things were going nowhere.

I have not yet reviewed the actual diffs of the changes made to the article itself; I simply wanted to review and go through the talk page discussion so that I couldn't take sides regarding the core dispute at-hand. I instead wanted to start by providing a response here regarding where and why the talk page discussion went in the direction that it did, and what needs to be done in order to break that circle and get the dispute resolution discussion back on track. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the talk page discussion is over, since other editors -- not Yaris678 -- provided sufficient justification for the changes that Yaris678 attempted to edit war into the article. They did what I'd been asking for from the beginning of the dispute: they provided the necessary argument to justify the edit, something which Yaris678 was, for some reason, reluctant to do.

Whether Yaris678 thinks that the talk page discussion is moot at this point, I don't know, they would have to speak for themselves, but I don't see why they wouldn't, since they got the result they were looking for. Whether Yaris678 thinks this discussion is worth pursuing, in the hope of my being sanctioned, is another question only they can answer -- but I note that having initiated this thread, Yaris678 has not participated in it since.

For my part, the talk page discussion devolved quickly due to Yaris678's unwillingness to accede to my request for a more specific argument of justification. A request from another editor for a change in an article is sufficient to warrant making the change, but it's hardly enough to justify reverting the change back into the article twice when it's been disputed, something that Yaris678, as an admin, ought to be well aware of. Still, I do not seek any sanction on Yaris678 (except perhaps a trouting), so I see no value in this thread being continued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the other comments on the article talk page, you will know that the other editors thought that the reasons I gave were sufficient and the problem was down to your lack of communication. There isn't any more to say. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply the disagreement was my fault. Yaris678 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm only stating the facts. The editors whose opinions you referred to expressed them before I disputed your edit, so they are not relevant to the question of whether you should have tried to edit war the edit back into the articie - which, of course, you shouldn't have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, folks. Would you please place a temporary block against User:Hearmesir. This editor has been engaged in an on-going quest to add blank lines to the tables in various articles on national beauty pageants. The editor has also ignored requests to discuss these edits and continues to make them even after being informed that they are contested (see my postings at User talk:Hearmesir#Blank lines in tables).

The editor continues to make these edits, and is likely making more of them as I am filing this request. For an inking of just how many there are, please see Special:Contributions/NewYorkActuary.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Notification of this report has been given here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, they've gotten three warnings on their talkpage, but they are all from the past few hours. I would give them a chance to desist, and also to respond here. Hearmesir, do you understand that placing premature fields in beauty pageant articles is not acceptable, and have you now stopped doing that? Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we need to give this user time to respond. His contributions to the talk, user talk, and Wikipedia namespaces total zero edits. While this is isn't an encouraging fact to find, we still need to be fair to all parties involved and give the user a chance to respond. If the controversial edits in question continue since the time of this writing, and after this user has had a fair chance and amount of time to respond, please ping me in this discussion and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello. Curly Turkey has been edit warring with me and Nardog on Ukiyo-e. We're changing the IPA so that it matches Help:IPA/Japanese, and this guy is continuously refusing to get the point that it's that guide that needs to be changed, not a particular transcription. Here are the relevant diffs: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51].

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

One of his most recent actions was to call me a 'commited troll' and then telling me to 'f off' after I posted an edit war warning on his talk page - see [52]. He also lied about my (only) revert on Ukiyo-e, calling it WP:POINT-y. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Curly Turkey is certainly in need of an attitude check. That this was the editor's attempt to prompt discussion on WP:JAPAN: [53] is pretty alarming. As is Curly Turkey's unbacked assertions of disruption, trolling and tag-teaming. (Which has been doubled down upon here.) Incivility is rarely enforced, but this conduct crosses the line into personal attacks. The lack of any discussion on the article's talk page (are there good faith discussions being undertaken anywhere?) reflects poorly on all involved, but in Curly Turkey's case this is indeed coupled with incivility and personal attacks. Their long-term involvement with this article suggests to me that this may be a case of ownership. Cjhard (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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