Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions about a new action by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 5/closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As you know perfectly well, action has been proposed and soundly and repeatedly rejected. The most recent example, with multiple admins, weighing in, is plainly cited above. Repeating the closer's language,"Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• That was misleading, inaccurate, and premature close, made only one hour after that ANI was opened (because the filer was problematic and had provided no diffs); only two of the only three people who replied to the thread opined on its merits: [12]. This thread is a new discussion, with a lot more input, and actual evidence. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note also that just this morning, Softlavender removed a free image from Bazooka (instrument), substituting a nonfree version that had previously been used, citing her personal policy (argued above) that nonfree images cannot be removed without FFD deletion -- even when comparable free images are available. No honest, competent editor would take such a position, and it merits a significant sanction. It was deliberate disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, your own highly misleading edit summary read "obvious NFCC#1 violation; Undid revision 815208899 by Just plain Bill" [13], not "replaced non-free image with free image", as it should have been, so your edit summary was inaccurate and misleading. As you had been blatantly edit-warring on that article and your edit summary implied that this was merely yet another of your unilateral image removals without replacement, I reverted you without checking the edit, and gave you an EW notice on your talkpage. Please stop with the misleading edit summaries and the edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the edit sum left by HW was blatantly misleading especially if one moves beyond the edit sum and actually looks at the content of the edit. While the edit sum could've been worded a bit differently, it seems clear as to what was being done. The previous edit sum left by Just plain Bill was "If you have a free replacement image of the bazooka in the hands of its inventor, then offer it.", so that's exactly what HW did in his edit. Moreover, the article is about the instrument and while having a image of Burns holding the instrument is nice, a non-free one of him holding the instrument is not really needed per WP:NFCC#1 Any freely licensed equivalent image of the instrument itself could be used instead for primary identification purposes, so the non-free should've been removed or tagged (in my opinion) with {{rfu}} even if HW (actually it might have been We hope) did not take the time to try and find another image of Burns and a bazooka. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• You need to make a better excuse for why you are replacing free images with non-free ones in violation of policy than that Softlavender. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Softlavender, so far as I can see there are at least two individuals who are being criticized here, Walter Gorlitz and HW, one for adding problematic images, another for removing them. ArbCom has in the past shown a willingness to take on more complicated disputes such as this one. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Since I've been very critical of HW in this thread, I think it's only fair to thank him for finding a free image to replace the non-free one I put in Bazooka (instrument). I hope that it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that had I found that or any other free image -- which I didn't, after a diligent search -- I would have used it instead of the non-free image. The image that HW provided is very much the equivalent of the non-free one, and the quality of the article did not suffer from the change. Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your motives for this post may have been, it's generally inaccurate. I did not upload the image; User:We hope found and uploaded it, and deserves the credit. His long history of valuable contributions should demonstrate to editors like you the breadth and depth of free imagery available. I did, however, point out, and you pointedly ignored, that a free video including the inventor demonstrating his invention, the article subject, was already linked within the article. I don't view as credible, I don't think any reasonable person can view as credible, a claim of a "diligent" search that doesn't even bother to check the (short) list of resources provided in the (short) article. Similarly, your claim that the instrument was now rare to the point of unfindability was belied by the fact that multiple examples were offered for sale on Ebay and multiple contemporary videos of the instrument being played have been posted to YouTube. The bottom line, which you haven't been willing to accept, is that not being able to find a free image of something or someone on the Internet Right Now is not a valid justification for adding a nonfree image to Wikipedia. That's both consensus here and WMF policy, and you have no business agitating to undermine it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My motive was ... (wait for it) ... to thank you for finding and inserting the image. (Imagine that!) Your suspicions about my motives are, unfortunately, part-and-parcel of the attitude you carry with you when doing your NFC work: all parties (except yourself) are guilty until proven innocent. In any event, thanks for the information, if not for your errant interpretation of policy.

@We hope: Thanks you for finding and inserting the free image. Perhaps you can tell me on my talk page how you got to it, in case your methodology might come in handy in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay...wow...the fact that HW decided to rant and make massive assumptions of bad faith in response to a thank-you note says it all, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I guess I am known for utilizing sarcasm at times, and I assume that he thought I was being sarcastic, which I wasn't. I thought he had found the picture (which I would have used if I had found it in the first place) and made the change, and I wanted to thank him for doing that, instead of his continuing to edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is directed that: whenever one of his NFC removals is disputed, if he continues to believe that the image in question does not meet the NFCC policy, he must bring the image to WP:Files for discussion for discussion by the community. This requirement is void if he replaces the non-free image with an appropriate substantially equivalent free image, except that if the appropriateness equivalence of that image is disputed, both questions (the putative NFCC violation of the initial image, and the appropriateness equivalence of the replacement free image) must be resolved at FFD.

• Support as proposer - I don't think an attention-getting block would work with this editor, and I don't believe that a general topic ban from NFC work would benefit the project, as HW's work in that area is generally very good, so I think this very specific proposal is the best possible solution to put this situation to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-All the image has to do is be freely in the public domain. It does NOT have to be equivalent to the non-free image. The rules are that if there is a PD image, no matter how small or poor the quality, if it gets uploaded and can be recognized as PD, that's it for the non-free image. We hope (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Your point is well taken, although that part of the policy is rather ridiculous. I've changed the language to remove "equivalence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I know not everyone agrees about this, but that's the way it's written, so that's how it would play out. We hope (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I understand, that's why I changed the wording. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as the very least of the restrictions that should be applied here at this time. I would actually prefer a proposal that he is banned from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article. Softlavender (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Let's look back on the Jane Morgan discussion earlier this year re: free vs non-free and ping User:Masem. We hope (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest this as being 1RR in terms of NFCC image removals. Sometimes going to FFD is not always necessary. For example the bazooka instrument one feels like a case that if there was a remove-revert cycle, the discovery of a free image probably would have come up in talk page discussion (eg where editors interested in the instrument would be in better position to find a free replacement than the "regulars" at FFD). FFD can still be used, but key is that post 1RR, HW should open some discussion of why they think the image should go. I would like to consider that this 1RR can be exempted for "obvious" NFC failures, but I fear we don't have a good objective definition of what is an "obvious failure" to include this yet. We're trying to avoid a repeat of hard-handed NFC enforcement per how the community dealt with BetaCommand and I think in this specific case, for HW, this is one way to do it. --Masem (t) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: I would have no objection if you (or anyone else) want to start a proposal framing it that way. If you did, I would withdraw this proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Un-necessary and counter to written policy. If anything a 1rr restriction needs to be placed on editors reinserting non-free images. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the "written policy" that this community-suggested editing restriction is counter to. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Generally support this idea. NFCC is not BLP. There isn't even remotely the same "prevention of harm" rationale that is used in BLP cases to allow aggressive removal of suspect content. The truth of the matter is the NFCC goes light-years beyond the minimum legal requirements for fair use, let alone the minimum requirements to prevent causing damage to copyright holders. Except in the case of blatant copyright infringement, aggressive policing of fair use files can be just as much edit warring as anything else. We need less moral panic and "omgrightnow"ism surrounding nonfree files. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much for the same reasons as Mendaliv. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• You know, for all the invective here, there's been absolutely no evidence that my image removal has been significantly inaccurate. Nobody has disputed that point with a shred of evidence. The preferred outcome of some folks here is that I should be punished for being fast, accurate, and policy-compliant. Punishment without evidence may be the Trumpian way, but it's not the Wikipedian way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy, there's no need for me to stand surety, the WMF's Legal Department certainly knows all of the above to be true, since being conversant with intellectual property law is their stock-in-trade. It's really only some Wikipedia editors who don't understand the law, fair use practice, or the purpose (and proper implementation) of the policy.

Besides, let's be clear. Please re-read the proposal. It calls for no change in policy, it simply directs HW to follow standard Wikipedia procedures and get a consensus for a disputed edit. It's a bhavioral sanction, not an attempt to re-work policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• That's a straw man argument. Masem claimed my approach turned up too many false positives; I responded that there was no evidence of this, and that in fact no one had found any clearly erroneous removals. Your argument is with a position no one has advanced, and you're ducking the actual issue involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, that turns out not to be the case. The only thing being "ducked" is that this proposal suggests a sanction designed to deal with your behavior, and is not in any way focused on either changing policy, or the behavior of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Unfortunately, HW's disruptive behavior has been seen not only in those kinds of situations, but in other circumstances as well, where the use of the image is easily subject to discussion. But, even taking your point, what's the problem? If HW removes an image, and there's no dispute about it, it's gone. If HW removes an image, and the removal is disputed, he takes it to FfD, where other editors express the obviousness of its non-policy use (as you describe it), and *boom*, it's gone. The only thing the proposal does is force HW to go to FfD in disputed situations, it doesn't undermine policy, and it doesn't limit his ability to remove images in the first place if -- in his judgement -- they violate policy. It simply says if that removal is disputed, then he must get a consensus -- just like everything else on Wikipedia, even BLP removals when they're disputed. If HW had been doing this, as he should have been, instead of edit-warring, there would be no need for this proposal at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Except that NFC, like BLP, expressly places the burden of proof on the editor seeking to restore disputed content. That editor is the one who must achieve consensus. You have this point exactly backwards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• HW: Please point to the place in NFC policy where it says that you, the removing party, have the right to edit war over a disputed image. The disputing editor having the burden is not the same thing as your having carte blanche to edit war. This proposal does not call for a change in NFC policy, nor does it suggest changing the burden in general, it specifically sanctions you because of your behavioral issues. The attempts by you and others to make it appear that the proposal seeks to change policy, or, indeed, is against policy, are misrepresentations of a purely behavioral sanction focused on a single misbehaving editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• By definition removal of clear copyright violations is not edit-warring. With very few exceptions HW's removals fall under this. Where it is disputed, NFCC is clear that the burden relies on the person seeking to re-instate it to provide a valid FUR. If a valid one is not provided, removal is still not edit-warring. Merely disputing a removal under NFCC does not make it not a clear violation. A common situation being an editor arguing 'no clear free alternative is available' which has already been discussed to death on ENWP and a very high bar is set for this. 'I cant get at it easily' is often the actual situation which has been time and time again ruled to be insufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• OMG, is this thread still active? Right now I see 6 support, 5 oppose. If that stays roughly unchanged I don't see anything being done here. If that winds up happening, once again, I suggest ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:COPYVIO policy – which was imposed on us by WP:OFFICE and isn't even something the community came up with (or it wouldn't be so damned paranoid and so far from the actual legal boundaries of fair use) – isn't optional. We are expected to remove potentially non-compliant material, just as with WP:BLP. Under our internal governance system, a claim of fair use of a non-free image is something that must be actively demonstrated to be correct; it is not presumptively correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Recurring incremental vandal

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

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

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

Sample behavior:

• Twister (1996 film)

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

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

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

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

reverted to 115)

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

(reverted to 113, per IMDb)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet more [14] [15] Billhpike (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And more today. Can we get a short term range block? Billhpike (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Is a histmerge needed at Language Creation Society?

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pigsonthewing

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

Of course you're concerned - you don't like people pointing out that you're applying a COI tag contrary to that template's own guidelines for use, even doing so again after being advised to read said guidelines; you don't like being called out for tagging the talk pages of regular editors; you don't like being called out for your baseless insinuations on the article's deletion discussion. You know that by rising an issue here, admins will examine your own conduct and edit warring ([16], [17], [18]), right? Oh, and I told you not to post on my talk page, which you promptly did again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• Note that Andy has now violated 3RR at Language Creation Society. Diffs: [19], [20], [21], [22]. There is no exception to 3RR for removing maintenance templates, even if Andy is correct that I had not created a talk page thread to discuss the COI problems on that article at the time of the first revert (though they were definitely under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), and I had absolutely corrected that problem before the second revert). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• This is extremely unsatisfactory. User:Pigsonthewing, I have restored the COI template until either the talk page discussion resolves the matter or it is considered in the course of this discussion (as part of a behavioural rather than content discusion). But you are clearly edit-warring over it, and WP:WTRMT does not support your position: even if you did think "that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error... discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised." Since you a) do not appreciate templates, and b) clearly know exactly what constitues edit-warring, may we asume you do not require the usual procedural {{uw-ew}}? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

And just to demonstrate that this isn't an issue with me alone, just today Andy was carrying on his month-long edit war over at Stage works by Franz Schubert (Today: [23], [24]; Dec. 4: [25], [26], [27]; Nov. 30: [28], [29]), which edit war formerly included Template:Schubert stage works (Nov. 30: [30], [31]). This has to stop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improper COI tagging

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

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

I request that either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mendaliv

To me, it looks like Mendaliv is waging a war against the Society and its members. And the way he is acting is damaging for the encyclopedia and the community. His personal behaviour should be reviewed too. The Banner talk 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not notified of this subsection being started. Thankfully, I noticed it before any discussion began. I note that Banner has neglected to provide any diffs of misconduct (or any conduct whatsoever) on my part. Nonetheless, I invite any comments or criticism of my behavior here. I will also note that there has been, contrary to what Banner's claims above would seem to indicate, significant action against spam/promotional activity by the LCS in the article. I find it hard to believe that my conduct represents a personal grudge, hyperaggression, war, any other unsourced/unsupportable BLP/NPA-violating descriptor in light of the multiple concurring opinions regarding LCS's conduct in this matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think Mendaliv has really overstepped any boundaries or that moderator action will be necessary. I also note that some of the most offensive texts were actually written by others. As I wrote above, his tone is a tad too pricky to my taste, and for example sentences like the one above ("to cut through the smokescreen of longwinded, pointless argumentation that disruptive COI-afflicted editors tend to engage in") may be generalisations rather than personal attacks, but it should be clear that the slightly insinuative undertone might easily evoke the wrong connotations among uninformed others. Please, Mendaliv, instead of shelving people, try to be a bit more open-minded and listen to arguments.

Since you ask for criticism, it's actually quite simple. First of all, I get a strong sense that behind the pseudo-arguments and insinuations in your nomination text there's a strong undercurrent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Mission to destroy" might be a strong way to put it, but you are clearly not interested in seeing the article improved. You try to make your point by undermining people's credibility, arguing with keep !voters who use weak arguments and systematically ignoring arguments that prove you wrong. That's not very constructive. Sometimes it pays off more to be a good sport and say: "Okay, I was wrong". Mind you, I actually agree with you on several accounts: I don't believe in inherited notability, I am as much against advertising and namedropping as you are, and I'd much rather have three good references than forty bad ones.

So, I'd kindly like to ask you three questions:

• Please take a look at the three academic publications I've provided, and tell me if you still believe that there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
• Do you recognise that the ghits argument you use in your nomination is moot, since even Donald Trump generates less ghits than the LCS, using the same method?
• What else would be needed, in your opinion, to give the article (mind, not necessarily in its current form) the benefit of the doubt?

Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'll respond at the AfD, reading the newer sources now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, when content is repeatedly deleted as COI promotionalism of something non-notable, we expect a clean-slate approach to creating an article on it again: it needs to be by neutral, unconnected editors, in an encyclopedic tone and approach, and with notability well-established with non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources – before anything about it hits mainspace. It's standard operating procedure to treat attempts to restore the material as more CoI PoV pushing when these standards are not met; doing so doesn't indicate any personal hostility to the topic. E.g., I edit a lot of pool player bios and would like to see more coverage of women players, but if someone keeps creating an article on the no. 137 player in the WPBA and the editor seems to be her auntie or husband, I will keep seeking to have that article deleted as promotional COI claptrap about a non-notable person – even if she's actually a friend of mine. (Has not happened yet, but could – I know several pros personally who are not notable yet.) This is not MakeExceptionsToTheRulesForSubjectsWeLike-Pedia. There is no principle by which we punish someone at ANI for working to ensure community policies are applied consistently. Mendaliv is not the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

COI

Saizai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a founder of the group, is editing the article. I have warned for COI. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Another WP:NOTHERE

User:Hamas Hamas Muslims to the gas new account with only one edit to my talk page: [32] Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Also this now: User:Turks are bloodthirsty, genocidal savages [33] posting over and over again, my talk page urgently needs to be locked down Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hey, The Bushranger, watch it with the gay jokes. EEng 03:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet ip 110.77.181.148 is now edit warring at admin's talk page. [34]. It kind of sounds like past messages I've gotten from JarlAxle. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediate attention in Al-Kindi article

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, merry christmas to everybody.

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

This is the administrator statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards. And merry christmas to you and everyone.

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

More block evasion from Armanjarrettp

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs)

Same as before, as seen here.

• ESZCocoran426 (talk · contribs)

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

IP address removed

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

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

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

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

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

IP hopping, probably block evasion by User:Pocketthis

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing at Turkey

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

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

Diffs:

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

Attempts to discuss on user talk

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

The add was made by User:Icewhiz here with edit summary "per RfC" [38] Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The one behaving disruptively is you [39] [40]. I think it's time you were topic banned from anything related to Turkey. Khirurg (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, User:EtienneDolet has a long history of battleground behavior in WP:ARBAA2 -including a warning.[41] I have not looked into the editing pattern in detail, but the "failure to edit neutrally" may be spilling over into this topic area. His comments during the RfC were not based on WP:RS including:

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

Regarding the last part, Brustopher notes in his close There are sourced descriptions in the body of the article describing Turkey as secular in Wikipedia's voice.. For example, where are sources that languages were banned? Kurdish was not banned until the 1980s, and it had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide. Even if you are sympathetic to the views here, which I am, it does not excuse abusing the RfC process to impose unsourced person opinions and POV on the encyclopedia. The standards have to be higher. As for battleground behavior, the unsubstantiated personal attacks on the article talk pages need to stop [42] - what forum shopping? Where is the diff? I challenged the close here, at ANI, after I discussed it with the closer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:MWS

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

This user is becoming very disruptive:

• [43] 19:35 Dec 24 changes numbers to something the reference does not support. Supposedly they have private data that disagrees with a review published in the Lancet.
• [44] 23:58 Dec 24 (starts addomh signature to main space)
• [45] 14:51 Dec 25 (adds simple disruption and signature again)
• [46] 19:31 Dec 15 (continues)

They were previously editing as an IP and moved to an account once the page was protected.[47]. I had started talk page discussion on both issues.[48] They have removed warnings from their talk page.[49]

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

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

• Blocked for signing edits in mainspace, see if they engage on user talk, otherwise we may be back here later this week. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:JzG Signing their name again in mainspace[50] and no reference provided. I do not think they have the competence to edit Wikipedia so thus would support a longer block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Le sigh. Disappointed but not surprised. Re-blocked without expiry, let's see if he gets it. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Given his response was to invoke WP:FREESPEECH and "I can sue" based on same... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Threat by SPA

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

And after they chose to double down (with the by-this-point-its-a-surprise-if-it-isnt-said "not a threat" wording), demonstrating they have zero interest in being here to build an encyclopedia, TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He also tried to quiz me on my knowledge of Greek. It was a lost cause from the get go. Dr. K. 02:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:173.241.122.42

173.241.122.42 has been reverting my edits on WLBZ, claiming there are typos when they're not; he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. [51] [52] [53] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything's needed right now; this is ordinary vandalism, but we don't block for ordinary vandalism without a few more edits. If you get reverted a fourth time, feel free to report it as a 3RR violation (either at my talk page or WP:AN3); you're reverting vandalism, so your reverts are exempted, but the IP's edits aren't, and a fourth revert will make him instantly blockable. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Bill Maher rant at a unrelated article talk page

I've been reverting persistent attempts to reconfigure comments or delete them entirely here [54], but wonder if this soapboxing belongs on the PETA talk page at all. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there and it should be removed. Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxes for personal rants. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That said, the account that I reported seemed to have earned the block. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And it's back [55], so this probably will require further attention. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The inanity spreads to a blocked user's talk page [56], which I'm prevented from restoring to last good version. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a bizarre revert history and 2601, you realize you were reverting back in the material in error? I'm not sure the right editor got blocked. Pinging Widr. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I did realize after the fact, NeilN, which is why I brought the discussion here. Re: the blocked user's edits, they weren't simply removing the rant with a rational explanation, but were inserting their own editorial and satirical hooks. It was a mess either way--I certainly won't defend my rapid restoration of the diatribe. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unblocked Mr. Meseeks, who was trying to do the right thing, and got caught in the crossfire. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It was Bob Speth who posted the anti-Maher rant on December 17, in his only edit to Wikipedia. It sat their unnoticed for ten days, until hell broke loose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the manner in which they were going about it, I'd assert that they caused the crossfire: [ [57]; [58]; the edit summaries didn't help [59]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

IP is right: Mr Meseeks was definitely trolling at that page, though they did do so by replacing some forum-y BLPvios with what looks like a tongue in cheek impersonation of the original author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like there's at least three new editors being asshats on that page. Suggest warnings to all of them. --Tarage (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seems a bit fishy. I'm trusting that Cullen328 will keep an eye on Mr. Meseeks' edits. Widr (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Widr: Speaking of fishy, you've trouted yourself for treating removals of BLP vios as vandalism? And the edit request, while unlikely to be supported, is plausible. [60] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

After reading those edit summaries, I have warned Mr. Meseeks, and will watch their edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Near-orphaning of English language

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

---

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

User:Niteshift36 has recently removed links to English language from many pages, claiming that they are a case of WP:OVERLINK because everyone knows what English is. I find these mass edits profoundly unhelpful, because the article does much more than tell readers what English is, it also tells them a long list of stuff about English, things that the average user almost certainly does not know already. Moreover, the edits were done without any kind of discussion or consensus building, and from their talk page it is clear that there are plenty of editors who disagree with the sudden change. Some have noted that WP:MEATBOT applies here, because it is a case of mass edits done with the help of a tool. Per WP:BRD, I believe the objections by other editors warrant that the edits are all reverted, a discussion started, and the edits only reinstated once there is clear consensus. Rua (mew) 20:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The edits in question are these. That's 462 links removed using Twinkle's unlink backlinks feature. – Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, 462....leaving THOUSANDS still in place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Might be interesting to explain how you chose the LARGE number to be edited, and how you chose the LARGE number that were not edited. As far as other editors can tell it is just a first batch of work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Let's start with some hyperbole, right? "Near-orphaning"? There's still THOUSANDS of links to that article. Thousands. So can we agree that ist's not even close to orphaned? WP:OVERLINKING states that "Everyday words understood by most readers in context." should not be linked. Quite obviously, everyone reading the English wikipedia understands what English is. If they did not, they won't understand the article at the other end of the pointless link either. I'm not saying the article on English has no use. Clearly, it does. What it doesn't need is links to it spammed everywhere. Many of those opposing it have failed to articulate an actual specific case. In some cases, a piped link to a more specific article may be appropriate, but not just one to English. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• This edit I would consider unhelpful, since a mix of link and no-link ("English and Filipino") is pointless and unappealing; when a tool is used to do it en masse, like Twinkle was in this case, it's grounds for removal of the tool if repeated. Moreover, edits like this are disruptive and warrant mass rollback and a firm warning not to repeat under penalty of sanctions. Yes, some of these articles don't need links, but when it's highly relevant to the context, it's important to have the link to the article; removing a link to English language from the article on the geographically connected Manx language is like removing a link to 27 December from the article on 4 December. This is functionally the same as WP:CONTEXTBOT: we require link changes to be done or overseen by a human because bots can't think and humans can, but when a human's exercising about as much judgement as a bot, it's time to revert if done once, and time to impose sanctions if the revert get reverted. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You're thinking too short-sighted. Yes, there may be ones where it's appropriate to restore, but the vast majority are not. And there's nothing wrong with having one language linked and the other not linked. Example: If English was linked in the sentence before it, we wouldn't link English again simply because it was next to Filipino. In the end, there may be a handful of places that it is appropriate, but in the majority, it's not. It's more logical to restore the dozen correct ones than to restore 450 unnecessary ones. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No I think in terms of any rational analysis it is easier to restore, and only remove links where an examination of the specific context has been made. The cost/damage of an extra wl is basically zero.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I bet you're not willing to examine those links individually, are you? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the 3 on my watchlist carefully. I don't get your question. Why is it so strange to read something you are about to edit? Is there some urgent need to make blind edits on hundreds of articles? Please explain. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nightshift, you've deleted the whole section of discussion from your talk page. Will you add it here as indicated in your edit summary. Here is my answer to your response to me:

• That is obviously an exaggeration and neither honest nor constructive. You are saying that because people know what the English language is there is no point having a link to an article about the English language. That is obviously nonsensical, and especially in the cases I see. Two of the articles on my watchlist are linguistic ones, where the links to English are not obvious to all people who know what the English language is. But despite your claim there that I am reacting without thought, it is in fact obvious that your edits are based on a "blanket" policy and no thought at all about context, and that is just plain wrong. On your logic (no exaggeration) there should be no links to articles on well-known subjects???? Please slow down and think about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I deleted it since the discussion is now here. I made no such claim that the article is pointless. That's a lie and not helpful at all. In fact, in my response above, I made it perfectly clear that it is necessary. If you actually took some time to 1) read what I have said and 2) look at more than just a few articles you have an interest in, you would see that in most cases, the link is superfluous. Rather than go and revert the few occurrences that you can make a case for, you want to mass revert everything, which is essentially the same thing you're arguing against me doing in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BRD. You Boldly removed these links. They're contested. The correct step is now to Revert all of them (emphasis, not shouting) so it can be Discussed as to which are appropriate to remove, and which are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that BRD isn't a policy, look at what is actually happening. People are contesting edits that they haven't even looked at. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • We're contesting edits that you haven't looked at, either... Rua (mew) 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• And that makes it right for you? You actually don't see the conflict in that position? That's almost funny. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing those links amounts to busy-work that's somewhere between useless and offensive. The editor should put them all back and then be topic-banned on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Topic banned? From what topic? If it's busy work, then why are you so upset about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You missed the part about it being "between useless and offensive". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. I was holding out hope that you had an actual reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your actual reason for doing this stuff. Who does it serve? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you don't know the reason, then you clearly haven't read what I've written. Go read WP:OVERLINKING and maybe that will clear it up for you. But then, you probably think the MOS is useless. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think this wouldn't have happened if Niteshift36 hadn't been able to make such a large number of changes using a single click on Twinkle. I've started a more general discussion at WP:VPR#Twinkle's "unlink backlinks" feature and meatbot edits. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Key phrase to the overlinking policy is "in context". That means if someone is going to use automated tools to remove links I expect there to be sufficient time to review the link in context. If the removes were done at a rate of one article every minute or two (enough time for a human to judge context) I don't think it would be an issue, but mass removal shows there was no human review of each change done. This is not an acceptable use of automated tools (see BetaCommand cases for that). --Masem (t) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm willing to bet you haven't reviewed a dozen of them, but you're willing to undo everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither have you, so that's a good reason to undo them pending review. Rua (mew) 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I have reviewed many of them. But keep up that bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve picked away at a few of the ones that showed up on my watchlist, restoring the link where context warranted. While I don’t consider it an optimally responsible use of an automated tool, the encyclopedia will probably survive this episode. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Look at this infobox and tell me Does it look normal or helpful to you ? ... No it doesn't, Whilst I understand "English" may well be spammed everywhere the appropriate thing to do is get consensus for the removal .... Not use Twinkle to mass remove these, You're making the whole "Twinkle should be a right" thing a more sensible thing with stupid edits like these, I would strongly suggest you revert them all otherwise the next best step is for someone to revert for you and for you to be topic banned from this as well as have Twinkle disabled for you, Your choice. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I never said Twinkle was a right. I honestly made a good faith move that I did not think would be this controversial. But then again, I didn't think that I'd have people like you start with "stupid edits" and the other bullshit I've seen in these discussions. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I never said you did however various editors here believe Twinkle should be a right and what I'm saying is you're kinda proving their point. What would you call removing 420 links without any consensus ? ... Great edits?.... Exactly, Regardless of that your edits are controversial and as such as per WP:BRD you should revert and seek consensus. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Then revert them. You're all into BRD.... so I did the B part, you go do the R part. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's not how BRD works!, You were Bold, You were Reverted, and now You Discuss, I shouldn't even need to be explaining this Niteshift!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also just to note WP:BRD-NOT does state and I quote "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.", So again as per BRD you need to revert and discuss otherwise simply put you may end up blocked. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, bulk editing without being extremely careful is NORMALLY bad.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Point not addressed above yet. Probably obvious but the English language article is a language article, not just an article saying English is what they speak in England. The link between Old High German and English is not something everyone knows or has at their fingers, for example. Many or all of the deleted links are like the one on Old High German, or Language, which are going to help readers remind themselves of non obvious things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• And that's why I never unlinked things like Old English or any of the other forms, just the overly broad "English" one. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Mass edits like these should be discussed before they're made. There's no way a bot would be approved to make edits like these, and if it did so without prior approval it would be blocked and we'd be discussing sanctions for the operator. If Niteshift36 can explain to the community's satisfaction how they chose those 400-odd articles, they should be strongly reprimanded not to continue until a discussion has identified which sorts of links are desirable and which aren't. If the selection was random, they should all be reverted (the mass rollback script exists for lapses of judgement like these). And really, Twinkle's unlink feature should be restricted to admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• See, you're "strongly reprimanding" something that isn't happening. I haven't done anymore since earlier today when the topic came up. It's that kind of over-reacting that makes this adversarial. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"I made a mess of things, now you go clean it up" is not a good way to make friends and sway people to your cause... --Tarage (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing most of these people have written indicates a desire to listen, let alone a desire for friendship. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Revert them all. I won't use Twinkle to do it again. I'll make individual edits. Done. Can I get back to something more productive now? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor using multiple profiles

PAGEOFLEGAMES (talk · contribs), Medaltables (talk · contribs), Medaltables2 (talk · contribs), Holidayof2017 (talk · contribs), OlympicsPAGE1 (talk · contribs), KABBEY (talk · contribs), ChampionshipsSthings (talk · contribs), PARACLHIANMEPBIAOLNLSSHSISPSS (talk · contribs), OlympicOverview (talk · contribs) (there are probably more) all seem to have been created by the same person. All of them have a sandbox which consists of copies/modifications of sections of wiki articles. The editing history consists largely, though not exclusively, of edits to these sandboxes. So far one has been deleted on the basis of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That would seem to apply to all the other sandboxes as well. It was also suggested in the deletion discussion that the user was a sock of a disruptive editor of the Runcorn article and that they be blocked (this did not eventuate), although that may be just coincidence. User:BIO-GRAPHY1/sandbox appears to be the same person, if so then they are 12 years old. Opinions/suggestions of appropriate action(s) welcome. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the "biography" at User:BIO-GRAPHY1/sandbox suggests they are a 12-year-old from an area near Runcorn and so it would not be unsurprising if they were editing that article. I'm going to delete the "biography" as it gives personal information of an under-age user. The other accounts all do seem to be the same user. I am guessing that they are trying to create various things in sandboxes and don't realise that they don't have to create a new username for each "thing" they create - they're using the usernames as article titles. I'm going to block all of the usernames except the oldest, and leave an informative message on each userpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Right, OK. I've blocked them all except User:Medaltables (I found two other accounts as well), left block messages pointing them back towards that username, moved all of their sandboxes into Medaltable's userspace (and showed them how to access them), and explained what has happened on Medaltable's userpage. Probably a big waste of time, but if they are serious about actually trying to do something useful, hopefully they will. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Black Kite, add User:TheMiscellaniousStuff to your list as well. CU, you know... Drmies (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, done. I suspect we might have a case of whack-a-mole occurring soon, but it was worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationality vandalism at Rula Jebreal

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

---

• Rula Jebreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2018caust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tonight it's a change from Palestinian to Israeli at an arbitration sanction article, so I probably can not revert, lest it be taken for edit warring. Given recent history, page protection may be in order, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The user definitely changed content without a reference to this article. I've left a discretionary sanctions alert on this user's talk page. As for protection, I'll add pending changes protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah, and best wishes for the new year. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Threats from editor

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

---

User:Tony1 posted this [61]. He wrote: "This is going to end badly for you. I will take action elsewhere if you persist.", "You're the insulter-assuming that I'm a christian", "Then it becomes a legal issue". If I understood correctly he is making threats against me. His whole demeanour is totally unacceptable. He is rude, insulting, arrogant and now he started threatening me. I explained everything thoroughly, I listed a number of similar pages, I tried to conduct a proper discussion with arguments but he is only interested in imposing his opinion. He left the article for days with an incoherent phrase in the introduction and when I reverted his disruptive edit he started asking for an explanation. He accused me of sarcasm because I wrote "with all due respect" and then he attacked me because I wished him "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year." This is a first for me. I was attacked because I wished someone Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I know it sounds unbelievable but you can take a look at the whole thing right here. Now he is making threats. I defer to the administartors. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legal threat. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I took it to mean that the situation will be "judged" at WP:ANEW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely took it as a legal threat. "I will take action elsewhere if you persist" - That, in itself, I would agree with you NeilN to mean that he intends to take it to a noticeboard, for sure. But when he added "Then it becomes a legal issue" at the very end, I took it to mean that it was a threat of legal action. If others disagree, please let me know. I'll unblock if enough others say that it is not, but this is how I took it as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. He meant he would take it further on WP. Oshwah, please unblock with a note in the log that it was a misunderstanding. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Could well be a misunderstanding, but "Then it becomes a legal issue" is a legal threat unless it can be explained as otherwise -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 03:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is what pushed me to agree and constitute this as WP:NLT... Otherwise, I wouldn't have call it such if that sentence had not been there... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a WP:NLT legal threat, but it's enough of a threat to be disruptive and in my view draw a block. Nonspecific legal threats are highly disruptive and have a serious chilling effect. The difference is that the motivation to avoid disruption to the community by continued editing during the pendency of legal action isn't there. But it's still highly disruptive and should draw a block or some other sanction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It qualifies. And it's not the first time the user made a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

For reference, the old ANI thread that triggered the old NLT block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Gross incivility, threats of off-wiki harassment, and personal attacks by Tony1. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Then it becomes a legal issue" is clear enough to justify the block. Of course, if the editor is willing to retract and states he does not intend legal action, I'd support an unblock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I left a follow-up on his talk page explaining this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 6)Editors sometimes treat these boards as courtrooms, presenting their case, and awaiting judgement. But it would be good if Tony1 clarified. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what Tony1 meant by his comments, though I agree with the OP that they were unduly harsh, and I know from experience that this editor can have some rough edges. But given that the meaning wasn't clear, a note to the editor might have been better as an administrator's first step in this situation, before jumping to an indefinite block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

He meant legal as in actionable, but he was clearly talking about actionable on here. I think it's important to unblock soon because this is obviously a misunderstanding. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agree that “Then it becomes a legal issue” constitutes a legal threat. Also agree unblocking upon retraction would be acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If he clarifies or retracts it, I'll unblock him immediately. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• How is "then it becomes a legal issue" not a legal threat? How does it mean "then it becomes actionable on Wikipedia"? Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Work at WP:ANEW enough and you'll see some editors give $300/hour lawyers a run for their money :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, I just saw I got 398 edits at ANEW, and 5,345 at ANI (and 907 at AN), but this definition of "legal" is new to me. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, he has retired, so it seems unlikely that he'll do that soon. What kind of legal threat was it, do you imagine? Can we sue people for arguing with us on Wikipedia? If so, the courts are going to be busy. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: "Can we sue people for arguing with us on Wikipedia?" - obviously that's a no, but its the chilling effect of making a legal threat which causes a problem. For all we know, its a big misunderstanding, and I fully expect the editor to respond clarifying -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

My impression was that the word "legal" in this sense referred to one of the boards where disputes are referred to rather than lawyers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry, but this is a very hasty block; I agree with SlimVirgin and Newyorkbrad, there is an misunderstanding here and jumping to indefinite block almost immediately on an experienced editor is a unwise idea here I think. The block should be lifted. Alex Shih (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be a legal threat, it doesn't need to be a credible or meritorious legal threat, it just needs to be a threat to take legal action. Usually it involves a threat conditioned on some act or omission on Wikipedia, but it needn't. You can cause all kinds of havoc through legal process, even if it's completely frivolous and vexatious. And in any event, we shouldn't require our editors to be able to discern whether a legal threat made by another editor is meritorious, or have to seek legal advice as to the merits or specificity of a particular legal threat: Legal threats simply should not be made on Wikipedia. That said, I'm not in agreement that this is a legal threat under NLT, though I do believe it's disruptive enough to merit a block because it represents the use of a nonspecific legal threat to cause a chilling effect in the reader. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)"I will take action elsewhere" could well mean one of the dramahboards, but "then it becomes a legal issue" is explicitly intended as a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT - which, noteworthily, redirects to Wikipedia:No legal threats. Block-until-retracted is in that case entirely proper and justified by policy, and (given the below which edit-conflicted with my comments before the comma), we're all good now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The user has clarified their statement, and hence I have unblocked his account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I see that hairtrigger application of NLT has once again kept Wikipedia a healthy community of productive editors. While I can't for the life of me understand how Tony1 could have let the words-which-dare-not-speak-their-name pass his metaphorical lips, I think it's time all admins get a special reminder that NLT says: Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention. EEng 08:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Simple refusal to BRD by LlywelynII

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

---

User LlywelynII made some bold bold changes to Nanjing, imposing US ENGVAR. The article had no agreed engvar. He refuses to revert per WP:BRD while giving weak justification and go-slow debate on the talk page. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard requires extensive talk page discussion, where the user is (so far) not being very obliging, hence my arrival here. The user has some history imposing his engvar. This behaviour is just irritating. Batternut (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Batternut, isn't taking someone to ANI so quickly over the spelling of "theatre" a trifle excessive? What administrative action are you proposing because you think another editor is "irritating"? This looks like a garden variety content dispute to me, and it looks like you have made very little effort to resolve the matter collaboratively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I had a longer reply that got emu'd by your post, but it was along the same lines. See, eg, Talk:Hangzhou where my application of the same brightline test resolved the page in favor of British English. It's just there to keep the page clean and, if there are substantive reasons or strong consensus, that's when it's time to ignore that policy. I haven't seen any substantive discussion in favor of British English or even seeking a new consensus from Batternut yet, although I raised those options and he may have posted on some common Nanjing editors' talk pages and I just didn't see that. — LlywelynII 09:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the questions on the talk page? ie "Oxford spelling "-ize" does not establish American spelling". Quick to talk here, of course, but slow actually discussing the substantive point. Must we conduct the discussion here instead? Batternut (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I find entrenched battling about English variations to be both counterproductive and tendentious. Personally, I would not care a whit if somebody from the UK transformed my American spellings into British equivalents. Go for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So do I. Hence discussion before actions is always better. They are not my spellings, btw - I have only edited the page once before. Batternut (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

posted on some common Nanjing editors' talk pages - evidence please!! The place for this discussion is Talk:Nanjing, which is the only place I have posted (other than LlywelynII's talk page). Batternut (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While noting that I may have been quick coming here, the editor has been very active elsewhere (see his contributions) while ignoring the talk page discussion. The practice of being quick to revert but slow to discuss while one's version of an article remains current, in addition to imposing one's own ENGVAR, is not in the spirit that I hope for at least. I don't know what action to take - any recommendations anyone? Batternut (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I am unimpressed with LlywelynII's editing patterns, the article should indeed be in US English; it's earliest incarnations were neutral (i.e. no words with any difference, although a "z" in recognis/ze), but by 2004 it was written in US-ENG. It's not a big deal, really. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No big deal indeed. I'm no expert at engvar spotting, I just like to see things discussed properly. Batternut (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin Cullen328's advice "Go for it." sounds like freedom to change spellings regardless. No encouragement to bother with the talk page, and little wonder none of the user's 30 edits since did further that discussion... Batternut (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reread my comment, Batternut. I was giving permission for anyone to change my personal spelling, not to engage in disruptive changes in general. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Batternut (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've stopped watching the articles that this user is busy with. This discussion can be closed. Batternut (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Indefinite blocks

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

---

I ask you to impose an Indefinite blocks on me. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vyacheslav84:Hi, we usually do not block users who request blocks on themselves. However you can change your password to something you don't know, if you feel that you can't stop editing :). Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the block. Do I need to Wikipedia:Vandalism to get a block? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just reset your password and log out. You might want to come back later. -- Luk ^talk 12:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

After that - no. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This user already requested, and obtained, an indef block about a month ago. They later asked to be unblocked, which was granted, and then started a doomed and sock-infested DRV. I'm not sure what the point is here. Reyk _YO! 12:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Vyacheslav84 - If you want to force yourself away from the project for a bit, you can use the WikiBreak Enforcer script to accomplish this. It basically does the same thing, minus a change to your block log of course... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) It's better for the editor and project that the block be a self-requested one rather than one for disruption/vandalism (as threatened above). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

NeilN - At that point (where the user threatens to get blocked either way), I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I predict he'll ask to be unblocked in a few weeks and then immediately start whining about Westarctica again. Reyk _YO! 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be the editor is approaching WP:NOTHERE. Even if the next requested unblock of a self requested block is granted, I'm not sure a third will be. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of course, I think unblock requests after self-requested blocks should be declined. Generally speaking, people ask to be blocked because they feel they will succumb to the temptation to edit at some point in the future. Granting such an unblock request is, in effect, invalidating the entire point of the block in the first place. Plus, an editor who is driven to edit to the point of requesting unblock after a self-requested block is, generally speaking, not the kind of editor we want, because they're editing based on that drive, not on rational desire to contribute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with what MPants wrote above, with the exception that I would allow one "Get out of jail free" unblock. After that, all self-requested blocks should be indefinite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page

Please see this, along with a spurious block notification here along with multiple insults on my talk page. A remedy would be appreciated. Scr★pIron^IV 15:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User warned for harassment, spurious warnings on ScrapIron's page removed. Some protections might be needed at the apparent source of the trouble at Bigg Boss 11. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I was tagged on Scraps talk by Broken in what was changed to tag big boss later, I'd like to point out Broken has been blocked before and to my knowledge has not contributed anymore then disruption to wiki since they joined. Just my 2 cents. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 11

Please stop User_talk:ScrapIronIV for making unasusual edits against BB11 as he is trying to removing the things from the page which should not suppose to be happen as that page is also the part of reality show Big Brother, he stated that that show has ended, there are several shows that have ended but their weekly and voting summaries are still existed on their pages so why ScrapIron is doing nonsense on the page Bigg Boss 11. please stop him and warn him too for stop making the edits as he is doing on the page Bigg Boss 11 because there are several Bigg Boss and Big Brother or other reality show related pages where the show summaries relating their votings are still mentioned on their pages either ended or upcoming or under progress. Finally Wikipedia can be used for Sports, Entertainmental purpose by maing accurate articles not the way as ScrapIron did at Bigg Boss 11 THank You.CK (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken nutshell - If you have concerns regarding the content that ScrapIronIV is removing, are you discussing the content you're concerned about with him on the article's talk page? I'm not talking about the edit here where you threaten a block and say, "Sorry We're not satisfied by your edits, as you're making wikipedia unauthentic by yourself that could result you to got temporarily blocked from editing for short period or could be long. let the edits remain as you're saying that it's not entertaining thing. yes it is entertaining thing and informative that you made it nonsense by making your slum edits that could result in vandalisms" - I'm talking about a constructive discussion that directly addresses and explains your concerns regarding the content. There's no edit warring going on, and there's no actual discussion taking place on your part that's in compliance with Wikipedia's dispute resolution practices. I highly recommend that you review this policy and do this...

And who exactly is "we"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu ignoring WP:PROXY

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

---

I am a Chinese resident and therefore am forced to use proxies. I have multiple times explained that WP:PROXY says users like myself can edit via proxies.

I quoted the following relevant section

"Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy."

He doesn't seem to have the competence to understand though. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be edit-warring systematically, using various proxies etc., on the Irish slaves myth article; and now you resort to personal attacks against one of your opponents. This is not gonna end well. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Systematically? How? Regardless that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here. There is already a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard. Can we keep this focused on the issue at hand here?169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is the case that the IP may not understand that his edit warring does not qualify as a legitimate use. The IP had been reported by Tgeorgescu before this thread was opened and I suggest it be closed on the resolution of that request which I have little doubt will include an IP block. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we please actually address the issue at hand here? The issue being the question of me being allowed to edit.169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually the issue at hand is your conduct as an editor, including your edit warring. I strongly urge you to read all the relevant guidelines and policies so that when you return to editing you will be less likely to be reported and possibly/probably blocked again then. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Carter there is already a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard about that. THis discussion is about proxies. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

May I strongly suggest that you review all the relevant guidelines and policies again which indicate that the conduct of all involved can reasonably be discussed at an ANI which includes your edit warring and your dubiously competent grasp of the application of PROXY. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Carter Its better to keep this discussion focused on the proxies because there is already a discussion at another noticeboard about that. If you wish to discuss edit warring please leave your comments there. Regardless I am not seeing much discussion about proxies which is why I came here. Yous are useless.169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just because you may choose among several proxies after one of the proxies got blocked, it does not mean that you would be exempt from WP:3RR. Especially when we hear quacking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any good reason the IP is not yet blocked for socking and edit-warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I just protected Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter Do you have any comments to make on the use of proxies by Chinese residents?169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, blocked 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not arguing with the IP block which was good but more than a few of Tgeorgescu's reverts invoked DENY or SOCK. Were those legitimate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This was clearly the same IP with a team of Tgeorgescu's and FULBERT reverting them. Whereas none of them seems to have overstepped 3RR, this definitely does not belong to best practices, especially since the talk page discussion was ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The proxy hopper is User:Apollo The Logician, who is banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor spamming business AfDs with useless !votes

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

---

I'd like for an admin to take a look at the editing history of Hey you, yeah you! (talk · contribs · count · logs), who appears to have serious competency issues. This editor primarily participates on business AfDs, which he spams with the same basic deletion rationale. Ironically, this spammed rationale is that the articles should be deleted because they are spam/promotional. See, for instance: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. This editor keeps using those words, but I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean. Consider also this !vote, in which he dismiss the sources provided by Northamerica1000, but then misidentifies the article subject as a restaurant instead of a supermarket. This glaring error prompts NA1K to rightly question whether HYYY actually looked at the sources. While the AfD problems are bad enough, the editor has also resorted to harrassing NA1K with talk page warnings and involving himself in NA1K's editing disputes. HYYY explains on his own user page that he is a returned editor who created a new account not because he lost his old password, but it is fair to wonder whether perhaps his old account was blocked for this kind of disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and WP:POINT. If he'd like to explain the facts and calm down a bit perhaps he could be unblocked, but for now this is a waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, that was fast! Thank you for taking decisive action to eliminate the disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Poland article - planned POV attack

• Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United Union (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure how to initiate this issue because I've never come across such a situation, but in recent days user United Union has been edit warring on the Poland article — in short I reminded him of the 3RR rule regarding new text and asked him to initiate a discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately, my arguments were disregarded and a rather unsettling statement was made by user United Union [69]: "FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future." Based on this user's recent behavior and frequent sock-puppet problems on the Poland page, I'm concerned that this might be an organized and persistent POV attack on the article, I hope that I'm wrong, but I would request that Administrators look into this situation in order to avoid major disruption to the article. --E-960 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

E-960, please remember to notify editors you discuss here. I've done so for you this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Your words about 3RR are ironic, since United Union has not broken 3RR during this dispute, whereas you have (4 reverts between 22:46 27 Dec and 20:02 28 Dec). If you have any actual evidence of sockpuppetry, take it to SPI. Also, without any further evidence, your warnings of a massive impending POV assault sound like scaremongering. So far this seems like a standard editing dispute, and I suggest that both of you follow the usual dispute resolution procedures. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

John Carter violated his IBAN again

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

---

In January John Carter (talk · contribs) and I were placed under a mutual IBAN[70] was blocked for one month after almost immediately violating it, by posting about me in an Arbitration page in a manner that was not covered by WP:BANEX,[71] then was immediately unblocked when he claimed in an email to the blocking admin Sandstein (talk · contribs).[72] (This was a blatant lie, as part of the harassment that originally led to the IBAN was lecturing me about the nature of IBANs and the narrow exceptions provided by BANEX.[73]) In the subsequent month during which he would have been blocked, he made several small indications that he was still monitoring my edits, and seemed to be deliberately playing with the boundaries of the ban,[74][75][76] and then in March violated the ban by answering a comment I had made on a talk page.[77] Earlier this month, he made another of the "playing" edits by commenting in an ANI discussion I had involved myself in.[78]

Today, he did basically the same thing that led to his one-month block in January, by posting a screed about me in an ARCA request I had posted that didn't involve him.[79] He questioned my "competence" and making a completely false claim that I was "owning" a draft article that I explicitly encouraged other users to edit, to the point that I expressed dismay that another user had started their own competing draft based on the assumption that I didn't want them editing "mine".[80] Pinging User:BU Rob13, whom JC pinged in his latest violation, but who was also heavily involved in the initial discussion to ban/block JC that led to the IBAN. I want to address what JC about me in my ARCA request for BU Rob13's benefit, but doing so there would, ironically, violate the ban, and would also involve "relitigating" issues that are related to the original 2015 case (even though they were not brought up then), which is something I don't want to do.

Note that John was inactive between February 16 and March 8,[81] and then again between March 8 and November 14,[82] so this is not a case of a couple of accidental slip-ups 11 months apart from each other; he has been violating the ban at a rate of once a month, even disregarding the joining in of ANI threads and the like which I have already joined.

Can someone block him for at least a month given the above background?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, alternately, considering the comments by me about which he is complaining relate to the Arb case whose results Hijiri88 seeks to amend, perhaps BOOMERANG on the basis of possibly raising harassing ANI complaints? John Carter (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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