Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Unacceptable behaviour by Ybsone

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

---

Ybsone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I would like to report about the irrational behaviour of Ybsone. He edits pages without a source and when asked, behaves rudely. I would add links supporting my claim:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ferrari_575M_Maranello (here, it is seen how he refused to add a source when inquired and admitted he was just lazy to do so)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9 (another source highlighting his rude behaviour and non acceptance of sources when added. Also a violation of the three revert rule)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#/talk/3 (here he tells me to contact Maserati myself while being rude and only presents a self centred blog in his defence)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Quattroporte (again, refusal to add a source and instead this rude message being posted on my talk page claiming that he is right when he has no proof backing up his theory)

I'm willing to put an end to his as I'm fed up with this user's behaviour. He has been the source of discouraging others to edit pages on Wikipedia by having a "I am always right" attitude. I request the admins to take appropriate action.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... When I look at the histories and talk pages linked above, I see two editors being rude, two editors edit warring, two editors threatening to report the other to "the admins", and two editors arguing about the quality (or existence) of the other's sourcing. And to be honest (though I am not a car guy) it looks to me like U1Quattro is coming off as the worse of the two. I also note U1Quattro's recent blocks for similar behavior with another editor (see here), who he is still feuding with as of a few minutes ago ("until a consensus is reached, the edit I made stays"? That's not how it works....). It would be appreciated (and wise) if @U1Quattro: and @Ybsone: both dialed back the pointless aggression and edit more collegially, so you don't waste other people's time. But User:U1Quattro, you're getting pretty close to a significant block yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC

Floquenbeam I have tried to reason with this user before but all he does is act rude for no reason when asked for sources for his edits. You may have already seen how he comes off on my talk page and has been pocketing evidence against me by threatening to report me.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, did you read what I wrote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did read that Floquenbeam. I'm not feuding with Vauxford as of now. I wrote that comment as he tends to revert edits back to what he personally thinks is right without seeking concensous on the subject matter's talk page. I don't know how am I getting close to another block as I have just been out of one. Also, administrator intervention was necessary as Ybsone continues to edit without source with no change in his behaviour.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Although I'm taking great care to not start up what happen in the past between me and U1Quattro but I'm not impressed that shortly after his block he has already reverted a edit I did and done the usual "I'll take the matters to administration" threat on my talkpage, as pointed out by Floquenbeam. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I will state my case, and would like to point out at this time that I am constantly being harrassed by User:U1Quattro. My edits were reverted at least 19 times over the past 9 months and not once was it necessary, and not once was it correct.

1. 612: Special:Diff/855578814 My edit was reverted just on occasion of rewriting the article. With this correct engine links were reverted. Vandalism of my work.

2. 575M: Special:Diff/879639849 My correct, and later, sourced edit was reverted, even though previously there also was no source. Special:Diff/880025334 Here I presented that my claim was sourced but it was deleted not improved anyway Special:Diff/880107734 and User:U1Quattro begun a conversation accusing me of being lazy. His rude behaviour and unwillingness to improve an article. And so I inserted a source Special:Diff/880427587, which was deleted maliciously Special:Diff/880566579 and replaced by a "credible" source, ie. a forum... Special:Diff/880569080. My later update of dividing production numbers into two completely different models (practice very common) was just deleted Special:Diff/894035517 because it is, quote: "Too confusing.", whch will be a very often defense mechanism for User:U1Quattro, so he deleted it from infobox altogether. Again I see this as vandalism of my work.

3. 599: Special:Diff/880107892 A very long engine size was shortened as is common in any other Ferrari model but this edit was reverted because User:U1Quattro deemed it: "Not needed." It was then reverted yet again Special:Diff/880566293. User:U1Quattro then begun edit warring Special:Diff/891852265 and Special:Diff/891870862 about a picture clearly inserted into wrong place and was deaf to any constructive arguments. Especially frustrating when they are correct and with a little attention I would not have to waste my time to do one edit three times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_599 When I tried to peacefully point out what are we talking about he accusses me of being rude.

4. EB 112: Source I presented is the highest authority on Bugatti EB 110 and 112, but: Special:Diff/881425458, Special:Diff/883089248 Here he states that source shows 2 cars (it shows 3) Special:Diff/883134358 Still stubbornly argues that he only sees 2 cars. Special:Diff/883136624 Here he claims he added a more reliable source, that just proves my point further but after 4 revertions. Time surely wasted. Also see talk page for EB 112: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bugatti_EB_112 where he claims that this "unofficial registry" is... "confusing" when it isn't. I even posted three separate links to three chassis numbers Special:Diff/883138743.

5. F50: Special:Diff/885645951 I was not asked for a source my edit was just reverted. He could have just followed the link.

6. Coupé: Special:Diff/893820486 Special:Diff/893818480 Special:Diff/893802825 Special:Diff/893778756 Special:Diff/893739643 Special:Diff/893737761 Special:Diff/893736904 Special:Diff/893716503 Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893710349 Special:Diff/893606976 Special:Diff/893606872 Special:Diff/893606503 Special:Diff/893606228 Special:Diff/893349542 (other members of the community also helped providing proofs of facts stated by me, to no effect)

Coupé talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name

Coupé talk on U1Quattro talk: Deleted by him Special:Diff/896526399

Coupé talk on my talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ybsone#April_2019 with a racial outburst about a japanese trading site that showed a limited edition 3200 GT for japanese market with a plaque that said Japan Special:Diff/893720057

7. Ghibli (M157) talk (after being stuck in a ill-logic loop that an era-successor is also the successor to every individual car type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Ghibli_(M157)#Predecessor just a pearl of his logic:

"The Quattroporte IV was itself based on the BiTurbo so it never succeeded Amy of the Biturbo family cars."

"The Ghibli II succeeded the BiTubro and was based on the BiTurbo"

Special:Diff/895002665 he also changed one of his claims after my reply

8. Quattroporte Special:Diff/898127851 Again not asked to show a source (should I be asked for a source to prove what I see on the picture? Really?? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006_Maserati_Quattroporte_-_Flickr_-_The_Car_Spy_(4).jpg ) my edit was reverted just to start a war with yet another user. I showed a source anyway.

Quattroporte talk on U1Quattro talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Maserati_Quattroporte when I asked for him to stop reverting my contributions and he gets offended?? YBSOne (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

To that I can say I'm not rude. I'm defending facts. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone your proofs clearly show that you edited without a source in the first place. On the 575 page, you added a source in the edit summary and not in the article which is not how it works. You only add source when you are done arguing and I'm sorry to say, this is not how editing works on here.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

About the EB110 page, yes I was wrong but you could've been more courteous while pointing out my error which you clearly didn't do and kept on adding some unofficial registry. This was resolved once I added a more credible source. Your "defense" of the facts is not only unethical but it also discourages me to keep editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I can clean my talkpage. I am not estopped from doing so especially when the discussions are not active anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You better look up estoppel. EEng 05:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You claim that I don't source my work, but You don't do it Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893720240. Difference being that I am a journalist.

You claim that EB 110/112 website is just some unimportant unofficial registry. His website is THE website for EB 110 and 112. Just like mine is for the GTV/Spider: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/ and Lancia Lybra and Maserati Coupé. Researching italian cars' history is very tough. I know it and You clearly don't.

You claim that I asked You to contact Maserati. If You did: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/maseratispyder90thanniversary.jpg http://www.bozhdynsky.com/cars/interview-with-maserati-heritage/

You claim that I incorrectly sourced 575M manual transmissions. But You reverted that edit... to my edit that was before Special:Diff/818782708 and yet lack of source didn't bother You at all.

You claim that I didn't source that Quattroporte V intake is plastic and black. I don't have to source every single fact that can be, with open eyes, clearly seen on the picture and I won't be bullied to do so.

You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting.

You claim that I should accept any sources, any time. Nothing furthest from the truth. As I told You many times be inquisitive not repetitive. You have presented countless sources and all of them were wrong and unacceptable.

You claim that I should encourage You to edit and be more courteous while pointing out Your errors. Yet You don't have to adhere to Your rules. YBSOne (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh so you're a journalist what would you now claim next? That you are a historian? It's that behaviour of yours which is the most repulsive of all. You are repetitively stating a personal blog as a source which is run by you and you hae basically "ordered" me to use this source. Who do you even think you are? Some kind of a dictator? I think that Ferrari owners, who own the cars and are in contact with Ferrari are more reliable sources than a personal self researched blog-site which has been forcefully used here. Yes I did contact Maserati and they got back to me with the owners manual. Frankly, I don't have any blogs to post the records there. Yes you do have to source every other "fact" that you think is right, otherwise it is just self research. I only see a lack of understanding to the policies which are followed here. FYI, a talk page is a user's personal name space and he can use it the way he wants. You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am a historian. I have researched automotive history with many successes and published my findings on my personal website mainly. My historical research of type 916 Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider is unparalleled in the world and widely respected in it's community. It was even commended by Cenrto Documentazione AR. You on the other hand were tasked by community and me to research one simple fact, like a name of a limited edition, and failed. You asked wrong questions and got same answers. I asked right questions, again, and received a confirmation of facts I already knew. Consensus was reached and You were still stubborn. You claim You needed sources, but when I provided credible and primary ones You change them to Yours. You don't want facts You want Your facts.

I was very patient over the months of harassment. Even didn't participate in recent actions against You from other user, although I did reply to what I was asked to provide. You wanted to start this fight by provoking me with vandalism Special:Diff/898127851 and You got it. Now You manipulate opinions that You are the victim. You are not a victim but an agressor. First thing You do afer block is lifted You harass all of Your "enemies", undoing work of at least 5 different users. Admins can see Yours and mine contribution history. You are the dictator because You don't care about consensus nor facts. You claim to respect policies yet You constantly vandalise my work, replace primary sources with uncredible secondary ones, attack personally, threat, edit war and for this I expect User:U1Quattro to be blocked by Administrators.

Should Administrators have any further questions towards me I am at their disposal.

With regards, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, historian. YBSOne (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you even know what harrasement is? I think you need to have a look at the definition of what harrasement is before you start to act as a victim of harassment. That is a very bold claim that you're making about your research and everything else which was "successful" and has recieved "acclaim". Infact, I don't even see a mention about you in the automotive press let alone the Italian automotive press and I haven't seen any proof where this is verifiable. Wikipedia isn't about you or your facts where you go on to claim that your "work" is vandalised. I have now found solid evidence that your website is in violation of the policies here as pointed out by 72Dino and hence cannot be used as a source in the articles here. Yet you had the audacity to come out on my talk page and force me to use the site. I wasn't tasked by anyone to do research on the sources, I did it on my own free will and shared the response which I got in return. You on the other hand, posted your own blog in which it was highly unclear about the said conversation you were pointing at. I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here. I have provided my evidence and that shows how you behave and force others to stay along at work and act like this site is all about you. That's all I have to say.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You were using ferrarichat.com/forum Special:Diff/818411451 that clearly violates policies as being self-published and uverifiable. Also the production sums are way different from official Ferrari claims. Yet in 2018 You had absolutely no problem with it what so ever, because of double standard. My note: "Please do not use this source in the future" is not an order nor forceful. You are manipulating facts to Your advantage and blowing them out of proportion. YBSOne (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There you have it. Does the manufacturer who is manufacturing the car knows better how many were produced or some self proclaimed historian and journalist who has no sources on where he got his information? I will let the admins decide.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And as usual whenever is convenient You manipulate Your own positions: Special:Diff/893874280 Special:Diff/880569080 Double standard. YBSOne (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On the Ferrari 575 page, I just changed wording of a sentence, that doesn't change its meaning. Just accept that you're out of justifications now. Plus about the Maserati talkpage, I talked about my doubts but accepted the name as is.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Both of you, stop. ANI is not for content disputes, it's for behavioral issues. And all you've managed to do is prove that you're both fighting, instead of collaborating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I reported him for his odd behaviour which is clearly showing here.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You should consider your own behavior as well. Your abrasive discussion style and apparent tendency to hold grudges doesn't make anything any easier. You criticize YBSOne for using a self-published source while you try to use an online forum as one, which is equally unsuitable. Your comment here is completely unacceptable, and given that you just came off a week-long block issued in part for such behavior, you should know that. Misconstruing someone's opinion and then accusing him of "lack of knowledge" is a personal attack. You criticize YBSOne for not seeking consensus, yet change images in the midst of an ongoing discussion about them - one of which, there is no indication whatsoever of consensus for.

The greater dispute here is quite difficult to follow and I don't know that YBSOne is entirely blameless in this, but the personal attack noted above is concerning, especially given the timing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shortly after the week block U1Quattro left this message on my talkpage, already threatening to take "matters to administration" when no form of conflict hasn't started yet. As pointed out by Sable, he made a edit replacing the infobox when there was an ongoing discussion about it when a consensus haven't been reached. --Vauxford (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you are assuming on the same talkpage that you should put the 'White on on the infobox while the red one in the ZL1 section' so you get an equal blame for assuming things that way. Also, you had already mentioned about your talkpage discussion earlier on, so I see this as an attempt to side with the accused in order to oust me from editing which you had been doing ever since you have been feuding with me. Sable232 if you see how Ybsone has behaved above in this thread as well as accusing me to stop the "flow of knowledge" and everything else, I consider these personal attacks as well. Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page. Where was he with his reliable source before? And why did he completely refused to add a source in the article? That is the question.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, I'm fairly disappointed with how these two editors namely Vauxford and Ybsone behave with others while violating WP:CIVIL and WP:ETIQUETTE multiple times. I don't know how one would behave nice with them when they behave repulsively with others. Since we are diverting to point out the flaws of each other, I think Vauxford should also be held accountable for his behaviour with Charles01, 1292Simon and Alexander-93.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro this is proof of Your manipulation: My quote: "You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting."

Your response blown out of proportion: "You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide."

And this is proof of Your uncaring about facts nor consensus: Your claim: "I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here."

Your actual behaviour on Coupé talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name

Manufacturer sourced data was provided on the first line of dispute yet it took more than 2 weeks not to teach You or show You gently the errors of Your ways. It took 2 weeks to wear You down. Not only that but reference to Maserati website and Spyder 90th Anniversary was there all the time, since 2012, You didn't take time to read it (number 61: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#References). But I read it when it was active.

Another intersting fact about Your dictatorial behaviour: "Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page." So is it forbidden to correct Your mistakes? Is it forbidden to edit pages that were marked by You? Who do You think You are? YBSOne (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone and who do you think you are? If you have researched about cars so much go and improve pages instead of sitting back and degrading others. Where were you when you researched about the Ghibli and it's successor? That's right, you came to edit and fight with me when I had edited the page. Where were you on commons when you thought the photo of the suspension system of the Ferrari 599 was wrong? That's right, you were coming right after me after I had edited the page. Where were you when you had researched about the Maserati Coupé and the Maserati 3200 GT? That's right, you were after me when I had edited the pages. Your edit pattern suggests that you're indeed a stalker who is targeting other editors in order to degrade them.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And for your kind information Ybsone you cannot dictate any user to keep or delete content on their talk page which is their personal name space. Just like I haven't told you to keep or delete content on your talk page. About manufacturer claims, the Ferrari 575 incident happened before the Maserati Coupé incident. So you failed to put the blame on me, yet again as edit history is present to back that up. And as for "dictatorial behaviour" I think you need to look up what that behaviour is when you try to blame someone next time.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Pattern You see are Your own paranoidal assumptions. I have nothing to do with them. I care about the pages You mention and when I see a blatant error I will fix it, whoever edited it before. You are not that special to me as You claim to be. YBSOne (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution history says otherwise. You have started to target me ever since the Ferrari 575 incident. You have been following me on pages as soon as I edit them.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How about an IBAN, then you go both get on with productive editing?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And how about actually going after that disruptive user for his vandalism and personal attacks? YBSOne (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven I was trying to productively edit before I came across this abusive user.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone so you are actually going to dictate the admins now?U¹ _quattro TALK 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Are You still going to blow things out of proportion and manipulate admins? YBSOne (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I'm just presenting facts about your editing history and your repulsive behaviour which is showing here. Thankfully, you won't be able to manipulate any of this.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No, You are mistaken, I and other user are presenting facts about Your abusive behaviour and personal attacks even though You try to manipulate the sense of it. YBSOne (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your current behaviour here is abusive Ybsone. You personally attacked me when you said "who do you think you are" so I will let the admins decide who is the more innocent one here.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Also you and Vauxford are trying to form an alliance to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and any user is allowed to challenge an suggestion. If this feuding continues it will be more then just an IBAN, for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Are You sure You want to use this argument? Special:Diff/898214744 YBSOne (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven As I posted above I'm defending myself agains constant attacks from U1Quattro, I'm not feuding. I'm here because he filed an action against me, because he vandalised my work. This is the ill-logic I have to deal with. YBSOne (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven I'm ready to bury the hatchet but I demand an apology from him for how he behaved with me.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think others have suggested you are both at fault. I have no idea who is at fault (or who started it), nor do I care. This is wasting a lot of time with the pair you you throwing insults back and forth. The only solution now (as far as I can see) is either an IBAN or you both get blocked. I suggest that the pair of you drop this now before it become a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone no, you're actually trying to prove that you're above everyone else when you aren't. Your "work" is just as relevant as the works of any other editor. It is neither superior nor inferior. Any editor, including me, has the right to edit a page after you have edited it. You're trying to say that you own a page after contributing to it, this is the behaviour I'm against.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And I actually filed this claim because I'm done with your behaviour and envy against me.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro And how exactly am I behaving? All You do is claim and still noone sees any actual proofs. I have proven Your vandalism and personal attacks. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I have presented my proofs and others in this discussion. This is another attempt of yours of manipulation. Your behaviour? It's narcissistic and repulsive.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And Ybsone I'm still waiting for the proof of praise of your work by the automotive press.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No You havent, You invent causes and claims and move on to manupulation.YBSOne (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please block the pair of them for tendentious editing and close this? This really has gone on for two long.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Ybsone, but the proof of disqualification of your website as a source and the sources I presented along with the behaviour you have shown here isn't something that I invented. But go on and keep trying to shift the blame. I don't say I'm innocent, but you aren't either.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who does not agree with You is automatically called rude by You and is suddenly in violation of policies. Even presenting facts does not matter because You shift Your position from pro-manufacturer to anti-manufacturer whenever it suits Your current needs. You use forums when You need it and simultaneously devalue an automotive blog when it suits Your needs. You do not allow others to check Your work, change Your work or even do their work after You. You bury Your opponent in an avalanche of seriously sounding phrases and have nothing to back them up with except Your opinions. I am not envious of You and never will be and You will never be apologised to by me. You start the fight and then act like a child and scurry behind someone who You think You can manipulate and do Your bidding for You. When pointed out a simple thing You turn it's meaning around, blow it out proportion and then use as a weapon. You are not interested in learning, You are not intersted in policies you claim to protect, You are not interested in facts nor in consensus. Everything must be as You want it to be and we all are just in Your way. You are narcissistic and parnoid and You think everyone is after You and they are conspiring to oust You. You are very, very, very tiresome and actually disruptive to this community. We wouldn't be here if You wouldn't maliciously reverted a simple edit. You wanted all this attention. You needed to blame someone for Your shortcomings. You crave to act as a victim when someone endangers Your position. And don't worry I will soon publish my first book. I can be a very good editor but You will never be as good a historian as I am. I surely hope Administrators will see through Your facade of lies and manipulations and block You for good. Best. YBSOne (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"You will never be as good as I am." Proves how big of a narcist you are. Your "Automotive blog" doesn't qualify to be a source on Wikipedia which has already been said proven by other users. We are here because of your disruptive behaviour, not because of me as a victim. I never said I was a victim neither am I trying to be one. I have said why I filed this claim and I hope you also get dealt by accordingly. I never said that others are not allowed to check my work, statement like this from you "He is vandalising" my work is a proof that you don't allow that. This site isn't a place to have opponents like you put it. It's for collaborative contribution and you refuse to do so. I just see blame shifting here.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, calling me paranoid is a personal attack. I'm still waiting for proof of your praise by the automotive press as I write this. Statements like "I'm going to write a book very soon" wouldn't make anyone believe in your credibility. You are right about learning. I'm not interested in learning from you.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"You will never be as good as I am." is based on experience of You trying to research a simple fact and failing miserably. I am not disruptive, edits that I did, sourced or not, were correct. We are here chronologically because of Your revert of my simple edit and shifting blame on me for that incident. I have yet to wait for You to correctly check my work. You don't know the meaning of collaboration and You of all people should not use that term. Paranoia is a mental illness when someone sees threats where there are none, like secret alliances etc. I don't have to prove to You my credibility, community checks it. My website is just some of my automotive knowledge and still is unparalleled on 916s alone. You are not someone I have to prove myself to. YBSOne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Edits I did, sourced or not were correct" these statements just prove my point more of why we are here. Never said I was going to research anything so didn't fail, another blame gone wrong. I am waiting for you to show me the praise you received by the automotive press, you blank accusations are not going to change the claims you have made. Yes I do collaborate with others and appreciate their work but I won't do none of that for you. Oh yes you have to prove yourself here because your website is incapable of being used as a source and unlike you, I never tried to establish hat I am right and the others are not. Give WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL a read.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You are mislead about the source of my contributions. And as for my website it can be used as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid Because as I proven, facts were checked with manufacturer and are based on their publications and sources. Example: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-147-156-166-gt-production-dates/ So taking my website out of running You Got Nothing on me! YBSOne (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No you do not get to decide your website is an RS, the community does. SPS is clear that to use an SPS certain requirements must be met, in the case the only applicable one is 2 "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", you do not appear to meet his. Frankly I think you are heading for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This part is something to work on in the future it is not relevant now. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The use of your website, and your instance that it is an RS is at the heart of this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't The 4 points he made at the begining and 8 points I made later have nothing to do with my website. YBSOne (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is being manipulative and avoiding to use proofs now Ybsone?U¹ _quattro TALK 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why is it being banged on about here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Because of his manipulations!!! YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone yes it is relevant as it is you who claimed to be a journalist and a historian by the use of your website. You also used your website at the Maserati Coupé incident you pointed to multiple times. That makes it relevant here.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I never tried to manipulate anyone here. Stop your empty accusations.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name No it isn't I posted manufacturers claims first. Then proved that I am in contact with Maserati. Just that no sourced were used from my website. Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You claimed that you contacted Maserati Classiche in edit summaries before a talk page discussion was opened and you used your website as a source which is unreliable as per WP:SPS. This is not manipulation but a fact.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation that I used my website as a source for Coupé, prove it in diffs...YBSOne (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There you go Ybsone this is before when you started a talk page discussion and I never said that you used it as a source in the Maserati Coupé page. I said that you used it as a source that you contacted Maserati like you said in the article's edit summary.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not an edit summary for Coupé, this is not a source for Coupé, this is just Your talk page. No proofs still? YBSOne (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I see no problem if the website does not meet WP:SPS if it is on the talk page. Any more problems to solve? YBSOne (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Because I contacted Maserati Classiche" there you go with the edit summary. When asked for a source, you presented your website, which is unreliable.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha! The website was not used as a source! The source was there since 2012. And is still there. YBSOne (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you actually get what I'm trying to say? I said that you used your website as a source that you had contacted Maserati. The fact that you also tried to promote your website as a reliable source on my talkpage isn't hidden either.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, my website was not used as a source on the points specified. I see no further problem to discuss. May please Administrators step in and ban us already. YBSOne (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was. I have presented my proofs. Yet you deny them. Proves who is being manipulative now. You have no right to dictate the admins on what to do.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"please" is uequal to "dictate". Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You telling them what to do is dictating. Stop accusing.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

http://www.citethisforme.com/topic-ideas/english/History%20of%20the%20Alfa%20Romeo%20GTV-19284871 My website as source and citation used to research history of the Alfa Romeo GTV

https://www.mlsclassiccars.dk/cars_sale/alfa_romeo_spider_3_v6.html Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

http://www.squadra916.com/history/ Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/4200-production-numbers.537650/ My website noted as a source and a compliment: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link! "

https://automotiveviews.com/2015/02/10/gandinis-shamal-a-controversial-maserati/ My website noted as a source

https://www.sportsmaserati.com/index.php?threads/4200-production-numbers.24306/ My website noted as a source

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1956_ferrari_250_gt_coupe_corsa/ My website noted as a source

And a rather established Petrolicious: https://petrolicious.com/articles/the-designer-s-story-battista-pininfarina

YBSOne (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Four sources are forums (which you consider unreliable yourself) one source used only photos from your site. So this doesn't change the fact that your website is considered unreliable here. And I only saw praise from one Ferrari Chat forum member of your source which is certainly not the automotive press.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, read this from WP:SPS "self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." Your website is not used by established publications. Petrolicious is a new publication (established circa 2016) and is not as established as Car and Driver and La Stampa etc. So still, your website is not in conformity with WP:SPS.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As of 31 May 2019 U1Quattro is still edit warring with my edits. Almost all Ferrari articles have production quotas in an infobox, that is an established practice. Yet U1Quattro removes this quotas from two articles that I have edited, because they are "unnecessary" or there is "no guideline" and leaves them on every other Ferrari article. This behaviour is clearly bias. He is not interested in an established layout but in reverting my edits and provoking a response. Here You have it.
Special:Diff/899606215 Special:Diff/894035517 Special:Diff/893049371 Special:Diff/894035442 Special:Diff/899606108
Partial list of articles with production quotas in the infobox. See for Yourselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_production YBSOne (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I didn't touched them after you mentioned those articles on my talk page. Look at the definition of the three revert rule, then come here. You are just spicing up the issue.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

48 hour block for both users

Enough is enough, it is clear neither user is interested in working with each other, its also clear this is going to drag on. For the peace of ANI I therefor think the pair of them need as cooling down period. Please can we stop this now?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I might well have done this if I'd come along a while ago, but as the last edits in this section were two hours ago, I think it would be more punishment and less preventive. Of course, I'm saying this only regarding the argument immediately above, and maybe there's something else that warrants blocking. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A block wouldn't be out of line in my opinion but I'd question whether it would help now.

That said, both editors are clearly not getting it, and this dispute is spilling over to other parts of Wikipedia and becoming disruptive, such as the bludgeoned discussion at Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation)#Infobox. Long-term, I think a two-way IBAN is unavoidable given the behavior by both parties. --Sable232 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This block was only to stop the ANI war, hopefully it is no longer needed (and it is not just a case of Sleepy Bobo's). I suggested a two way above, and still think this is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

At this rate it seem fruitless to defend myself against U1Quattro since he just going use anything I ever said past or present as a form of accusation such as ousting or conspiracy even when its not, as he done here and here. This name dropping he did while venting with this IP user. I did repeated myself twice because I thought that comment could be used further down the discussion, I was thinking of removing the initial comment but then what the chance of him making another accusation against me that I'm trying to cover up my mistakes? Currently I'm not in any edit dispute nor planning to any time soon with U1Quattro but I believe that something should be done by now with these personal attacks against other users. --Vauxford (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

[1] He now went on my talkpage again saying that I was "name calling" when I didn't say that. At the time I thought I did say that and got my words mixed up so I made this respond, I reverted after realising I didn't say "name calling" at all and redone the message. U1Quattro took offence and said I was being "manipulative". He made further accusation that I'm trying to "oust" him because I brought up two users in a past ANI who was involved in the same incident as I was.

[2] He is taking the phrase "anytime soon" literally in a sense that I'm planning to edit dispute against him when most people use that pharase as a figure of speech. This has already proven my point that whatever defence or comment I make, U1Quattro simply take it as some form of attack or accusation and seem to be threatening to use what I said above against me despite the fact I already provided the diffs from my talkpage. I'm trying my best to be neutral and calm about this situation but I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments made by this user clearly suggest that he plans edit disruptions and involves me. He is also being manipulative here while accusing me to be so.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is now the only solution to this, but extended to three users, this is just getting silly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The below disruption is appalling. How have there not been blocks issued for this yet?!--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks are not to be used per WP:CDB. If a block is to be applied to either user, it should be for repeated disruption that's actively occurring and in progress or happened just recently, or it should be after expectations are set with both editors by the community after discussion and consensus (it doesn't have to be a formal ban), and following the violation of those expectations or conditions. Otherwise, this will just continue (and more heatedly so) after such blocks expire. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Then it needs to be (as I ask for below) IBANS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

[3] U1Quattro just left a message on my talk page commenting about a edit I did last month, saying it was a recent edit, along with a personal remark between me and another user that he isn't involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford complaining as always.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Because you just made that message out of the blues, putting your nose into something you weren't involved in. Before you say it, the difference with me talking about your behaviour on this incident is because it all related and involved with you and other users (including me). You had no known involvement with this user so all you did was thrown fuel on the fire, you had no other reason to put that message on my talk page other then to harass other users. --Vauxford (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford yes I had a reason. I disagree with your edits on the article I mentioned so I discussed it on the talkpage. Now if you want to complain about everything I post on your talkpage, be my guest.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Iban between U1Quattro & Vauxford

No idea what created this one, but its clear its more of the same.Slatersteven (talk)

Slatersteven It because of past incidents which were already solved and done. U1Quattro has been holding a grudge against me since that 1 day block we got for edit warring. Anything I seem to say he takes as a form of attack and threaten to use it against me. I am not directly involved whatever Ybsone and U1Quattro got themselves into. I believe this situation can't go on for any longer, U1Quattro has already gotten a 1 week block for the things he doing right now and what he left on my talkpage which I provided diffs for. I'm sorry if that sounds threatening but I don't know how else to put it.

*Support I think a IBAN between me and U1Quattro would be helpful. I'm tired of getting all these talkpage messages from him just because I'm giving my own testimony unrelated to this Ybsone incident. --Vauxford (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Since when you were asked to give a testimony Vauxford? I opened this discussion because of my greviance against Ybsone. You didn't had anything to do with it.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Support.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Although I do support this IBAN I believe U1Quattro's recent behaviour towards users in general should be look at by a administrator. --Vauxford (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The disputes between these two will clearly flare up again and again otherwise. Vauxford's inserting himself into this one, given the recent history, was out of line. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sable232 How was speaking out about someone was out of line? I thought it was appropriate to have my said about the problem? This user has been under hot water and dispute with several users, not just me and this Ybsone user. I inserted what I said above because I believe something really need to be done U1Quattro can't go on with this sort of behaviour towards others. --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Because you've had significant disputes with U1Quattro in the very recent past, and bringing that up here in an unrelated matter gives the appearance of "piling on" and only makes things worse, as you can see from what resulted above. At times like this it's better to exercise the discretion to stay out of it unless your input is asked for (in my opinion). If YBSOne had started this discussion about U1Quattro instead of the other way around, it may have been appropriate; but as it is, I don't believe it was. (I could be wrong in that assessment though, if anyone wants to change my mind). --Sable232 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Decline Scratch that, this IBAN seem to me is just a attempt sweep the problem under the rug, it been a week and no admin intervention has actually been done for this whole incident and the likely outcome for all of this is keeping a few mouths shut. I showed my diffs to proven U1Quattro hasn't learnt after his 1 week block with the personal attacks and combative behaviour. What I "inserted" in this incident was actually meant to be sub-incident rather then the one about U1Quattro and Ybsone. But I guess having someone have their say about the user in question is "out of line". --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford had given his testimony because he can clearly see who was wronged here. Just because U1Quattro preemptively struck this action against me doesn't mean that he is the innocent party. May I remind You that this action was taken after I asked him to stop vandalising my work. And in reply he reported me. This is how twisted this is. Vauxford and I do not have any alliance. We were both wronged by the same user - U1Quattro, and both our patience ran out. YBSOne (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, you don't have any proof of what you said here. You were repulsive to me, you got the same behaviour in return. The same goes with Ybsone. If you're talking about Carguy1701, he was coming off on my talkpage hot headed. The way I see it, you inserted yourself in this matter which had got nothing to do with you in order to pile up evidence and attempt to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone you also threatened me to take the matters to administration, please bear that in mind. Posing as the innocent party won't make you innocent. "Vandalising my work" sure, that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Read the diffs. --Vauxford (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford I say it after reading the diffs. You had me reported on ANI so you shouldn't slip into other matters when I report someone else as you're basically over me after the decision of the admins. Sable232 is right. You were out of the line here.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

What he said also that he "could be wrong in that assessment" [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. These diffs proven that the 1 week block hasn't change the way you treat me and other users such as Ybsone, Carguy1701, Toasted Meter, and possibility other people in the past. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you got these messages on your talk page because you decided to put yourself in a matter you had no relation with. Further, there is a reason you get this kind of a behaviour. You are yourself repulsive against me. You get what you give in return. As for the other users, I haven't interacted with Toasted Meter. Carguy1701 was also told by a user to back of because of his out of the line attitude.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually found this evidence which suggests that this user is not the innocent party here and his behaviour keeps getting worse.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Grasping straws, that discussion on my talkpage is something unrelated to what your doing. The situation I was having with Charles01 was way before this and most of it isn't resulting in insulting and throwing threats. To be honest, it feels more one-sided since as far as I am aware I haven't done anything that would directly provoke him to be like that to me. Your misunderstanding the take that I'm maintaining innocent when I'm not. At the end of the day, you were the one who got blocked for genuinely harassing users and already proven the block did nothing towards your attitude and I believe this should of been reviewed at over a week ago. --Vauxford (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford since you're the one bringing my talkpage into this, I would bring yours into this as well. Your own behaviour will also be assessed here which is nothing short of bad and disruptive.03:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro I don't think there anything to be assessed for me, not what I'm aware of, I don't remember making any recent personal attacks or accusation on somebody with no evidence to support, all I have been doing is putting my testimony against your behaviour since I don't think you learnt from your 1 week block while being calm and content while I'm speaking. I believe I haven't done anything considerably disruptive since my 1 day block which was a month ago but all the diffs I provided about you are all shortly after your block and it the same stuff you did that made you got it in the first place, straw grabbing whatever scrap I got with Charles01 recently isn't a reason why I am being "bad and disruptive" and unrelated to this ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you haven't learnt anything from your blocks either. The recent assesement of your behaviour by Charles01 shows that. Now I have got nothing to say to you since you inserted yourself in this matter which had nothing to do with you.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro I got blocked for edit warring, not for personal attacks against other users. I might of got myself into a scrap with Charles01 but I didn't edit warring. I did (attempt) to discuss it on the talkpage but Charles01 did a I presumed a outburst of frustration and reverted it prematurely before the discussion was finished which I reverted back, other then that, I haven't got into any edit wars like I did to get me that block. Look, I'm sorry U1Quattro but no matter what the case with me, and Sable pointed this out, you have continued doing what you got blocked for, within no more then 24 hours after you got unblocked. That all I'm going to say. --Vauxford (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford if you have read, Sable232 also pointed out your out of the line attitude which you have adapted here. Your apologies are rejected.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro You are right, I misread that, however, I personally don't think it was out of line and Sable was questioning that himself. --Vauxford (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford your personal thoughts matter next to nothing. You were out of the line. Infact, you shouldn't be here arguing anyways since this matter doesn't concern you.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Iban between U1Quattro & Ybsone

This is the only solution as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk)

Support YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

SupportU¹ _quattro TALK 00:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As was commented before on my behalf I may not know the lingo Special:Diff/898595031. If this IBAN is a temporary solution to give Administrators a chance to come to a conclusion and block faulty party or parties, then I agree. BUT if this IBAN is the only punishment and the matter will be dropped, in my opinion it would just be a slap on the wrist and I would have to decline. I was under the impression that this two-way IBAN is just to stop us from bludgeoning this hearing and still a serious decision will be made later. I was wronged by U1Quattro and I demand justice. YBSOne (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I decline this solution. I feel it is not serious enough. YBSOne (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You certainly didn't gave ANI Advice a read. You cannot come out here demanding justice. The admins would do what they think is best. I whole heartedly agree with the IBAN since then I wouldn't have to deal with you anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I can. Just because You reported me does not mean that this is not Your trial. You want to accept smaller punishment beause You don't want to be held accountable for Your actions. Le me quote on the admins (or a user) Special:Diff/898595031: "It's rather clear to me that Ybsone is here to build an encyclopedia and wants this mess to be over."

And this is about You: "In all but naming the essay, they are trying to communicate that the reporting user is trying to WP:BLUDGEON the ANI thread by muddying the waters. Given the personal attacks made against Ybsone and Vauxford... My suggestion would be a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent further harassment. U1Quattro clearly has a checkered record [4] and listed themselves as semi-retired. One-way should end the disruption."

You will not manipulate Your way out of responsibility. YBSOne (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone showing old thoughts of a user about you, won't change anything. This diff is before you started to show your true self here. You won't weasel your way out of here by these tactics. By insisting that your personal website is a credible source while it's not and by showing that no one can correct your mistakes, you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If this ANI thread is any indication of the interminable and disruptive feuding between these two, I'd say a temporary topic ban is in order for both to allow a cool down and a rethink of exactly what this project is all about. Both of them clearly have a great deal of work to do when it comes to pursuing a collaborative approach to editing. I don't think an IBAN will achieve much except business as usual plus the silent treatment, with the possibility of an increase in disruptive editing doing the talking. RandomGnome (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro"showing old thoughts" Those old thoughts are as of 16:45, 24 May 2019 and my last reply to the main thrad is from 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) so yeah, chronology. I have proven without a doubt, even though it was not required from me, that I am seen as an expert in automotive community and that my website is cited even by an establised, from 2012 is not new (again chronology), publications. To prove to Wikipedia community that it is a reliable source will be just a formality in my opinion and I will not discuss it further here. To my use of word 'work' in substitution to 'contribution' or 'edit' You immediately propagate that: "that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes", is just a manipulation of a simple word. YBSOne (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia" is just Your opinion and I disagree with it. You have ran out of arguments against me and have to change the meaning of words to invent new insults. YBSOne (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That user only posted his thoughts on the matter and you're using it as a weapon by posting it on here and on your user page. Let the community decide whether you want to build an encyclopedia or not and be collaborative. Your recent behaviour suggests that you're not in the mood to do those things. You are only considered an "automotive expert" by forum members which are themselves unreliable sources. Petrolicious (a new automotive website) posted your website only as a reference, this doesn't make you an automotive expert.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggested a temporary ban above. I would support a TBAN of some kind at this stage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment It is rather clear that this user is on a a new level of starting another disruption by posting the thoughts of other users about this dispute on his talkpage when a decision has not been made.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is only clear to the person who invented yet another argument out of thin air. My talk page is clear of other users "thoughts", proof: (talk). You are still bludgeoning this thread with those fantastic accusations. YBSOne (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) Having read this dumpster fire of an ANI somewhat thoroughly, it appears the two users will not be able to discuss with each other in a civil fashion. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

While this discussion has been successfully bludgeoned to the point where few uninvolved editors are willing to comment, there seems to be agreement among those few for two-way interaction bans in each case.

I would suggest that the three involved parties read WP:IBAN thoroughly, and then read it again. An IBAN is not a trifling action; trying to goad someone into a response or obliquely referring to them in a talk page comment or edit summary is a violation of the ban and will result in a block. These disputes have disrupted the project long enough. --Sable232 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 Just a disclaimer, I am not pointing fingers at anyone but, I think this could of been prevented if there was someone to intervene a week ago, before the first eruption. I didn't want to say anything or try to rush the process of this incident but I waited and waited for something to happen, I don't understand why no one intervened and get it done and dealt with, regardless the consequences it would be for me and the other users. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I second that. YBSOne (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

An IBAN would keep me away from these two disturbing users so I agree with it even if those two don't agree since I was the one posting about the behaviours of Ybsone here. I believe now someone moved ahead and put the suggested three way IBAN in place because these two just want to point fingers rather than solve the matters.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

All three of you (I do not care who started it) could have said "WE WILL STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER!", none of you really have. Instead you have continued to bicker (even now) and point fingers. As to why no one intervened, I am not aware of what started this. But Admins cannot look at or police every article. If you do not report problems they cannot know about them. But what you should not do is take the law into your open hands and engage in this kind of dispute. Can we please end this now?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Ybsone's behaviour started this ofcourse. Don't know why Vauxford interfered here, seems to me he doesn't like to see me on Wiki due to some unknown reasons that's why he comes here pointing to talk page discussions this issue has nothing to do with. I had proposed to avoid Vauxford when I discussed the issue I was having with him with an admin but his response was "Don't know how we can avoid each other since we edit the same articles". I support the IBAN as I don't have to deal with these two anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't of interfered with this in the first place, but that doesn't mean I can't make a separate incident discussion and just move all the evidences I provided about your behaviour, and do it before this IBAN get put into place to all three of us, it up to you and Ybsone to solve whatever this supercar sourcing dispute. "If you do not report problems they cannot know about them." The diffs of U1Quattro's disruptive behaviour was me reporting a problem (unrelated to all of this). Again I shouldn't of and I instead do it in a separate discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you don't seem to know how you report a problem. You're just shoving your made up issue into this issue without a reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate to ask anyone to wade into this disaster any further, but @Floquenbeam: and/or @Oshwah: as the only two administrators who've commented here, could either of you bring this to a close? --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Responding to ping: I'm sorry, I looked at this a week or two ago (?!) but don't have time (or the stomach), to read thru this ridiculous waste of electrons again. And even if I wanted to read this again, I wouldn't be around for the inevitable ADMINACCTapalooza appeal that would inevitably follow, so I'm not going to do anything myself. Frankly, my recommendation would be an indef block for U1Quattro for being just relentlessly obnoxious whenever anyone disagrees with them, and for not caring even a tiny bit about other people's time. I know I would NEVER knowingly edit any article they were active on; editing with them seems like it would be a horrible experience. If not, certainly a final "knock it the fuck off" warning would be in order. I get the distinct impression YBSOne behaves similarly, but at a somewhat lower intensity level; I just don't know whether an indef block would be appropriate for them too, or if they're doing it in response to U1Quattro and get along well with others. I didn't get the impression Vauxford actually did anything really wrong this time around (after a previous run in with U1Quattro a while ago) but I could be wrong. Maybe they should be punished just for being dumb enough to dive into this nightmare thread? I'm certainly not going to read this thing again to find out. I suppose the cowardly way out (but possibly the most efficient, time-wise) would be mutual interaction bans all around, and maybe 1RR restrictions all around, and being put on notice of a zero tolerance policy for obnoxiousness going forward. Doing that for all 3 seem like it would be rewarding U1Quattro for much more appalling behavior, though. But it's easy. This thread, by the way, is Exhibit #5418 for the thesis "ANI is a dysfunctional wasteland". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you ask me (which you didn't) slap a three-way i-ban on all of them, topped off with some final warnings for YBS and U1, and call it a day. The sooner this mess is off the top half of ANI the better. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can only really judge buy this ANI, and it seems to me all three have issues (some are worse then others, but it may just be a clash of personalities as I have never interacted wit any of them before). I have suggested a three way (well actually two two ways), that will give all users a chance to prove they are not just a annoyance we need to remove.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case (and at risk of overstepping bounds on my part), this discussion is closed with both proposed interaction bans implemented, and everyone can move on. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews

In the few weeks I've noticed some odd goings-on at the biographies of various Polish Jews with questionable, or even odious histories. Specifically, there seems to be a concerted effort to label them as "Jewish", and not as "Polish", generally in apparent ignorance or defiance of MOS:ETHNICITY and the "Nationality" parameter in Infobox person. I think I first noticed it at Salomon Morel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it has been particularly apparent at Chaim Rumkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where multiple IPs and new/seldom-used accounts have shown up to make edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There does not seem to be any similar effort to designate other types of biographies of Polish Jews (e.g. resistance fighters such as Yitzhak Zuckerman, Frumka Płotnicka, Hirsch Berlinski, Chaike Belchatowska Spiegel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish". It seems unlikely that seldom used accounts such as Sophiel777 (talk · contribs), Rordayukki (talk · contribs), Szydlot (talk · contribs), Albertus teolog (talk · contribs), Waćpan (talk · contribs), Tashi (talk · contribs) suddenly discovered this article/dispute by chance. There is now a section on the article's talk page discussing the issue, but my concern is much more regarding the source of this influx of suddenly activated/reactivated and highly motivated editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been ongoing edit conflicts on wiki with editors who insist that Jewishness is a distinct and exclusive ethnicity and, for instance, one can't be both Jewish and Polish or Jewish and German, individuals are one of the other. Perennial pov conflict that needs attention? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have seen some of that too; this board relatively recently had an incident of a long-term IP editor who seemed to believe one couldn't be both Swedish and Jewish, and kept replacing "Swedish" with "Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit distorted version of the events.I have actually seen attempts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from articles about individuals who collaborated with Nazis leaving only Polish in the lead first sentence, under pretext that it indicates nationality[10].Also in case of Salomon Morel the issue has been it seems debated since years looking at history of the page.For the record reliable sources in cases of individuals with complicated identity often use the term Polish-Jewish as per Per Anne Applebaum "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-56 "the unusual case of Salomon Morel, who – all agree – was a Polish Jew and a communist partisan" New York Magazine - 9 Mau 1994.

Per MOS:ETHNICITY MOS:ETHNICITY,that ethnicity can be mentioned “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” The cases where somebody was involved in Holocaust and it played a major role in his life, or used his ethnic background as defence against persectution for crimes and it caused international controversy are I believe good reasons for mentioning the ethnicity in the first sentence.I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland. I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland.

As for recent activity it seems that popular publicist Rafal Ziemkiewicz re-tweeted this characterization on his twitter webpage recentely[11], which probably led to people reading this to react. I don't know how to link to re-tweet, as I don't use twitter much.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that could help explain the recent influx of editors at the Rumkowski article, though perhaps not at others. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding this edit you criticized above, you do realize that the nationality parameter on infobox person is only for citizenship, not ethnicity, don't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that the tweet was the cause of interest because many people have noticed that in case of hideous Jewish characters, their Jewishness have been erased from the article. We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). Another example may be the recent edition in Stefan Michnik which was a Stalinist judge who was responsible for murdering many Polish anti-communist soldiers, generals etc. All information about his sentences have been deleted even though I provided two different sources. All of them have been marked as "too far-right". User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one (Redacted). Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. Tashi _{Talk to me} 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tashi, I suggest less emotional approach.I know that some of the crimes comitted by Nazi collaborators or Soviet executioners can be upsetting but it's best to keep professional attitude and don't use insults, I suggest you re-write your sentence a it.

From a technical point of view I encountered a similiar problem once before:mainly the units of Selbstschutz in Poland 1939 were made of Germans with Polish nationality living in Poland that fought against Polish state. Would it be fitting to describe such individuals as Polish? I am sure this would seem wrong and there should be description of their ethnicity as well in order not to confuse the readers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Trust me that I'm trying to keep it as professional as possible but I also wanted to point out some facts that seems to be constantly omitted. I have nothing against Jayjig or any other user and I think we can work out and reach a consensus :) Though, there's a space for the debate about the nationality since that term is understood differently worldwide and it can be the bone of contention. I understand the argument that nationality is somehow related to the citizenship but there is no doubt that calling people like Rumkowsky as Polish is totally misunderstanding since he did not identify himself as Polish. Someone suggested the term "Russian-born Polish Jew" and I think that would be acceptable historically Tashi _{Talk to me} 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Note that I have extended-confirmed protected Chaim Rumkowski, it is clearly appropriate as the semi-protection (where I was the protecting admin) is not working as designed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I do not see why there need to be labels made in the article about Chaim Rumkowski. Disputes concerning nationality or descent are common and tend to be left out in most cases when a consensus is not achieved, as in Nicolaus Copernicus where only occupation is stated. However, it is appropriate to consider where the person lived, worked and/or obtained citizenship. Rumkowski held Polish citizenship and lived in Poland which is a dominating factor. In general context, I cannot stress enough that "Jewish" is not a nationality only an identity based on both racial descent and religion. All Polish Jews (considering they haven't emigrated) that are either secular or not Orthodox should be labelled as "Polish" per citizenship laws. "Polish-Jewish" or simply "Jewish" is a term appropriate for rabbis and religious or spiritual leaders. You do not see the label "American-Jewish" in articles about American actors, musicians, soldiers or politicians that are of Jewish heritage. Oliszydlowski, 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Rumkowski was born in ethnic Russia so he might have been perceived by Polish Jews are a Russina Jew (Litvak).Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:Ethnicity is not based on religious criteria, and for purely MOS comparison(not character), Janusz Korczak or Anne Frank have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead.I agree that usually it’s not needed, but in cases where it played huge role(Morel for example)and RS point this out ethnicity should be mentioned.Also contrary to your assesment we have actors described as American-Jewish, ie Leo Fuchs or Menasha Skulnik[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A reader should be informed why Morel run away to Israel rather than to Sweden or Chile.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm disturbed by the statement from Tashi, We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). (emphasis mine). This is reminiscent of the "exclusionary antisemitism" common in pre-war Europe. Compare with:

Exclusionary Antisemitism

The exclusionary nature of antisemitism derives from the perception that the Jew stands outside the nation, and represents an alternative nation or an anti-national, internationalist collective. This idea thrived in the early twentieth century when Jews were said to be internationalist, and thus to stand against the interests of national communities. Because there are distinct Jewish communities in many countries, antisemites alleged that: 1) Jewish communities conspire to advance their collective interests to the detriment of their "host" countries and 2) the dominant forms taken by this conspiracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are international finance and communism. In making such claims, antisemites sought to push out the Jew altogether.

Source. To go with Tashi's quote, see their edit here: [12]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that Jewish community was very strong and very separated. It made up majority in many places. In addition to separation between ethnic Poles and ethnic Jews, there were also separation between assimilated Jews and non-assimilated Jews. Pre WW2 state was very liberal in national and religious question. Cautious (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, antisemitism. Sorry but if the discussion is going to be about playing the antisemitism card then I'm out. I don't know how well you're familiar with Polish history but it is a fact that a lot of Jewish people didn't even speak Polish though they had lived there for a few centuries. It's not only about Polish only. That's historical fact and what's antisemitic about it? The other thing, yes I added he was a Jewish businessman because that information had been deleted. It's not something I made up. I used to say he was a Polish Jew but someone is trying to delete that information and I don't know why Tashi _{Talk to me} 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Just got these kind words from a newly created account on my talk. I will note that comments on "playing the antisemitism card", and above that editing of WWII historical articles was prompted by tweets by Rafal Ziemkiewicz, are deeply concerning. Some context on Ziemkiewicz is in order: Guardian 2018 (visit cancelled to UK, views on Muslims, gays, and Jews, Ziemkiewicz calling UK "fascist"), National Post, 2019 (comments on Jew hatred), JTA 2018 ("scabs" for jews), JTA 2018 (WJC - "gang of international blackmailers"), Pankowski, Rafał. Right-wing extremism in Poland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Department for Central and Eastern Europe, 2012. (endorsement of a book advocating that Poland should've allied itself with Hitler in 1939), Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. (views on Jedwabne pogrom and antisemitism). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. In my POV those comments was prmoted by this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/262593 ("'Israeli minister who made anti-Polish remarks a stupid idiot’ Prominent Holocaust survivor Ed Mosberg blasts Israeli FM over anti-Polish comments". Artcile date 02/05/19 16:10 Rordayukki (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea about the particular case, but have come across the attitude (in exactly the way it has been put) in a number of articles relating to Jewish-Polish relations. I said it there and I will say it here, saying that this is an anti-Semitic trope. Apart from a very small number of ultra-orthodox Jews there is no evidence the Jews refused to speak (or did not see themselves) as Polish (serving in both the home army and the Free Polish forces). I think a topic ban is in order. We cannot and should not allow the propagation of anti-Semitic tropes.Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Many Jews didn't identify themselves as Poles and spoke polish with very strong accent. It might be due to the fact the seprate religious education was allowed. This has changed after WW2, when the state enforced uniformed primary education and went hard for uniformisation. Cautious (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend caution, to avoid stiffing the debate through chilling effect and variations of Godwin's law and political correctness.

Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.

Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."

Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)

Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".

Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"

Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment ([13]).

But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well "

Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."

Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""

I hpoe it is clear that it is not 'antisemitic' to discus to what extent Polish Jews spoke Polish and identified with the Polish nation, and that someone who makes the argument that some, and perhaps most Polish Jews did not speak Polish, is not an anti-semite who deserves a topic ban. We should, of course, keep antisemitic discourse off this project, but the case discussed above is very much a normal academic issue, not 'an antisemitic trope'. PS. Personally, I am not convinced that 'most Polish Jews' did not spoke Polish, this may be an exaggeration, but it is one tha at least some scholars support. And I think the sources presented above make it very clear that at least a significant group of Polish Jews did not speak Polish (but whether that significant group was 10% or 90%, I have no opinion on yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

When someone does not say "some Jewish could not speak Polish" but rather "Jews were not Polish, and the evidence is they could not even speak our language". The issue is not that they could not speak Polish, but that they were not Polish, but rather They are a race and nation apart (see the quoted canard above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never written that Jews are not Polish. I just pointed out that many Jewish people who lived in Poland did not identify as Poles and it can be observed in fact that they did not know the language of the country they lived in and other arguments Piotrus mentioned. There have been thousands of Polish Jews who identified themselves with Polish and Polish culture. I really don't see anything antisemitic in that claiming. If banning is the way of discussion then I think that the idea of Wikipedia is already dead since we can disagree on many topics but we should try to reach a consensus. Tashi _{Talk to me} 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No you have just used it as an excuse to argue to certain types of people should not be called polish based upon no other evidence then they were Jewish. If you had provided some sources saying "X did ot indetofy" as Polish I would not have ascribed this view to the perpetuating of antisemitic canards. The fact is the only evidence you have produced (some of which even contracts your claim) is that some Jews could not speak Polish, ergo a particular jew (which not source has said could not speak Polish) was not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not even evidence, since there is no natural historical equation between citizenship and fluency in the designated national language. You don't require it in Israel, be you Israeli Arab or a Jew making aliyah. Sometimes states stipulate this as a sine qua non (notoriously in Baltic states) but where ius soli defines citizenship, being born there automatically confers citizenship. When the US passed its citizenship act in 1924, that right automatically extended to indigenous peoples like the Navajo, though many did not speak English, and even to this day, on a number of reservations studies indicate that 20% are monolingual, not knowing English, something which in no way imperils their citizenship identity. To give an extreme example when the Piripkura or Kawahiva were discovered in Amazonia, they were automatically Brazilian citizens since they were born there, though they didn't speak Brazilian. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus BTW, according to Halik Kochanski more than 80 % Rordayukki (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd like to see what source she uses for that. It's a rather far-reaching estimate that needs good backing from sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. In short - the lede should mention their nationality/citizenship only (X was a Polish astronomer, Y was an American writer etc.) and only mention ethnicity/religion if it is key to their notability - so Anne Frank should probably be described as Jewish but there is no need to describe Barack Obama as African-American, for example. GiantSnowman 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, that is pretty ridiculous. Like, completely ridiculous. Please look at Trevor Noah and tell me what ethnicity you see. Or don't, and just don't participate in this discussion because you're just digging your hole deeper. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• After reading this and reading some of what some are calling RS, I do think a TBAN for Tashi is in order. I saw a lot of links posted, so I am not sure if this was in the mix, but this is one of the sources being pushed, [14]. This is not something we should allow on the encycopedia. Antisemitism or antisemitic tropes should not be tolerated or condoned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• To Piotrus: pointing out ethnic tropes & bigotry is not political correctness [15] run amok; it's basic human decency. Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [16] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I could equally accuse Poles of not 100% speaking Russian, German, or Yiddish, even though they "lived there" for over a century, but that would be silly.

Then there's Tashi's targeting of Jayjg: User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one. Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. This is highly inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• • @K.e.coffman: I certainly agree that unsubstantiated accusations like the comment about Jayjg are not constructive, and I hope User:Tashi will withdraw it per WP:REFACTOR. However, regarding the first point, there's a difference between repeating bigoted stereotypes (ex. Jews are greedy, Caucasians have big noses) and and a scientific analysis of whether some cultures are more mercantilist or some DNA is more likely to result in, well, large noses :) We should warn people to avoid the former, but the latter should not be discouraged. It is very unfortunate when a chilling effect can be seen when a trigger happy admin throws blocks and bans or their proposals around. Frankly, commenting in such discussions at A(N, N/I, E) or such always makes me wonder - will I get banned or blocked? Because sadly I have seen a lot of misunderstandings and such solved with a banhammer. Why bother drawing lines if nuking solves quickly problems, eh? In either case, I think we should both warn some people here to be careful when it come to using streotypes or such, but also, warn people not to denounce others too quickly to avoid chilling effects in such discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @K.e.coffman:, @Piotrus:, @Slatersteven:, what do you think of this "refactoring", that still doesn't appear to accept that there's anything wrong with bringing up some random 7 year old attack thread on some outside forum, but "apologizes" if that was somehow taken as an attack? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see what the relevance of that forum is, not what it "proves" in the way of anything. It was not in and off itself a PA, but it was (I think) uncivil. What a bunch of loud fingers on some forum think is irrelevant and a distraction, but does imply the user see's this as some battle against a "towering figure in the history of WikiKorruption", i am also am also somewhat concerned that that forum had an outing attempt, and linking to it here was outing as well. Overall it reinforces my view the user needs a TBAN, as I see nothing but distractions and obstructions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all kind of a stupid argument, because in both cases - that of Chaim Rumkowski and Salomon Morel - the information as to their ethnicity/nationality is pretty much implied/stated right there in the sentence. In case of Morel, whom Icewhiz is trying to "tag" as Polish [17], it says in the same damn sentence he worked for the Polish security services. So his citizenship is kind of obvious. In the case of Rumkowski the first sentence states that he was "head of the Jewish Council of Elders" which already implies he was Jewish. So there's no point in trying to "tag" him as Jewish either. Trying to invoke an overly literal interpretation of WP:MOS here to insist on adding the nationality/ethnicity in the lede explicitly is a classic example of WP:POINT and WP:GAME. And WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

How is it possible that the Jewish Poles had Jewish property? Citizens of Poland have Polish property which is nationalized if heirless.

Pre-war Poland was obsolete, it continued some pre-division customs. Jews had their parties, Poles had their parties and Ukrainians had their ones. This division created ethnic wars partially described in Intimate Violence http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140102719170 . The massacre of Poles by Ukrainians was bigger than anti-Jewish violence of Poles.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/lens/poland-ukraine-volhynia-massacre.html?searchResultPosition=1&fbclid=IwAR17TAD11EfjuGJ7L9uBWRmUTJcSO4aVPKoWgZIUhxcx7mAHhH2bjy5I0Yk BBWR and socialists accepted Jews.

The Jews were strictly isolated by their religion, mainly by lack of mixed marriages. A poor Pole wasn't able to marry a Jewish girl and join a Jewish business. Even getting work was a problem. Such division craeted serious economic and social problems. It's impossible to creatre a modern state from two strictly economically and socially divided ethnicities.

Zionists weren't Polish, they constructed future Israel. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I see a couple of users in this thread who clearly should not be editing Polish-Jewish topics. Is AE sufficient to enforce this, or do we need a new ArbCom case? In addition, let me please warn everybody against WP:NOTFORUM violations. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Chilling effects to the extreme. While I fully support NOTFORUM, trying to topic ban someone for one-two talk page posts is ridiculous. Topic bans should be limited to people who have shown a consistent pattern, over many edits, of problematic editing of content, not made one-two borderline comments. I would like to see how many people you'd topic ban after seeing discussions on pages of Trump, Obama and such... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|[[User talk:Piotrus|}

Anyway, I think that this thread is nothing but NOTFORUM discussion that will lead to no constructive solution, and I suggest closing it. If any editors are making inappropriate edits, specific diffs can be discussed in new threads (or at AE). Reminders of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV wouldn't go amiss, there are also warning templates for those, right? So I suggest that the closer sprinkles a few of those as neeeded, and we move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This thread is an exemplary example of one problem that hounds editors in these fields: not prejudice (like antisemitism), but Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with it. This aspiration to keep Wikiepdia a "sterile space" where we only discuss editorial decisions and policy technicalities is, as we all know, ridiculous: Wikipedia is a reflection of society, and society has bigots, and so some Wikipedians are bigots. The assumption that calling out bigotry has a more "chilling" effect than not being able to call it out at all, has denial built in to it: that we don't have bigotry, that the usual processes are enough, that people minorities are "too sensitive" etc. And so in Wikipedia's current climate pointing prejudice out is a cause for indef blocking, while expressing prejudice is pastime that rarely gets addressed. It's not at all difficult to recognize: some editors are entirely concerned with eg. introducing sources that 3rd party RS describe as prejudiced; others repeatedly and explicitly express opinions that RS state are stereotyping, nationalistic, prejudiced etc. The fact that they're being polite about it (eg. dogwhistling) rather than burn crosses and paint swastiakas on synagogues doesn't make it any less severe, and Wikipedia should address it just like any other "real world" organization. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is sometimes it is six of one half a dozen of the other, I have found myself supporting both sides of this particular issue (Jewish/Polish) at one time or another. At least in part because of a desire to label and dismiss the other sides opinions. What is happening it is producing a toxic atmosphere where a lot is being said that should be actionable, and maybe lead to topic bans (by both sides, no user should ever feel intimidated). Now in this case (I think) the case is clear cut enough, but I also do not want to other side to continue to bait any one they decide is a Polish Nationalist. I think this is one some users have turned up here to defend what should be seen as pretty indefensible. As such I do not think this is going to go away with the banning of one user (or even one side). I think there may need to be DS as harsh (and enforced) as there is for Jewish/Palestinian topics.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The concern I have is that some editors are using the label 'antisemitic' with little justification, but because of the 'political correctness', anyone who disagrees with them is risking being labelled an 'antisemite' (or a ill-judged defender of such). Hence, the chilling effect (intimidation). Do you want to stifle a discussion, scare some people away and bait some admins into political correctness-like blocking? Accuse your opponents of antisemitism and watch sparks fly. This is how we already lost the most prolific content editor in this topic area, User:Poeticbent, author of 1000+ DYKs, including among others dozens of perfectly neutral and informative entries of Jewish WWII-era ghettos and such. Someone accused him of an antisemitic attitude based on a single comment, a certain trigger happy admin agreed, Poeticbent got a topic ban and left in disgust saying 'if this is my reward for 10 years and 1000+ articles, bye'. This is the real danger here - that a group of editors, portraying themselves as on the side of angels ('we fight bigots/antisemites/nationalists so of course we are the perfect righteous guys, if you disagre with us you are a bigot/antisemite/nationalist!'), are going to intimate everyone else of this topic area. The comparison to Jewish/Palestine is not the best, as in that area the sides are more 'gray' than if you paint this as a fight between 'antisemites' and whatever the other group should be called. It is basically a logical fallacy of of Loaded question - posing the question of 'how are we going to deal with those antisemites', conveniently skipping the part where we prove that there are really any antisemites to be dealt with. Now, to be perfectly clear, I am totally supportive of warnings and blocks/bans for editors who are shown, beyond doubt, to be promoting bigotry, antisemitism and like. But there's a difference between calm elimination of editors who are here to promote such problematic views, and a witch hunt that starts when someone accuses someone else of antisemitism, and people pile on with 'antisemitism? awful, truly awful, let's topic ban the whole bunch, nobody wants those kind of people here' with scant evidence that someone behavior is problematic beyond one or two unclear comments that could be variously interpreted. PS. Going back to the OP post, I think there issue of removing/adding words Polish/Jewish to a bio has nothing to do with antisemitsm, just with a form of nationalistic defense of one's nations/ethnicity. For unsavory individuals, people prefer not to think of them as their own. Classic example, Hitler - I am sure many Austrians would prefer a description of him as German, not Austrian, and vice versa. For Morel, ditto - many Poles prefer to think of him as Jewish, and Jews, as a Pole. There is no antisemtism here, BUT there's certainly a problematic attitude. One I have seen in the past on numerous articles that had nothing to do with Jewish identify Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian/Belarus, etc. If an editor is doing little but adding/removing nationality/ethnicity claim to the articles, a topic ban can be in order (one preventing them from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity). That's really is all we should be focusing here: are some of the reported editors doing noting else in this topic area but warring over ethnicity/nationality? If so, we have something to act upon. If not, nothing to look at here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said I am concerned that an over use of the accusation may just be being used to silence those who some users disagree with, just not (frankly) in this case. The user clearly used a common antisemitic canards to claim that certain people born in Poland, who held Polish passports were not Polish because some Jews (not even the ones who the articles are about) could not speak Polish. That is the problem. At the end of the day even if it was not antisemitism it was such a wholly invalid argument that it simply put is disruptive and tendentious as it is pure OR and synthases of the worst kind (and that IS being generous). Given that (even without the antisemitic edge to it) could well justify an TBAN. The possible antisemitism just makes it all the more distressful and thoughtless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Valid concerns, and all the more reason to have a forum where they can be addressed by admins/moderators who actually know what they're doing. I'm fairly convinced that most editors - even those that are clearly biased on some issue or another - aren't prejudiced in the sense we're talking about here; but we both know some are - I bet if I asked you to you'd give the same names that I would - and these are the ones we need to be able to address, and address harshly.

As for Poeticbent: I didn't know him except for the 2-3 times where he rushed into a discussion, flouted some accusations and disappeared. That behavior, to me, is unacceptable regardless of motive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will say this: Wikipedia as a social system is poorly designed (well - barely designed), and many a veteran editor grew tired of its impotence and abrasiveness, either left or were left. Put differently: the current system isn't built to accommodate and consider a variety of human behaviors and modes of communication; to minimize editor wear we need a system that is. Such a system would naturally know how to deal with prejudice as well, be it real or imagined. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying we need another noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we need changes in policy, informed admins and a change to DRN that will actually make it useful. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I never understood why WP:PAIN was closed. It even had such a nice acronym :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really in the scope of this ANI. I think you need to raise this at village pump. But this also has nothing to do with the question at hand, why should we no sanction the reported user for their actions. I do not care what the other boys did, did his actions fall short of what we expect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nor was it intended to be, which why it's a comment and not a vote (or whatever). But it is in the context of this discussion, and the discussion is in its. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Chaim Rumkowski was born on the area of Russian Russia, not Belarus. His mother tongue must have been Russian and Yiddish. He was not perceived as Pole or Polish Jew, because there is no information about his assimilation into polish society. Cautious (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Likely, but sources are needed. Without them it's WP:OR. We don't know whether he spoke Polish (well) and whether he identified himself as a Polish Jew or such. We can only speculate. BUT what we can be sure is that he DID have a Polish citizenship. Also, why are you posting this in reply to Francois comment is beyond me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the discussions above, this is still an issue; another seldom-used account has just shown up, and decided that "Jewish" is a "nationality", and started putting it infobox person.[18][19][20][21][22][23]. Perhaps one of the editors above who are concerned about labels etc. can explain why this still only seems to happen on biographies of Polish Jews who collaborated with Nazis, and not on any of the other approximately 1600 biographies we have of Polish Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The timing is suspicious. As I said above, a warning on edit warring should be given, and if an account is not adhering to it, I will support a topic ban (but not from a broad Polish-Jewish topic area, but from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity/citizenship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• I would have more sympathy for an appeal to leniency from Piotrus it wasn't for the fact that he defends SPAs accounts in the topic area under the guise of fighting political correctness. For example, Piotrus did not request that Tashi retract his statement against Jayjd until after multiple posts from other editors and myself. Instead, there's a discussion on how Tashi's discourse was "very much on a normal academic issue" [24], that this is "Chilling effects to the extreme" [25], and that we should just all "move on" [26]. Prejudice is not acceptable. If such discussions would deter those who use Wikipedia to publish their unfiltered worldviews, then good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh? I am the only person who gave him a direct conduct guideline/warning. But if you prefer to overract and nuke the guy, so be it - but I still reserve the right to see this as a pc-fueled overreaction for what merits at best a warning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Tashi was banned for a different reason. In any event, Tashi was hardly the worst offender; other editors have continued to edit in this way (and even edit-war over it). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I think a TBAN fishing net is needed here, rather than one at a time. Sadly, I don't think it will happen, unless someone opens an ARBCOM case, something which has been done for someone in this thread years ago, IIRC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg and Sir Joseph: - (non-admin response) - identify the worst offenders, post all the diffs of each offender at the very start of a section. starship.paint (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for an indef Tban for Tashi

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

---

There is I think enough discussion above to start with a proposal for an indefinite Tban for Tashi. I am proposing an indef Tban from anything related to WWII Poland and Polish-Jewish relations and Holocaust studies, broadly construed. I am trying to mimic prior Tbans for this area. I think we've seen quite a few comments from quite a few other users that are quite frankly evidence of not being here, but I think we don't need to overwhelm. At the same time, I don't think we should just keep building up a wall of text above.

• 'Support as proposer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: - could you at least collate the diffs in your post above? I think I saw two but I don't know how many I missed? starship.paint (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint:No, the point of this section is not to rehash any argument, it's just to propose a tban and not to enter into any discussion. The op above has tons of diffs, the discussion has more. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  The OP has also diffs from other people. I already asked - you didn't provide. Never mind then. starship.paint (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way to broad. WP:TOPICBAN's stated purpose is "to prevent editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive," A single comment at ANI that's pretty borderline and that the poster tried to clarify and refactor as at best meriting a warning. There is no indication that Tashi is making any disruptive edits in this topic area, there is no need to protect the topic area from his 'disruption' (which doesn't exist), and a broad topic ban is nothing but a major intimidation/chilling effect nuke (and a reminder that anyone posting in AN(I) who is not an admin asking for trouble). A narrow topic ban is also pointless since again he is not doing any problematic edits (at least I never saw a single diff). Again, topic banning for a single comment at ANI is a ridiculous over-reaction. A warning is all that's needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please go back and read the OP, it's not just one diff. As multiple people have pointed out, you seem to ignore the multiple diffs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support It was not a single comment, he has tried to remove Polish from multiple articles using the same dodgy excuse with no evidence shown he gets this is not the way to go about things. The rest looks like a battleground mentality that see's all disputes through that prism. This is about him trying to right great wrongs, not this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: - do you have diffs? starship.paint (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Jewish as a nationality [[27]] made after this ANI was launched (more then once [[28]]. But I have to stand corrected, he has attempted to claim the nationality Polish was on only one article (but as I said more the once) rather then on multiple articles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Slatersteven. That doesn't look good. Tashi, if you wish to defend yourself, please provide a quote from the "Singing for survival" reference saying Jewish as a nationality. I note that you did provide a quote in the other source, [29], but I really don't think that other one says Jewish as a nationality either. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Note I made a typo, he claims the nationally was Jewish, not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support--someone who claims that one gets to be called "Polish" based on one's supposed "assimilation" should either apologize and change their ways or be topic-banned. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per their comments above (in particular given the tweeter behind the discissed tweet) and not backing down from use of Robert Jerzy Nowak (see Poetry, Providence, and Patriotism: Polish Messianism in Dialogue with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Pickwick Publications, Joel Burnell, page 274 and Faith and Fatherland: Catholicism, Modernity, and Poland, Oxford University Press, Brian A. Porter, page 325 for a Jewish BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really like "per X" comments, but the supporters above have pretty much got it covered, and I'm not seeing any sign of Tashi getting it. I think we need a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• My statement: I know I'm going to get the ban regardless of my expalnantions thus I'm not going to elaborate on that. Additionally I've already written to Jayjg and Sir Jospeh and none of them have responded. As has already been stated, there are differences in understanding and attitude to the nationality in Polish and English languages which was the reason of the confusion. I've already apologized Jayjg for the inappropriate statements, yet at the same time I pointed out that this particular user had been a subject of similar discussion. Now I'm waiting for the verdict and if anybody has any question I'm willing to answer to it. Tashi _{Talk to me} 16:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Dear @KamillaŚ: - as you are a native Polish speaker and a learned English speaker, could you assist in this matter with your language skills? How plausible is Tashi’s argument that there are differences in understanding and attitude to the nationality in Polish and English languages which was the reason of the confusion - which may have led Tashi to conclude Jewish is a nationality? starship.paint (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not as clear cut as either side would like I suspect. In the ANI above this one there is (at least in part) a problem over the incorrect use of language with users (apparently) using literal translations when in fact the literal translation implies something else. The difference here (as I see it) is that (as has been pointed out, more then once) the choice of words may not in fact be conveying the message they want. Yet not only did the user seem to continue to argue the point (using sourcing that some have argued implies the ungenerous interpenetration of what they meant is supported by using sources that expound that opinion), they also made at least one more edit of the contested kind during the course of this ANI. It is thus hard to believe that "He is not Polish he is a Jew" is some error due to a poor grasp of English (added to which is they only seen to have taken this attitude on some articles, and one where the targeting is over a very specific issue).Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In Polish language you can say that someone is of "narodowości żydowskiej" or "narodowości polskiej" (literally Jewish / Polish nationality" and it's acceptable. You're definitely trying to undermine my arugments without knowing Polish language (as I suppose). Tashi _{Talk to me} 10:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a source for the claim that saying someone is Jewish not Polish is acceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

For example, if you look up "Żydzi" (Jews) in Encyklopedia PWN (run by official Polish Scientific Publishers), it tells you a little about Jews and you can read that: 1) "w Polsce 2002 narodowość żydowską zadeklarowały 1133 osoby" (literary translated: In 2002, in Poland, the Jewish nationality was declared by 1133 people). 2) "wśród przywódców rewolucji ros. i w aparacie władzy ZSRR obecni byli politycy narodowości żydowskiej" (literary translated: among the leaders of the Russian Revolution and in the apparatus of the USSR's power, there were politicians of Jewish nationality) [Source Tashi _{Talk to me} 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you have used this to declare people are Jewish (and not Polish) who this has not been said about, that is the issue. Also I would point out that the term might be the English equivalent of Ethnicity, not nationality. Whilst I agree this would be a translation issue but again you cannot use this to say any give Jew is not (in effect) Polish. But if you accept that you cannot in fact use this line of argument about someones ethnicity I am willing to AGF and withdraw the vote for a TBAN. At heart is the claim someone is not Polish but Jewish.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But I think my comments here have already proven that I withdrew my words. I think it goes without saying that one can be both Polish and Jewish and there is no contradiction here. What I wanted to underline was that many Jewish people did not identify with Poland but I didn't know that the nationality in fact means the citizenship. And it is true I did not have the right source for such claim in terms of Rumkowsky. I was kind of basing on the posts on the internet. I think the problem lays de facto in defying the word "nationality". Under all these circumstances, I believe that we should stick to the Polish nationality in such cases. Tashi _{Talk to me} 15:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I accept you may not longer be a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I've received no emails from User:Tashi. And he still thinks it was fine (in response to my raising this here) to link to a 7 year old thread from an outside website in order to prove that I'm the actual problem? He's justified that behavior more than once, and never hinted that he thinks it's a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The linking to a 7 year old off wiki forum was bad, and deserves a warning. But if they agree to abide by the rules this ANI has served it purpose. However if they have lied (and you calim they have) that would warrant a block. I will AGF and wait for them to provide a diff to their communication with you and Sir Joseph.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• commentI'm not really seeing the antisemitism here. In a clear case of antisemitism, bigotry, racism or any other type of hate related editing the community has straight up fucking failed by pushing a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho, there are ~1600 biographies of Polish Jews on Wikipedia, yet these editors only seem concerned with making it extremely clear that the ten or so who collaborated with Nazis are actually Jews (not real Poles). Some, like Rordayukki (talk · contribs) / 5.173.234.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 5.173.234.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) apparently only edit Wikipedia for the purpose of highlighting these individuals. What does that feel like to you? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg:I'm not a checkuser, I'm not an admin, and this didn't specifically seem like a sockpuppet investigation. I'm not seeing any antisemitism but only reviewing the Tashi account. That aside, in the face of hatespeech a topic ban is a piss poor action to take.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This is part of the problem with this ANI, it should be about a user, not a whole raft of them. It makes it hard to see if this is a "serial" problem, or just a few edds making mistakes and then stopping. As an example I can only find two examples of Tashi doing this. If (thus) this is a case of 30 edits, made by 15 different users that is not a problem ANI can deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni has indefinitely blocked Tashi so I do not know if that brings this discussion to an close. I wouldn't have made this choice and I'd like to hear from Tony about why he didn't just impose the proposed topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, it is an {{OversightBlock}} that was placed after an issue was raised and discussed on oversight-l, and I can't discuss the matter further. If Tashi wishes to appeal, he should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I did not close this discussion as I'd prefer to let the community decide whether or not they want a TBAN to be in effect if a successful appeal occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of my disagreements with Tashi and their words, I don't agree with this action. But I admit that I don't have all of the details, and no access to the discussion about this on the email list. I just want to be sure that any blocked user has an avenue of appeal. And I appreciate you coming here, TonyBallioni, and providing as much of an explanation as you can, as frustrating as that is for the rest of us. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Liz - The user certainly does have an avenue regarding the ability to appeal the block that's been placed on them. They just have to do so privately and to the Arbitration Committee instead of through the usual channels that users with typical blocks have. I obviously can't share any information involved in the decision to block Tashi under an {{OversightBlock}}, but I viewed the information involved and I can give you my assurance that TonyBallioni's block on Tashi was necessary and justified, and I agree with the decision to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued

@K.e.coffman: Re: Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [43] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I see a logical issue and have a question. If on Wikipedia we describe nationality based on citizenship rather than ethnicity, why would January Suchodolski (for example), who was alive only during that period, be (accurately I assume) described as "Polish" in his lead when he did not have such citizenship? We could probably find many articles like this. So my question is this, when do we use ethnicity for nationality and when do we use citizenship? Is there a clear rule? From MOS:ETHNICITY: In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. I think that is an incomplete formulation of what we have to do in some circumstances.

@Xx236: Re: Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. So many things wrong with this that I think it speaks to the fact that you should not be editing articles related to this topic. Other of your comments here and on Talk:History of the Jews in Poland, also speak to a bias and agenda, for example: Thousands of Israeli citizens ask for Polish citizenship and/or visit Poland. Israeli youth is indoctrinated and terrorised by Israeli guides/bodyguards to prevent informal contacts with Polish youth. This one also speaks of personal bias: My family lost everything during the war. Our house in Belarus was plundered by Polish neighbours. Isn't there something else you can edit on Wikipedia?

I think there is some honest question over how to apply MOS:ETHNICITY as outlined above. It is tempting to say that being Jewish in Europe during the holocaust may be essential to providing the context demanded by the MOS, but I think this is limited to cases, as the MOS says, where the person is notable for something related to being Jewish. These issues can be reasonably worked out on article talk pages and dispute resolution venues. I do believe there is a problem with several editors who are fixated on Polish Jewry constantly being at odds with each other. This does not quite rise to a TBAN (except perhaps in two cases, one of which being rendered moot), and I think that would lead to an imbalance to prevent the open discussion of what is NPOV and RSed on these topics, but to my mind this pushes the limits of what is acceptable as far as activism by editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion for ANI, but I would say that this is at the heart of the dispute. They are (say) Polish when someone wants them to be, and not Polish when they dont. Ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing, some om can be a Polish Pole or a Jewish Pole. The problem was calking they were (in effect) not Polish at all. This may not have been the intent, it was the effect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that a main symptom of the problem was a desire to designate a very small list of individuals (specifically Nazi collaborators and Salomon Morel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish", particularly not an "ethnic Pole". And it was clearly the intent, not just the effect; a number of talk page comments (e.g. [30]) made that clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Shadegan

I've been trying to make him use the talkpage for his unjustified reverts[31][32][33]. I've cleaned up the years long messes in those three articles, but he keeps reverting to a version which is based on dead-links and unattainable references. I can see in the talkpages on various sites that Shadegan has for years now ignored everyone (incl. admins) in his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Feyli Kurds, Feylis (previously Feyli Lurs) and Iraqi Lurs are all about the same people. I merged them to make one article based on academia, which he seems to have reverted now with no explanation. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Laks (Iran)[34] too. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t expect the user to discuss his edits. He’a more interested in conspiracy theories[35] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really following what's happening (haven't had a chance to catch up), but I did protect the articles for three days. I also left Shadegan a warning about explaining their edits better and refraining from casting aspersions. El_C 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I know Shadegan has been around (because they had thanked me for the protection), but they have so far failed to respond to my note. So, I've taken the unusual step of editing the protected pages against their version. Hopefully, that will motivate them to engage in the discussion. El_C 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your reason for changing some revisions to some pages in order to nudge Shadegan's participation in a relevant discussion regarding the dispute. In fact, I've been tempted to do the same thing on numerous occasions where an editor involved isn't discussing the matter, and editing the involved page would certainly change that (though I've never acted on it and done so). Just be careful; you obviously don't want to be seen as "taking sides" or "favoring one revision over another". ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what the revisions are about or how they differ from one another, so no risk of that. But what I won't let happen is to have the Kurdish set of articles turn into a sort of free-for-all, which unfortunately, has been the trend lately. El_C 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely understandable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no interaction with the rest of us. [36] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've left a talkback notice that links directly to this discussion, to make responding as easy as possible. If Shadegan still does not respond here, I think the next step is a short block to stop the reverting and allow Shadegan to focus on responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, excuse me for my late. I was busy for a while. I am against anarchy and edit warring although I have been involved formerly. During last days I had a lot of communication and reasoning in talk page of disputed pages, excuse me I forgot here!!

A continuous conflict has been between two very interrelated Iranian ethnicities for decades, Kurds and Lurs. They are very similar culturally and lingually. As you know, Kurds are dispersed between some countries but a very strong independence tendency towards them is alive and blazing for decades. To achieve their dreams they are very active physically and in virtual world. Sometimes this includes an emotional-based edits to use it as a propaganda. I have tried in recent years to alleviate these trends. The recent edits by User:Ahmedo Semsurî is an evident example for this. I apologize for the current trend of edit warring and I hope to come to a good and appropriate conclusion. Best SHADEGAN (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment One thing is obvious, all these articles are quite weakly sourced and poorly worded, thus, they need a major rewrite. Also, there are many versions about the ethnicities of those peoples, some seeing them as being Kurdish and others disagreeing with this view. When i'll have some more time, i'll try to ask to some experienced editors who are aware of this topic to help me to neutralize that set of articles.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I believe that there needs to be more admin involvement in Shadegan's actions. I will try to make it short: About a week ago, I started cleaning the Feylis page by first and foremost 1) removing dead links, 2) unattainable references, i.e. ("فرهنگ ایران زمین، جلد 20، ص 406-409"), and 3) unreliable sources.First edit, 25 May. Thereafter I removed unsourced files[37], removed unsourced segments[38] and started finding academic references which the article really needed[39][40][41].

Then this happened: Repeated ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM and an Kurd users are reverting all pages for their desire wishes, please have a look to the histoy of their planned ethnocentric edits. They should bring their reasons to the talk page. by Shadegan. After an edit war, the article was fairly protected and I continued editing from the version Shadegan reverted[42] which he since reverted again[43].

Still no comments from Shadegan on what is wrong with the academia I have found.

Then we have the actions on Laki language. The user has been looking after this article for a long time, maintaining the claims that it is disputed language/dialect (as in, that academia profoundly disagrees). But this is not the case. Again, most of the info was either based on unattainable sources,[44] dead links,[45] simply unsourced for years[46] or just lies[47]. After a lot of cleaning, I started adding info based on academic sources[48][49][50][51].

Again, everything removed by Shadegan, This time it was: Ethnocentric edits were neutralizedRepeated ethnocentric and vandalism edits by PAN KURDISM and A user has changed the page identity to a determined path. Many sources and diverse contents have been deleted. Use talkpage and consensus for needed changes. No comment on what's wrong with the edits, but he keeps referring to pan-Kurdism despite most linguists referred to are westerners. I tried to make them use them talkpage, but nothing constructive: where other users have been involved

It's the same behavior at Iraqi Lurs, Laks (Iran) and Flag of Kurdistan.

I don't know what next step is when Shadegan always calls it 'ethnocentric vandalism' when I ask them to elaborate on the issues they have with the references. Nor does the user reply when I demand sources for his baseless claims[52][53]. Looking at the talkpages, Shadegan has prevented any move towards reliable and sourced articles since 2016 at least[54] And then we have the baseless claims which many users have confronted.

@Wikaviani:, I've pinged you since you just commented here.--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

dead links should not be removed. see here Wikipedia:Link rot 182.20.137.37 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by user SBS3800P

User:SBS3800P has been editing pages without proper citations. I observed on his talk page that other editors have previously tried to engage him about this disruptive and destructive behaviour, but he chose to ignore it.

For example, he made very odd claims about fare rules for a train station on this page without citation. I have since removed the false information he added.

He is recently on an editing spree, again, many without verified citations. He used words including "probably" without solid substantiation, is worrying and will damage the integrity of information posted on Wikipedia. One example is on the page this, he made a claim and used the word probably without citing any sources. Trust me, I have lived in the country for very long and have never heard of this claim before. Another absurd and not cited claim is of a train station with the least amount of climbing and walking. Where does he get these information from!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs)

User Gmortaia vandalizing pages with guerrilla advertising

See this article for an explanation: https://adage.com/creativity/work/north-face-top-imagens/2174261

The users in question should probably be banned, all changes reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gmortaia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adamjonnes80

I have not tried talking to them because they work for a marketing firm, and are not good faith editors.

These pages still have branded advertising in their photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarita_State_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pico_das_Agulhas_Negras&oldid=894745899

I'm not sure if other pages were affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.47.11 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting removing decent photos because the people in the photo are wearing a particular coat a person could only identify if they know the manufacturer? Do you not believe that these photos are the editor's own work? I will admit the ADAGE article is galling. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Some links: Gmortaia (talk · contribs · block log), Fhpatucci (talk · contribs · block log), Flanobre (talk · contribs · block log), Gabriel F A Rodriguez (talk · contribs · block log), Adamjonnes80 (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The users have no declaration of their affiliation with the marketing campaign or the comapny on their userpage, on the talkpage of the articles they edited, or in the edit summaries. In direct violation of the Terms of Use as per WP:PAID. The edit summaries say things like "Add a recent photography that was taken last month". The Video in the AdAge article describes their actual motivation - "we hacked the results" and "we switched the wikipedia photos for ours". The images are indeed pretty. But they are undisclosed paid advocacy. The images should be kept on commons of course - we can be quite certain they're uploaded as free-licensed works by the copyright holders! - but the users who edited them into articles are in direct breach of the undisclosed paid advocacy policy and should not be allowed to continue. Wittylama 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention: "According to the agency, the biggest obstacle of the campaign was to update the photos without attracting attention of Wikipedia moderators to sustain the brand’s presence as long as possible.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Problem: I'm not certain these are, in fact, decent photos - I suspect there's some photoshopping going on. Compare File:Pico_do_Agudo_Santo_Antonio_do_Pinhal.jpg and File:Vale_do_paraiba_montanha.jpg, for example. If that's the case, that completely taints the photos as far as I'm concerned, and I have to wonder if they do in fact have the rights to those images. creffett (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They photoshoppped their backpack into the shot? OK, nevermind, they got to go. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Since these are freely licensed on Commons, we could keep the images, but subtly photoshop the text "Patagonia" or "Columbia" on the clothing or backpack over the "North Face" logo every time we find it. This is better than removing the image from the articleor cropping out the human, because (a) it disincentivizes the ad agency from doing it again, while (b) doing no damage to the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the root issue here is the fact that the images have company logos on clothing or products within these images. The root of the issue here was the intended purpose that these images were uploaded and added in order to serve, which was clearly not to improve the encyclopedia but to inject advertising in a deceptive fashion and in order to avoid scrutiny and sneak it past the typical patrols and checks that are made in order to detect and remove such violations. Sure, we can use the licensing to remove the logos and we'd be completely fine in regards to copyright. I guess the questions that I'm asking myself are: Do these images serve an encyclopedic purpose? Would removing the logos serve to be beneficial? Are we rewarding bad behavior and inadvertently opening the door for more abuse in this area by leaving the images as-is and keeping them to use on articles? I don't think that we should keep the images as-is and use them on any projects by principle, because of the original reason that they were uploaded here (by "here", I mean to Commons) in the first place. However, it could be easily argued in rebuttal that we've kept content and articles that have been added by banned and blocked sock puppet users in numerous instances in the past and despite "the principle". Sorry... just rattling off my thoughts here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#North Face product placement. This is troubling, but we need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater; I've had one or two companies provide us with good images of their products, and intend to try more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Too bad ADAGE does not take comments or we could add, "GOT YA! - Wikipedia editors" to the end of the article. The company rep sound so smug. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They do, however, have a facebook page where I've already left several comments on the thread about this article: https://www.facebook.com/AdAge/posts/10156105251185880. Wittylama 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See also this category over on Commons. I identified at least one additional accounts involved from pt.wikipedia, Ligiamendes04. --Krinkle (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We ran a CU in Portuguese Wikipedia and, as expected, all the accounts involved are sockpuppets. JMagalhães (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A note about Commons: Wikipedians should appreciate that Commons does not make editorial judgements about how, whether or where images are used on Wikipedia. Likewise, Wikipedia should not make curatorial judgements about what Commons hosts. By all means comment and vote on Commons, but do so as a Commoner, appreciating what that project is about and its different values, not with your outraged Wikipedian hat on. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia. I see people voting delete or recommending the images be blurred or cropped because some editors have misbehaved on Wikipedia. Commons has lots of photos donated by companies, organisations, agents, etc. Many will include a brand name or logo and we do not blur logos. Commons isn't censored for logos. If the files are believed to be copyvios then they'll be deleted by normal policy.

The suggested vandalism by Floquenbeam could lead to a block and could even result in a legal complaint by the rival firms they are suggesting to use -- trademark logos are not playthings for wiki wars. Commons policy on overwriting files disallows editors making controversial changes if overwriting. Blurring out a logo because you are pissed off about the ad agency is not acceptable. I'm sure you can find other images to use to illustrate articles. -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't ping me just to make sure I see your fuckwitted accusations of vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is an acceptable response, on any level, from an administrator. Next time you have a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons, or abuse a company's logo for revenge, please keep it to yourself. -- Colin°^Talk 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, agreed, that is absolutely not an okay temperament from any Wikipedian, let alone an admin. I'll also note that the proposed swapping is a terrible idea not just because of the Common's rules, but also because of Wikipedia's. The goal here is to be neutral, not to retaliate against any entity that violates our ideals, and not to introduce inaccuracies of any sort. - Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the comment wasn't necessary on Floquenbeam's part, but I also don't see any evidence behind the accusation you made towards him with vandalism to images on Commons... where has he actually done this? Discussions or proposals regarding the modifications to images - even if the ideas are bad or even terrible - do not constitute vandalism at all. Please do not use such words to point fingers at other editors like this unless they've actually committed such edits and you have the evidence to show that they did so and with that intent or purpose. It only makes discussions like these become heated and angry (as it clearly did), which degrades everything that we're trying to work together as a community to resolve. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeahhhh... I have to step in and agree that this wasn't a comment that complies with Wikipedia's policy on civility and the principle with treating others with respect... The accusations of vandalism may be completely unfounded and silly (I haven't looked into it myself yet), but regardless - we shouldn't stoop to anyone's level and respond with incivility and heated remarks like this. It degrades the discussion as a whole and it puts a negative mark on everyone involved here. :-( Remember that this discussion involves an issue regarding a very large corporation and is gaining media attention and coverage externally... this discussion can easily be linked to from these external sources given some digging, and comments that are uncivil are definitely not things that we want to be adding to such an involved discussion... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah *sigh*. Do your homework before commenting. -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin ?? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, not one of the claims you make about what I wrote are true. I said Floquenbeam "suggested vandalism" and "[had] a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons". The proposed changes "we" were incited to carry out, replacing the North Face logo with one of a competitor constitute COM:VANDALISM. Such an edit has the malicious (albeit naive and childish) intention of harming North Face and benefiting a competitor for revenge over the behaviour of one agency they use. It would certainly lead to a block on Commons if carried out at any scale or persistency. Please, do your homework, before criticising others. It is beyond tedious to have to waste time countering criticism that is clearly unfounded to anyone who takes some care to read. It distracts from important point, perhaps that is your intention, that any admin suggesting Wikipedians go to Commons to vandalise images for revenge, deserves the strongest possible criticism. -- Colin°^Talk 09:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin - Please accept my apologies. I believe I misread your statement, which led me to respond with the comment that I made. My intention is definitely not to try and distract people or pull them away from important points in this discussion by flooding it with non-important or non-relevant ones. Your response here has helped clear up what you were trying to say, and I appreciate it. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask for a community ban for the accounts involved, given the comments about the pt.wp checkuser results above and the fact that they were doing this because nobody on any project was paying any attention. We can't sstop it now, but this should send a strong message to anybody else considering black-hat SEO: We will make your ability to edit Wikipedia very difficult if not impossible if you refuse to act ethically. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) \

I count six accounts that have been indeffed on both en and pt for WP:UPE violations, and one of them was also indeffed on Commons for sockpuppetry. - Eureka Lott 20:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy, that's not good to hear. I think we should keep an eye on this and see if more developments surface regarding sock puppetry and whether or not any of this continues. If it stops like The North Face said that it would, then it stops. If that's the case, then perfect... we can hopefully put this down as a really crappy incident on their part and begin to move on from this. If it doesn't and more issues surface, or if more accounts are created and used in this fashion, then that's obviously a completely different story and considering a formal ban would definitely be reasonable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note to TNF spammers: I currently own several TNF products (two jackets and a sleeping bag). I can't say I was likely to buy more any time soon (I'm happy with what I have), but now I'm definitely not going to. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject of things that look suspiciously like promotional/advertising content, may I direct some eyes to review Honda Ridgeline? -sche (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Article on The Verge

North Face tried to scam Wikipedia to get its products to the top of Google search

The company published their own video about how they used these photos to manipulate Wikipedia as a way to promote their products. They're basically bragging about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Register's headline is Egg on North Face: Wikipedia furious after glamp-wear giant swaps article pics for sneaky ad shots – and even brags about it in a video and the subhead is "'We hacked the results to reach one of the most difficult places: The top of the world’s largest search engine'". 92.19.26.27 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Coverage has spread to many other outlets today, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and opinion commentary at places like Fast Company. - Sdkb (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban for Gmortaia and any other employees or subcontractors of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and the North Face)

Considering the blatant breach of trust here and the fact that they did their damnedest to try and fly under the radar as undisclosed paid editors, alongside the sockpuppetry here (to say nothing of Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia) I am proposing that any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and, per Javert2113 below, The North Face), including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. This is beyond unacceptable, and I don't trust them not to try it again given that it worked the first time around. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support, with modifications: Quite frankly, I still believe our policy regarding any sort of paid editing (aside from Wikipedians-in-Residence) is far too lenient. If we are a volunteer project, shouldn't everyone be, you know, a volunteer? But that's a discussion for another time. In this case, matters like this indeed warrant a community ban. If I may offer an expanded version of the CBAN, as follows, as an alternative, perhaps: [A]ny and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face, including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. Is this acceptable? (Though it was Leo Burnett that orchestrated the ad campaign, it was done at the behest of The North Face, after all.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have little objection to it. After all, the North Face did specifically commission them for this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Close this thread and stop giving the ad agency more attention. They did the stupid thing, they got their 15 minutes, it's been cleaned up, it's over, let's move on. – Levivich 04:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No let's not. "Move on" is what politicians say when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, while anyone else doing that would face consequences. There should be consequences here. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban, but I'd prefer a ban to be cover a) the miscreants here in any capacity, and b) any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face in an official capacity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban per BrownHairedGirl's line of reasoning. This is worth a community ban. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

• Support a ban. This was blatant, deliberate misuse of editing rights, done with no potential benefit to an encyclopedia. Simple COI posts often provide a useful inside view of a company or organization, for instance, and yet we routinely throw that baby out with the bathwater. Here, there ain’t no baby, and there never was intended to be. Qwirkle (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban, if only for the symbolism. We need to tell other PR agencies and the outside world that this is not acceptable behavior. MER-C 20:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Go further, nothing against the ban proposal but I'd want us to take other measures as well. The Ad Age article implied that Wikipedia and Commons images automatically got boosted to the top of Google image search. Does anyone know how that happened and how we can make it stop? If we can't, then Google is abusing us too. We started delivering external links with rel=nofollow quite a few years ago after we got sick of SEO linkspam but apparently there is a similar issue with images that stayed quiet til now. We should find out how to get images out of Google and do it. There will be tons more of this otherwise.

  I'd also urge deindexing (for at least some months) of any mainspace articles associated with those brands, like we now deindex new articles. Wikipedia's web interface is supposed to be wikipedia.org and not Google, so we should treat search rank in these situations as a toxic byproduct (perverse incentive, attractive nuisance) rather than a valuable asset. We should be willing to eliminate it when it gets abused like this, to disincentivize the abusers. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• The images are going to be on Commons' door, so there's nothing we can do on that front here. You'd have to discuss this at Commons. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bori (or anyone), any idea how the North Face matter is being perceived over at Commons? I know they have more of an anything-goes culture than we do at times. Dealing with this search rank issue will probably make more difference than the (de facto symbolic) en.wp editing ban being discussed. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• It turns out that this dishonest bunch of spammers were, unsurprisingly, dishonest about the copyright status of the images as well. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign. MER-C 09:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support this proposal AND a Global Ban – The involved accounts are already Globally Locked for cross-wiki abuse (they targeted other Wikimedia sites as well), so might as well go for a Global Ban (though this will require a separate proposal on Meta wiki). The cross-wiki abuse and the extent of their manipulation/campaigning is absolutely unacceptable. The actions of The North Face accounts have completely violated the heart and soul of Wikipedia's core principles - there's absolutely no reason to let these guys hang around any longer. I support a Global Ban on this entity and any individuals associated with the likes of them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question does this proposal mean that any Wikipedian who is otherwise in good standing and an employee of either company is affected? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  The ban would only affect them editing in their capacity as employees of LBTM or the North Face. In other words, they would be barred from editing on those companies' behalf or as part of a job assignment, but they would not be barred from editing in their personal capacity off company time. (And, of course, if those companies try to view this as a loophole, we'd be more than happy to topic-ban or block them once it became clear they were attempting to exploit it.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Support as clarified. Also support a global ban. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Those topic bans should be in place from the start. Otherwise the bans don't mean anything. They still won't, but at least they won't have such a huge hole. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Support also support a global ban And if we give them attention, fine. What we cannot do is ignore this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - so what if they are getting media attention, any benefit for the unethical company will be temporary and in any case should be irrelevant to Wikipedia. Blatant abusers such as these need to be community banned. --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wishful anecdote I sometimes look at a big forum about a certain niche tech sub-industry. Lots of users are there buying and reviewing the industry's products (some positive reviews, some negative, all influence buying decisions), lots of vendors are there, and vendors are free to pitch their wares as long as they identify themselves. Sometimes a vendor will conceal their affiliation, pretend to be a user, and post glowing reviews of their own products or get users to shill for them. If a vendor is caught doing that, all the positive reviews of the company's products get deleted while the negative ones are left standing. Once that happened a few times, vendor behaviour tremendously improved.

  We probably can't quite do that here on Wikipedia, but it would sure be nice. That's the general effect we should be looking for. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't a matter of improving their behaviour. This is a significant breach of Wikipedia's trust on par with what Wiki-PR did, if significantly more compressed. And, again, the campaign ultimately worked, if only briefly. (Their goal was to manipulate GIS, which they succeeded in doing.) It's highly unlikely the Wikipedia community writ large, and especially on pt.wp, Commons, and here, will ever have any significant level of confidence that they will actually adhere to Wikipedia's policies. The mea culpa is not enough, and to me comes across as "sorry we were jerks about it" as opposed to genuine contrition. We've seen this song and dance once before. We have no tolerance for a reimagining of a routine that pissed off the community so thoroughly the last time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 07:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah I understand about GIS--see my comment further up about wanting Commons to de-index those images from search engines. The point of the anecdote is that vendors who had their positive reviews nuked took a big enough financial hit that other vendors became far less likely to risk having that happen to them. We can't mess up our own content neutrality like that, but I'm all in favor of withholding search rank from TNF-related articles by deindexing them (that doesn't affect our content), as described above, to inflict some loss of search traffic on them. However, as you say, image search stuff apparently mostly has to be done at Commons, which confuses itself with Imgur enough to be unlikely to do anything. Oh well. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would go further and say what it reads like is "sorry we were caught". It s also hard to see how we can have that kind of impact. Its not as if we can do anything that actually would hurt the company, beyond writing a really shiry article about them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Considering they boasted about it, I would not characterise it as a "sorry we were caught". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I was referring to the subsequent "we are so sorry and will not do it again" comments.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh we can, see further up. I'll write something more detailed tomorrow. I have to leave for the day shortly. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  If you mean a boycott I could not support something akin to politicsing Wikipedia. We should not try to influence the real world.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with Slatersteven. In the 140 months I’ve been here, there are four months where I made zero edits. They were just after WP had a one-day protest over SOPA. I discussed this politicization of WP with the foundation and they assured me it would never happen again. We document – we don’t interfere. O3000 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  While individual editors may choose whether or not to boycott The North Face over this, under no circumstances should we attempt to influence everyone else into doing so. Promoting a boycott of a brand is just as non-neutral as any other sort of politicking, and unlike SOPA this isn't an existential threat to Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Of course we should try to influence the real world. And of course we already try to do that. We are an activist project with a radical agenda, to give a free encyclopedia to everyone in the world, overthrowing the traditional gatekeepers' control over knowledge. We were founded as part of the free culture movement which itself was radical in those days (more accepted now). NPOV is mainspace only. The SOPA blackout was the right thing to do (not everyone agrees, but quite a few do). If the traditional publishing lobby got legislation introduced in the US Congress to ban free encyclopedias, our articles about the legislation would have to stay scrupulously neutral, but it would be fine to repurpose the Main Page to urge people to march in the streets against it. Anyway I'll try to write a proposal tomorrow. Obviously it will have opponents, probably including you two. Maybe it will have some supporters besides me, maybe not. We'll see. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think 173.228's suggestion of de-indexing the TNF (and ad agency) articles so we do not contribute to their Google ranking (if I understand the effect of de-indexing correctly) is a very interesting idea that the community should consider. It does not alter the content or neutrality of the article. It may actually have a deterrent effect. (And it's better than an entirely-symbolic site ban of some accounts that are already blocked and who's owners won't care about editing wikipedia anyway.) – Levivich 03:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Deindexing straight-up removes it from Google's (and all other engines that honour robots.txt) search results. And the main search wasn't what was being manipulated; Google Image Search was. Deindexing the article proper does nothing here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd be interested to know whether the TNF article gets much placement in searches for ski equipment, parkas, camping gear, that sort of thing. If yes, de-indexing would drain some traffic from them. Re suggestions below: no we should not write a non-neutral article or "hit piece". I wouldn't want us (institutionally) to call for a boycott either (as crappy as this situation is, they are two-bit hucksters and we have bigger fish to fry). I hadn't thought of writing an article at all, but now that you mention it, there might be enough documentation by now to write a well-sourced and neutral article about the incident that passes GNG. That might be worth doing. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  That there is enough sourcing is beyond question, but I would rather not have the article immediately, while everyone is still incensed about this, aince that will likely result in a hit piece. Hence my suggestion below to wait a bit before writing it, so there's distance between the event and the article, to allow people to calm down. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd rather have it sooner or later. I don't feel particularly incensed and don't particularly want to pound TNF out of anger toward them over the incident. They're just one more spammer (yawn), albeit one that discovered an interesting new vector. I want to pound them because I philosophically believe we should be more militant about this type of thing in general, and that showing our willingness to pound abusers will lessen the amount of such abuse we get. There was a similar thing with link spam (described further up), and implementing rel=nofollow some years back made a huge difference in lessening it. As Tom Lehrer once sang, "I am never forget the day". 173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question/Suggestion Put special effort into making sure that North Face's gaming of the Wikipedia "system" gets well-documented in their Wikipedia Article[[55]], as a warning to other companies that might try it. The reason punishment is still around is because it works.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  We're not going to write a hit piece to spite them, nor are we going to make this an outsized part of the articles on TNF and LBTM. This falls into the same issues as issuing boycotts in Wikipedia's voice; it's completely unacceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspected something like that, so thank you for citing exactly where/how it's wrong. It's why I put the word "question" in there. Is what they've done just natually notable?Tym Whittier (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What they've done is already covered on Conflict-of-interest editing of Wikipedia, and frankly speaking given all the news articles it's likely it could become its own article once the emotions stop running so high, in the same manner as Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Special effort" to emphasize a particular topic in a wider article is called WP:Undue weight and it conflicts with NPOV. We should not do that. The incident may be notable enough to deserve its own neutral article though. The relavant guideline would be WP:GNG, or maybe some more specialized related one. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Help

Please someone help me to resolve this problem: User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP. Personally for me, this is a bit rude, and, continuesly trying to let me down by telling about my English or any other stuff. Improving articles is something else. Thanks. He/She may be trying to help me, but, difficult for me to response. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Shevonsilva, you need to be more specific about what you want administrators to do about your problem. If your disagreement is with Imaginatorium you need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page as the bright message says to do when you posted your comment here. This discussion can't continue until you do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page claims there are various problems with your edit. One claim is: "Others are plain wrong, because the[y] link to different regions. Northern Netherlands, for example, goes to a political division, which has nothing to do with COROP". What is your response to that claim? Repeatedly editing articles in a way that introduces errors is very disruptive. Not responding to claims that the errors occur is also very disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Update:

• User_talk:Shevonsilva#About_vacuous_articles
• User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuck_(unit)
• [[56]]

etc.

In above, Imaginatorium has repeatedly tried to confirm about my English language skills and placed a lot of personal opinions on it, and, was unable to point-out any Errors but criticized my English (personally I believe she/he has a difficulty of dealing with longer sentences [or may be something else due to stress, I do not know]). This is a clear disturbance for me as it is clearly letting me down, and, I find very difficult to respond those comments.

Additionally, by referring the articles below too, I suspect Johnuniq, Reyk, Reywas92 and Imaginatorium are working as a group for a common purpose in order to back up each other whether they are right or wrong.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circular_millimetre
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_districts_of_Sughd
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Khatlon
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rest_of_Groningen

These people are always trying to delete articles: I really do not know what is really going on with them (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively) Shevonsilva (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What I care about is errors in articles, particularly errors that are not easy to find. Please respond to the point in my comment above at 07:56, 29 May 2019. That is one small point from the large number of issues that have been raised—why not respond? Either explain that it was not an error, or acknowledge the problem and undertake to avoid similar problems. Editors must be able to communicate when problems are raised. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not been working in collaboration with any other users. I, like they apparently, only want to ensure that article subjects are both recognized as official places and have notability and content warranting articles. The rapid-fire mass creation of hundreds of one-line permanent sub-stubs is not a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, especially when they are simply phrases used in sources, not official regions. You need to slow down and put content in articles you create, not leave them as as pages that provide nothing at all to the reader and are redundant to the main article and could be expanded within the main article. If “sometimes [we] are right collectively”, what are you complaining about exactly? Reywas92^Talk 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Why is it that whenever several editors individually notice errors in a source or in a series of articles, they must be somehow colluding inappropriately? Reyk _YO! 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

When one says (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively), doesn't that usually mean one's view is not matching up to the consensus? --Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a wiki email to Imagitoriun: hope things can be resolved nicely; I like to pause the discussion. Shevonsilva (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Public collaboration is a requirement of editing at Wikipedia. Why is there a problem with responding on your talk page to the issue I mentioned above at 01:41, 30 May 2019? Refusing to collaborate is disruptive, and being unable to collaborate at the English Wikipedia is unfortunate. Both mean an editor is not a good fit for this project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. There is nothing to collaborate with regarding this matter until any further issues raised. I want to pause the discussion. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me add a little bit of context to this topic. Shevonsilva has been presented at this noticeboard before, last time in February by me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#New articles by Shevonsilva. I must say that the issues we had in February (creation of subdivision articles with obviously wrong information) did not repeat, however, we now have the new ones. At this point, I believe Shevonsilva is acting in good faith and is trying to help the project, but indeed some sort of issues do exist, and one has to have this in mind while taking a decision. I do not really know what this decision should be.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As the creator of this post, I think I really want to pause the discussion for now. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced edits despite numerous warnings, no communication

Mustard a response?

-EEng

I counted ten previous warnings for unsourced material on Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s talk page, along with several other warnings for disruptive editing, unexplained deletion, etc. - none of which he has seen fit to respond to. Indeed, despite making over three thousand edits, he has never once used any talk page.

I left a "disruptive" warning for yesterday's edit: [57] which is not only unsourced but obviously false. He hasn't responded, but has since made about twenty more edits, including this unsourced one: [58]. Could someone get his attention? --IamNotU (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s behaviour is a problem. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I second that. At any case, they now have 2 days to master a response. El_C 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just speculating if this would count as block evasion? A very serious charge, I know. Location is Indonesia and there are historical contributions particular to Indonesia by Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs).

List of presidents of Indonesia Lembata Javanese calendar [59] [60] [61] [62] Public holidays in Indonesia

Surely I'm wrong? Hey, they're also interested in Finland, besides all the racing edits. Shenme (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

They appear to have waited out their block, then continued editing, while never responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the same thing. Not good. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ethnocentric vandalism edits

During the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result, ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups (Lurs and Kurds), were conducted. All pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages to discuss disputes.SHADEGAN (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to explain what you mean by Ethnocentric vandalism and why you don't reply to multiple users' questions on the talk pages, e.g. Talk: Laki language. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have added the articles to my watchlist.You can discuss the issue in talk pages. Wikipedia is not the death note. Whatever you write in Wikipedia it will not become fact in the ground. I don't know much about these lur, kurd people but I think this is part of identity politics which is controversial most of the time and we usually find reliable sources contradicting each other.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just found this: "On the other hand, they themselves consider it an insult to be confounded with the Kurds, whom they call Leks."[63]

You're right this user tries to make everything to Kurds. Not just the Lurs. He also tries it with Shabaks, Zazas and Yazidis. And the sad thing is that the administrators does not want to hear or see it all, and in some cases they even support his attempt because they are not familiar with this topics. 77.245.112.237 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You are once again misleading with your quotes. The text says that Lurs don't consider themselves Kurds whom they call Leks. As in, Lurs call Kurds the name "Leks". You can also use the talkpages to contest the references I have given, despite being an IP. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What is that saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance"? I think wikipedia might not have enough user knowledgeable about these subjects. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I already warned the OP about personal attacks, such as "ethnocentric totalitarian users." Focus on the content and not on the contributors. That's in everyone's best interests. El_C 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The user is continuing his vandalism campaign. nothing constructive but only on Wikipedia to push for his POV. If this isn't pure vandalism, nothing is: [64] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

And then has the audacity to [65] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Now he's gone berzerk[66] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not helpful. As mentioned elsewhere, I expect you both to be guided be the principle of applying due weight to the available reliable sources. And while you attempt that, both of you should cut down on the rhetoric (vandalism accusations and otherwise). El_C 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Both Shadegan and Coron Arol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are immune to RS and only on Wikipedia for disruptive editing. The rest of us have shown and shown RS but they continue with their work. Now they are on to changing the names of all Kurdish-related articles[67][68] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are in conflict with every user who does not support your POV. And then you accuse them as vandals and constantly start an editwar. 2.62.251.66 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Which pov and which edit war? If you have observed my actions, please tell. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I have undone the recent unilateral moves from the new user — this new user was already cautioned about using a proper move request in another article. I have extended-confirmed the articles in question and restored the stable, status quo ante versions. The user is welcome to contribute to the discussion on the article talk pages — discussion which so far has been absent. This has just become too disruptive, with new users and IPs attempting to circumvent discussion, reaching consensus, applying due weight to the reliable sources, all seemingly over the last few weeks. I'm really not sure where this concerted effort is suddenly coming from, but I will have none of it. That having been said, if another admin feels that I have overstepped, they should feel free to undo my actions and they do not need to consult me about it in any way. El_C 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like that you support his POV. We need another administrator who does not support POV. I have already said to you in the Ane[69] that your actions are not neutral. Coron Arol (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you made it clear that you don't feel I'm suitable to be an administrator. That's on the record. El_C 19:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppeter User:Jahmalm is back as User:Nathan Annick. Same arguments (or claims) on the same articles, same way of referencing (only one I know who uses '<ref name=":0">, <ref name=":1">, etc')[70][71]. I ask admins to take a look at this. Thank you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean and I don’t know this user. I just added some sources and you deleted them. Please stop annoying me. Nathan Annick (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You may file a Sock investigation. There's not much that can be done here. El_C 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Stage-struck?

Eddaido (talk · contribs), who recently displayed some rather odd ownership issues on the Concord coach article, is currently repeatedly reverting to a version which is not supported by the cited source...or, indeed, any good source, using a cite which clearly discusses local adoption as proof of world-wide first usage. Outside eyballs appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a venue to get "more eyes" when you are in a Simple content dispute. If you find yourself in an intractable dispute with another editor you need to avail yourself of the options at WP:DR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither simple, nor merely a content dispute, but ownership and competence issues going back to another article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

All I see is the two of you in a slow motion edit war at Stagecoach. Eddaido hasn't even edited Concord coach since March 8th. If you're going to make accusations of ownership and incompetence you will need to back your claims up with specific diffs demonstrating as such or it just comes off as a personal attack.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What Qwirkle's trying to say is that Eddaido has displayed problematic behavior at Concord Coach, and is now continuing that behavior at Stagecoach. This isn't a mere content dispute; his competence problems are real and longstanding. No diffs since I'm on mobile, so sue me. EEng 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not look like anyone has edited Concord_coach in a month (March/April). Is this an urgent problem? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (i see this point has been made)

It's a chronic problem. And the locus now, as I said, is Stagecoach. EEng 21:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So is this a request for more eyes, or a request to investigate Eddiado's editing more generally? If it's the first, then Ponyo is right (although I rewarded this misuse of ANI and provided an opinion on the article talk page). If it's the second, then we need a whole lot more info than is provided here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As you may have seen illustrated on the page in question, I think this a floor wax and a dessert topping. There are both issues for which ANI or ANEW are exactly the right fora, and there are some that simple visibility over a wider swath than the other usual noticeboards can give would help. If it were only the latter, it’d really not belong, except on a real slow day. Qwirkle (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking in hypotheticals because I haven't looked at any diffs yet, but if Qwirkle's claims be accurate, this is something deserving sanctions, and it definitely belongs here. It's disruptive to add material with a source that doesn't back it up (you're claiming that the source says something it doesn't, i.e. you're adding a hoax), and while we can revert once with a kindly message, someone who does it persistently must be stopped, and a request for an enforced stop is definitely appropriate at WP:ANI. I'll start looking into the situation momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I've looked at page histories and talk entries for Concord coach and Stagecoach. At the former page, I note that Eddaido repeatedly added a claim that 2500 US pounds was 2¼ US tons, which is wrong (1 ton = 2000 pounds), and problematic after you're warned once; and I see that he admitted at talk to making up numbers and throwing them in. At the latter page, I see that he's removing content, which on the face of things is different from adding a hoax. But here, the removal changes the meaning significantly — The first recorded stagecoach route in Britain started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one on a big island, while The first recorded stagecoach route started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one in the world. Since Floquenbeam has added a quote from the source, which specifically talks about it being the first on a specific island and not in the world, Eddaido is indeed causing the article to provide false information. This isn't simply removing an extraneous detail (e.g. changing "19 December 1610" to "1610"); if you delete words whose absence makes a significant change that can't be derived from the source, it's no less problematic than adding un-backed-up information in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

And now I see this comment by Eddaido: ...you say you have found a direct quote. Why has your friend never pointed this up? If I understand rightly, the quote from the source was a surprise to him, as if he hadn't consulted the source. If my understanding be correct, that's an even bigger issue: no one should be making significant changes to the meaning of a cited phrase without consulting the source or without solid evidence that the source has been misrepresented somehow. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I have not looked at the issue (which is indeffable as described above) but 2¼ US tons (short tons) is 2500 pounds, confirmed with {{convert|1+1/4|ST|lb}}. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend and Johnuniq: I think Nyttend just made a typo there, somewhere. The book states that the coach in question weighed "2-and-one-quarter-ton". Eddaido had been consistently stating this as "2.25 metric tonnes." Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I think the reported editor is affecting us all because my convert is for 1.25 instead of 2.25. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Short ton covers a unit equal to 2000 pounds, so 2500 = 1¼ tons. It's not a matter of hitting the adjacent key; in [72] Eddaido restored a challenged piece of text that said weighed two and a quarter tons or 2.25 metric tonnes. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I ran into the reported user back at the beginning of 2018 at hearse. I removed some uncited and poorly-written information and was 'thanked' by Eddaido. He then put the information back -poorly worded and all- and cited Oxford's English Dictionary. I didn't pursue the matter because editwarring is lame. It does appear that he has a fascination with coaches and other similiar motor vehicles and exhibits ownership of them. I'm not asking for any action, but this is something I have noticed. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not motor vehicles specifically, but anyway... This has been a problem for a while. I wish there was some way to get him to listen to what other editors (often multiple other editors at once) try to tell him in discussions. EEng 20:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not all of this user's edits are about land vehicles. Some of them relate to articles about military personnel, such as this edit and the previous one to Malcolm C. McGregor. So the recommended action is at most a topic ban from vehicles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sky UK's IPv6 ranges and underestimating the collateral effect of rangeblocks

I didn't quite know where else to put this, so it's gone here. If it would be more appropriate in WP:VP/P or something, please just let me know.

When I found myself a affected by @NJA's block of 2A02:C7F::/32, I did some sleuthing and found out that 2A02:C78::/29 (which subsumes that range) is the entire allocation of IPv6 addresses to Sky UK, the country's second largest ISP which accounts for 22% of the UK's internet traffic. Sky has completed its IPv6 rollout and few if any Sky connections will show up as IPv4 addresses.

This means that NJA's rangeblock should have affected one eighth of Sky users (or 1 in 36 UK residents), which already seems pretty high. Emphasis on should: A cursory glance at contributions for each of 2A02:C78::/32, 2A02:C79::/32, et cetera, reveals that only 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32 are currently in use. This means NJA's block affects half of all Sky IP addresses, amounting to 11% of UK connections. This is clearly far too much collateral damage.

This isn't a complaint about NJA, as others have previously (and recently) rangeblocked both 2A02:C7F::/32 and 2A02:C7D::/32, and this degree of disruption to UK users obviously wasn't intended. I thought this worth bringing up here to make sure blocks like this don't continue to happen.

Blocking half of the IP addresses of the second largest ISP in a large country isn't a sensible way to deal with vandalism. Yes, blocking 11% of the UK from editing Wikipedia anonymously will obviously lead to reduced vandalism, but then we might as well just turn off anonymous editing altogether. It's by sheer coincidence (Sky's allocated range and manner of allocating IPs) that so much of one country's traffic is even crammed into a blockable range (since /32 is the maximum rangeblock), thus creating far more collateral damage than should be considered acceptable.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• As the blocking admin I will say this and only this (in-law coming in an hour, will be sporadic for a while): See my talk page here on this discussion. I will add the block is not recent and expires Fri, 31 May 2019 14:05:41 GMT and was initially for 72hr, it is anon-only with account creation disabled. It was the second such short-term block to the exact range this month. If there’s a narrower range that will be as effective then I am more than happy for another admin to revise this. I do not however buy in to the sense of alarm about blocking “11% of the UK”. Apparently 100% of those “11%” had no ill effects (except Newbiepedian of course) as I’ve seen nothing on UTRS about the IP (and plus it isn’t using Autoblock). N.J.A. | talk 21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A lack of UTRS tickets isn't equivalent to "no ill effects", it just means no one has reported any. Most people who would casually edit a Wikipedia article anonymously, say to fix a typo, are not familiar with these procedures. There has been another complaint, just not via UTRS – see User talk:2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:B414:B48E:1054:DCCC.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • For a long while, WP:SIP required us to notify the Foundation whenever we blocked the IP address(es) that represented virtually everyone in Qatar. Per Demographics of Qatar and Demographics of the United Kingdom, Qatar had about 2.6 million inhabitants as of early 2017, while According to the 2011 census, the total population of the United Kingdom was around 63,182,000. If this rangeblock affects 11% of Britons, that's just short of 7 million people being affected, or nearly triple the number of people affected by a block of Qatar. Barring a weird emergency (e.g. someone's spending weeks operating a vandalbot that's changing IPs every couple of seconds), I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time. Of course, we admins make good-faith mistakes, and I think it would be out of bounds to complain at NJA, who clearly wasn't aware of the number of people affected by this block — thank you, Newbiepedian, for explicitly disclaiming such a thing. However, I do think we ought to remove this block and ought to be careful to avoid something similar in the future. But how does one remove it? I don't understand rangeblocks (especially for IPv6s) and have never removed one, and neither User:2A02:C7F::/32 nor User:2A02:C7F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has a block log. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks Nyttend. Do you not see a block log for the range here? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I saw nothing. I wonder if I entered the wrong IP? But I do remember doing one rangeblock (someone supplied the precise numbers, which I copy/pasted into Special:Block), so I just copy/pasted the range you supplied above (2A02:C7F::/32) into that page and blocked it for one second. (Only the latest block matters at all, so if a later block expires before an earlier block, the earlier one won't "take over" when the later one expires.) Both the resulting page and the link you just provided have the log with entries by Materialscientist, NJA, and now me. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• FYI Nyttend has removed the block (I just checked). I still think it was an appropriate block and could not see a less perfect range to block for a short period. Two complaints and none through UTRS is hardly millions of people, but I’ll leave it alone as truthfully no one can say how many people were bothered and didn’t report it. Anyhow if this range remains an issue something else may need considered. Good evening all. N.J.A. | talk 02:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Also for anyone interested EdJohnston posted this on my talk page Some more details on the /32 range used in question. N.J.A. | talk 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey, NJA, you may have misunderstood my comment. I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time means that I'm normally opposed to a longer block, but a short block (maybe 12-24 hours) isn't too bad. I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm just concerned that the size of the range is skewing what we're seeing — the wider a range and the more people using it, the more vandalism we're going to see from it. (A massive amount of vandalism is committed by ::/0, but as that covers 340 undecillion short scale addresses, blocking it would be a really really bad idea.) In my opinion, if you know how to calculate the number of addresses affected by a rangeblock (I don't), it's important that you consider that number when setting block length, and block a really big range only for a short while except in those really rare situations. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like IPv6 users from Sky tend to stay within the same /64 for months at a time. A single vandal switching to a new subnet during a vandalism spree could conceivably just be switching from one device in his house to another, or hopping on his neighbor's wifi, giving the appearance that his IP is dynamic over the entire /32 when it is not. It's also conceivable that an admin might see a bunch of vandals all over a /32 who are individually confined to /64s, and think they are one vandal. When casting a net that large (almost 1% of the English speakers in the world), it's very likely you'll notice more than one vandal with common interests or behaviors, since they are usually pretty basic. I have occasionally dug into the vandalism behind some broad range blocks and sometimes found that it was really just a handful of people who could be blocked individually without much difficulty. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This. A thousand times, this.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Long-winded elaboration of the problem

As I briefly mentioned on NJA's talk page, I think the primary issue (and something I feel folks aren't quite understanding) is that this is a specific problem with this specific range which has served to demonstrate a larger (and unfortunately highly technical) issue with how people are estimating potential collateral due to unfamiliarity with IPv6. I'm going to split this explanation into several paragraphs because otherwise it will end up totally illegible. I hope this makes some semblance of sense; if not, there's a bit of a TLDR at the bottom.

IPv6 ranges currently are mostly very spread out. The /29 range assigned to Sky contains capacity for 34,359,738,368 (over 34 billion) end users. The C7F and C7D sub-ranges each contain capacity for one eighth of that, i.e. 4,294,967,296 (over 4 billion) end users. "End user" here refers to a subnet, i.e. the internet connection of a home or small business router, each having capacity to serve 18 quintillion distinct hosts. But those numbers are totally meaningless, because capacity at the moment isn't easy to relate to actual usage due to the sheer breadth of IPv6 allocation.

Sky UK has been allocated a range of 2A02:C78::/29, which as stated contains capacity for over 34 billin users. Sky UK has a market share of roughly 20% in a country of roughly 60 million people, so there are 34 billion /64 subnets to allocate to approximately 12 million people. By contrast, Comcast (US) has a market share of roughly 40% in a country of roughly 320 million people, so that's 128 million users. But how does their capacity relate? Well, Comcast has the ranges 2601::/20 (17,592,186,044,416 end users), 2603:3000::/24 (1,099,511,627,776 end users), 2001:558::/31 (8,589,934,592 end users) and 2603:2000::/20 (another 17,592,186,044,416 end users). This means Comcast's total capacity is for 36,292,473,651,200 users – over 36 trillion. Clearly, these numbers are all pretty meaningless.

Now, at a glance, Comcast has about 10 times as many users as Sky UK, but over 1,000 times as many available addresses. But it's not quite that simple. These allocations are to what is reserved to the ISP, but currently neither of these two ISPs are allocating users across their entire allocated range(s). Sky UK is only allocating across 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32. I'll call these /32 ranges "MR" (maximum range) for convenience, since that's the maximum size for WP rangeblocks. So, Sky allocates users across 2 MRs. What ranges does Comcast actually use? 2601::/32 through 2601:102::/32 (103 MRs), plus 2603:3000::/32 through 2603:3027::/32 (28 MRs), plus 2001:558::/32 and 2001:559::/32. So, in other words, Sky UK is allocating 12 million people across 2 MRs, while Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 133 MRs.

So, TLDR: IP ranges of the same size do NOT necessarily have the same level of collateral effect. As this example shows, blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 900k people, while blocking an MR belonging to Sky UK will affect up to about 6 million, almost 7 times as many. Currently what it looks like to me is that there is a broad-brush approach to figuring out the level of collateral effect which is to just assume that ranges of the same size can be treated the same, but that is unequivocally false. Before blocking an ISP-level range (which is what the /32 maximum range is; no normal organisation would be assigned one), administrators should research:

• to what ISP that range belongs
• how many other ranges the ISP owns
• what parts of those ranges are actually in use
• how many users the ISP has (roughly, from market share × population)

Then, and only then, have you obtained a picture of the potential collateral effect of your rangeblock with any semblance of accuracy.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Precedent

There's precedent for long-term blocks of ranges this wide that are used by miscreants. 2607:fb90::/32, a range widely used by T-Mobile, one of the largest mobile providers in the US, has been blocked on-and-off for the past two-and-a-half years. My major blocks were due to the dog and rapper vandal, but there were and are others. Pinging other recent blocking admins who have dealt with this range: @DeltaQuad, Oshwah, Drmies, and TonyBallioni:. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures. Graham87 04:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Graham. My entry in the block log was to temporarily lower the account creation block per a valid request from a steward in private. When the reason for that was done, I restored the former block settings. In general I’m pretty conservative with IPv6 range blocks, though there are valid reasons to make wide ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Graham, this just to let you know that I ran into two longterm rangeblocks this week while trying to vandalize Wikipedia from my phone. ;) (Does your reader do that winking emoji?) Drmies (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But yes, there is ample precedent for long and wide rangeblocks. I cannot calculate whether the woof, rap block is as wide as the UK block discussed earlier. I'll add that, like Tony, I am conservative (or like to think I am); in woof, rap case it is clear that I am guided also by earlier blocks. I also remember that a couple of months ago I was asked to make a range block more narrow, which I did. I really cannot comment on the UK block: much happened on that range and I don't have the time or the inclination to pick through a bunch of them to see how justified the block (and the range) is, but I trust my fellow admins to be as conservative as possible. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Fair enough. I use precedent as a guide re blocks as well. Re winking emoji: yes, it does, but I couldn't detect it in your message at first because I have my punctuation level lower than the default, for various reasons. Graham87 04:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think, though, you have to be careful in deciding that something is actually "desperate" rather than "completely ordinary". If one person is vandalizing a wide variety of pages from a wide range of IPs, then yes, absolutely, those are desperate circumstances. I estimate that non-bot admins make, what, 1000 blocks a day? By numbers alone, you expect that we should be blocking 10 or so Sky users every day. That's not a desperate circumstance. Vandalism on 10 different subnets of Sky, all on articles related to British popular culture, well, that should just be a daily occurrence. Back in ancient times when vandals didn't have a choice but to use IPv4, if we saw 10 obviously distinct vandals on 10 different static IPs belonging to the same ISP, we didn't nuke the whole network. And we shouldn't be nuking an entire network just because each vandal now has a /64 instead of a single address. We also shouldn't be assuming that two vandals are the same person because they have very vaguely similar interests and live in the same countryohmygodhecanchangehisiptoanythingwhatsthechancesomanypeopleinenglandwouldbemadattheresamay? But anyway, I think I totally understand the impulse. You're manning AIV, reports keep coming in, vandal after vandal. Oh, here's clearly changing his IP, better do a range block. Oh, this vandal has a very similar address. Hmm. Not the same article, but also targeting the same topic area. And another one, and another one? Anyway, my 2p, don't block an entire ISP just because a bunch of vandals use it, if those vandals can be individually blocked. Rangeblocks are for people who can't be stopped otherwise, not for stopping several different people at once because it's faster than figuring out their individual ranges. Honestly, I think this probably needs a software solution. Most residential hookups for many ISPs have a relatively stable /64. If the MediaWiki software defaulted to treating every address in a /64 as having a unified identity - one contributions list, one talk page, one IPname - but still gave the option to see deeper in case this is wrong, I think it would clear a lot of confusion. It would also help make it obvious that what might seem like a nest of vandals is actually several individuals. Blocks would default to that subnet, and often work. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, tools need to treat all of an IPv6 /64 as though it were a single user, AFAIK. No, I don't think it is confusing this particular conversation, but it does makes people do a lot of extra work and it would be nice if things were improved. @Newbiepedian: there are calculation mistakes above. 2601::/32 – 2601:102::/32 = 0x103 = 259 MRs, not 103. 2603:3000::/32 – 2603:3027::/32 = 0x28 = 40 MRs, not 28. Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 301, not 133 MRs. Blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 425,000, not 900,000 people :) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Count edits instead of editors?

Instead of trying to count users (whatever a user is) that would be blocked, or whatever it is you're trying to do, why not have a gizmo that tells you, as you contemplate a block of range R for H hours, the number of distinct edits that would have been blocked had that block been in effect during the H hours immediately past (or at this same point one week ago, or ...)? That's unambiguous, and I think it's the true measure of collateral damage. EEng 08:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Or not, I guess. EEng 23:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! Over here! EEng 13:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd need to propose that on Phabricator rather than here, as it would mean rewriting MediaWiki. My gut feeling would be that for all but the smallest ranges, it would gum up the servers to an unacceptable level (checking a range of 10,000 IP address would mean carrying out 10,000 checkuser investigations to figure out which logged-in editors would be affected), so the WMF would probably refuse to permit it. ‑ Iridescent 13:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

On China–United States trade war and talk

Syopsis seems to be certain of his version of the truth that other editors must all be "for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article", and he then removed all the tags added to the article as if by removing these tags, the article will no automatically be taken as the truth when any intelligent reader could see the excessive coverage of the US's administration with little to no mention of its Chinese counterpart. When I reverted his edit that deleted ALL tags, he instead insist on his version and said I should discuss these changes first, when already several other have questioned the POV of the article on the talk pages for a long time. He seems to be unable to make arguments beside being a wiki lawyer and make personal attacks, when others have made clear stated point. I once thought even the most pro-current-administration person should agree this article simply writes too much from a US perspective, because besides the mentioning on the retaliatory tariff, all the rest are US,US,US if not TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP. Viztor (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User's already filed two complaints (one at the neutral point of view noticeboard and another at the Administrator intervention against vandalism . I have said everything I needed to say but it basically boils down to the user refusing to even discuss the changes he wants - there is an assumption on his part that his view is "the truth". I have said from day one that we need to discuss the kind of changes that he is making on the talk page FIRST because it is A LOT of information that he is trying to pull out. There really isn't anything partisan about it, although given the user's history....the same can't be said. Syopsis (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: See this is the kind of edit that YOU need to be making and EVERYONE can agree on. Syopsis (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Syopsis: Regarding this atrocious edit: please read WP:CIVIL, and remember to not curse needlessly in communication, and to be respectful. If someone does something you disagree with, talk about it calmly and try to resolve the issue, instead of throwing your hands up in exasperation or being rude to other editors. Also, do not make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. If you think someone is a sock, report it at WP:SPI, don't use it as a cudgel in conversation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: I think you should read WP:CIVIL too, and also remember to not WP:FORUMSHOP. Posting an issue in one place is good enough, and ANI is the right venue. Your reports to the other boards have been removed or moved. Also, to both of you, your use of capitalization is excessive. Please tone it down. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

i'm generally quite relaxed and a all-time-lower-case person, however, it does came to my notice that this specific user were tracking and vetting the changes i make and reverted those he doesn't like, which is as if someone's scratching the back of my feet while i'm sleeping, which apparently cause reactions in my nervous system and make it quite uncomfortable to keep editing. Viztor (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ok... you have both expressed your take on what is happening... now, please sit back and let others examine the situation and comment. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I did not add those tags, I only became engaged as I reverted a change that removed all tags, when there are clearly related-discussion on the talk page, which nobody seems to bother to contest. After which, I agreed with the editor that four tags may be tag bombing and merged three into one globalize/US, yet the editor still insisted and removed all, at which point it is clear of his intention. As of now, the article remain untagged with the talk page filled with concerns rained about its neutrality. Viztor (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In the article now remains tagged after after a discussion on the talk page. I reverted several of the reported user's edits, and the only one of mine that is still up is the {{globalize/US}} tag. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is significant undue weight. If I scroll to the top of "Arguments for the US to implement tariff sanctions" and PageDown, this section occupies nearly five screens, and from "Temporary reprieve" to the beginning of the China subsection of "Influence" is a little bit over three screens. The only China-specific section is the Influence/China subsection, which is less than one screen. You can't claim balance when one side gets eight times the coverage. Hint: wait until secondary sources come out (those written after the fact), rather than using primary sources (those written at the time of the event), because reliable secondary sources will provide a good overview instead of "Here's the latest X you should care about" typical of primary sources like news reports. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can an administrator take a look at this set of edit-warring edits by User:Viztor ([73], [74] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93Uni ted_States_trade_war&diff=899784563&oldid=89978333])? I really don't want to give the impression that I am being petty or beating a dead horse or whatever you call it, but I must bring this up because the other user who the user was edit warring with (User talk:Hari147) got an outright 24 hour block for it; I would have just ignored the edit warring between those two as something to be expected had Hari not been blocked. Now I don't know the exact details of why Hari got blocked so I won't comment how just it was and i am also not going to saying that the same be automatically done to the other user. But on the face of it the treatment doesn't seem fair, especially when Viztor was edit warring even AFTER filing this ANI request.

And on an unrelated note, i have made lots of changes to the involved page and there hasn't been any edit-warring by ANY parties to the debate since so i've done my best to avoid any more edit warring. While still of course being bold in my changes.Syopsis (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Syopsis practically made up the third edit...It's a diff between different pages. False accusations do not earn this editor any respect in the community.
Viztor (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there.It seems this has been escalating for too long.Let me explain a few of my thoughts on this.

I would like to mention that wikipedia should be a platform based on factual information,rather than content that favours a particular side,and more importantly,information that may be unnecessary to the context of the article,in this case,the article on China-United States trade war.I have warned user Viztor that his edits may be unconstructive to the context of the article,and revealed to him proper methods to publish articles in the future of such manner.Despite several warnings,he has been persistent to his actions and has been reluctant to abide by proper editing.He has been warned by other users also,and in retaliation he has been accusatory and seems to take it too personally.Hence,i request that all edits to this article be reviewed by proper management,as this topic may seem to be of a sensitive manner and the article,in fact,could possibly pose serious conflicts in real life,as people gain information to these articles.Nevertheless,the edits have been proper thus far.

I would also like to add to some arguments placed by some users on this topic.Although there might be information that does not well represent a particular side(or in this case,quantified),it does not mean that the article is going towards a biased avenue.The information thus far has been as accurate as possible and ONLY information that is related to the context should be added,rather than information that might actually be off-topic.Many of such previous information has included military personnel,background information of companies,or historical information of countries.These are topics that have been already discussed on other pages,and should not necessarily be included.If such information needs to be included,they should be linked to other articles,rather than to the above-mentioned article.I hope that the administrators would take a proper measures that such incidents are prevented as much possible.I would also like to add that i feel that the block on my rights was baseless and not needed,as i was only protecting the article form further damage.Nevertheless,it did not really affect me too much as i was in fact away during much of the time.Thank you.
hari147 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hari147: You were blocked for violating the WP:3RR, a hard and fast rule here on Wikipedia. No matter your intentions, we have the 3RR policy for good reason. Don't break it again, and don't edit war in general (even if you are right!) or you'll find yourself banned for much longer than 24 hours. In terms of Viztor, please provide diffs and/or other links to their supposed misconduct. Otherwise, its just claims without evidence, which won't lead to action. In terms of the content of the article? Discuss that on that article's talk page, not here. ANI is for conduct not content. Lastly, not to be rude, but if I may nitpick your grammar: you are lacking spaces after essentially all of your punctuation, which reads very awkwardly. Don't forget to add a space after each use of a period or comma :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki attacks and meat puppetry by User:Fwaig

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

---

WP:PW has been the subject of various controversies both on and off Wikipedia. Many from [REDACTED - Oshwah] have participated in wrestling discussions in the past. User:Fwaig has created multiple posts on [REDACTED - Oshwah] recently attacking Wikipedia editors and encouraging others to do the same.

• [REDACTED - Oshwah]
• [REDACTED - Oshwah]
  • "Some asshole moderator on a power trip"
  • "Stop being cunts wiki mods, you've already wrecked plenty of the wrestling section you absolute wank pheasants."
• [REDACTED - Oshwah]
  • "Give them pages you cowards!"

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Let them complain on [REDACTED - Oshwah] - unless they do something beyond the pale, such as dox people, there's nothing actionable here beyond making sure the meatpuppetry doesn't become a major issue. (And there's a few people on those threads who are trying to be a voice of reason as opposed to just raging.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody ever called me a pheasant before. Is that a compliment or an insult? I will keep an eye open for hunters with shotguns, at least during pheasant season. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

lol User:Cullen328 I agree it makes sense to ignore. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS

First some background, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was previously indefinitely blocked in October 2016 by Bbb23 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevcohaha. User talk page access (TPA) was also removed by Bbb23 a day after blocking the account per this edit because of "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". An attempt made by another administrator Ivanvector here to try and help out at the time apparently was rebuffed per this post. An unblock request for Sevcohaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), one of the previously blocked sockpuppet accounts, had been declined by here by Vanjagenije earlier in March 2016, partily based upon this post by Bbb23, with TPA access for that account also being revoked shortly thereafter. The Bring back Daz Sampson account was created a few months after that in August 2016, while the Sevocohaha account was still under blocked so techinically that's WP:EVADE. After the accout was blocked, the editor apparently decided to wait out the block per WP:SO and appeal after about six months had passed. An UTRS unblock request was filed and copied and pasted to use talk page here and TPA was restored by Just Chilling in April 2017. In their unblock request, Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to the socking and promised to not repeat the behavior which led to their being indef'd. Positive comments in support were posted by here and here repectively by Ivanvector and JamesBWatson, and the unblock request was accepted by Bbb23 here. All of this seems fine; an editor made some mistakes and was blocked as a resutlt. Some time passed and the editor was unblocked because it was believed they had learned from their mistakes and was committed to moving forward and not repeating them.

One of the socks (Målfarlig!) had been previously blocked by Swarm for edit warring and personal attacks in September 2015. Bring back Daz Sampson admitted to being Målfarlig! in their unblock request, so part of the behavior they were stating they were not going to repeat would also be making personal attacks against others. Recently, however, it appears that they is going back to making unsubtatiated comments about other editors in some talk page discussions and at an AFD. None of these comments appear to have been provoked in anyway; people weren't pinging them or even mentioning them by name let alone posting any negtive comments about them. It would've been entirely possible to participate in these discussion without making any comments about any other editors. Yet for some reason, they felt that these discussions were the right time and place to try and revive old disputes with others. Here are the most recent diffs:

1. May 11, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/896572069: An attempt to use a discussion at WT:FOOTY about non-free content use to re-hash previous discussions where files were removed by administrators for not complying with WP:NFCCP; the discussion was perfectly civil and there was no reason to make accusations or cast aspersions against other editors. A personal attack against Number 57 was even mixed in under the guise of supporting their position in the discussion. Requests by myself and Number 57 for diffs and a striking of the attack was never responded to and the thread was archived.
2. June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899892694: More accusations made in a different FOOTY discussion which seem only intended to try and re-start some long resolved dispute. Perhaps things didn't get resolved in a way that Bring back Daz Simpsom wanted perhaps, but they were resolved none the less. Stating that I exhibit "monomania" is something that was previously done here a little more than three years ago by one of the blocked sock accounts.
3. June 2, 2019, Special:diff/Bring back Daz Sampson/899890243: This AfD !vote could've just as easily been made without mentioning any other editors; yet for some reason, this editor felt the need to mention GiantSnowman by name even though Giant Snowman isn't participating in the AfD at all. It's almost as if this was a pre-emptive personal attack or casting of aspersions in advance just on the off chance that Giant Snowman might eventually show up and !vote.

I don't think there's any doubt that Bring back Daz Sampson makes a lot of positive contributions to articlese about soccer, particularly women's soccer. The problem is not really their ability to do that. The problem has to do with their behavior and their apparent inability to simply stick to commenting on content and avoid commenting on other editors as much as possible. All editors have their bad moments, and probably post things they wouldn't; morevoer, three posts might be only a small sample size when it comes to this type of thing for someone with no history of having problems with others. Even just three posts, however, might be one too many when you're coming back from an indefinite block, and. Moreover, there's no indication there won't be more such posts from here on. FWIW, I'm not looking for a reinstatement of the indefinite block; I'm not even looking for a short-termed block to be issued or even an apology to be made. I do, however, think that a stern final warning is needed that this type of conduct is not going to be tolerated by the community and that this editor is going to be expected to try to figure out a way to honor what they posted in their unblock request and also what they posted here. If this type of behavior continues after this final warning, then the community can decide to block if they want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC);[Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling of the word “articles”, to change “short-termed” to “short-term”, and to replace the word “moreover” with “and”. — 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)]

Here he is calling trans rights activists 'transvestites'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. That, as well as this later response, is pretty offensive, from the scare quotes around 'activists' to the implication that only a miniscule proportion of the population thinks that not using offensive terms about other people matters, to the assumption that only people personally affected by a slur would want to protest against it, to the underlying presumption that it doesn't matter if someone uses incorrect terminology if the topic is not (in their personal view) immediately relevant... and that doesn't even touch on the fact that they admit to not really caring about other people being abused. A serious and final warning is the minimum here, and combind with the PAs, an indef does not seem to be undue. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reading just the above, it's clear to me that BbDS has made a habit of making personal attacks. I'd be inclined to re-indef, unless a reasonable counter case is made. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've found this user to be nothing but a pain, to both myself and other editors. Serious attitude problem. I'd support an indef. GiantSnowman 07:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• For context, it's also worth noting that BbDS previously edited as Clavdia chauchat and exercised their right to vanish after being blocked for personal attacks – see this ANI report from 2014. Number 57 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why they took an instance dislike to me! GiantSnowman 09:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment for now. This user in the past has been resistive to efforts they perceive as instructing their behaviour; my most favourite version of that sentiment is this comment on performative contrition. For some background have a look at this October 2016 discussion. I do believe that the user sincerely misinterpreted the standard offer at that time and was treated somewhat harshly for it, and after having it explained and going out of their way to thumb their nose at my advice, it seems they actually did take it. Their April 2017 appeal was a genuine exploration of their behaviour and it was easily accepted. All of that is to say: I think they're here for the right reasons, and capable of listening to advice when it's given gently.

We should also note that in the past this user (under their many usernames) has suggested they are subject to ongoing harassment, which it seemed to me at the time of our last interaction to likely be the case. A user working in content creation for female athletes attracting gender-based harassment is no big surprise. However, they have indeed already been told many times that they should contact an administrator if that is the case, not respond with personal attacks.

And having said that, I have noticed there have been a lot of AfD nominations for biographies of female football players just over the last month or so, correlating quite neatly with reports in various places about Bring Back Daz Sampson's incivility. While it's probably not harassment per se, for someone who works in an underrepresented topic to have much of their work broadly put up for deletion, as though someone is on some kind of mission, it likely stings. Still, no personal attacks is policy.

All that I guess to say I don't know what to do here, it's complicated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There have only been four AfDs on female footballers since the start of May and none of them were articles created by BbDS. Number 57 13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• The reason I am here is that I was notified of this discussion because I had previously suggested removing a block on this editor to give her another chance. I am a great believer in giving blocked editors another chance. I have now checked all of her comments on talk pages and other discussion pages from 23 April. (In "comments" I do not include such edits as archiving her talk page, adding categories or WikipProject banners, and so on.) When she is not expressing disagreement with other editors there is no problem, but in every single edit in which she expresses disagreement with one or more other editors she does so in a belligerent and contemptuous manner, doing such things as throwing insults at them and accusing them of incompetence or bad faith. An indefinite block on this account was lifted on the basis that she had acknowledged her past faults and would avoid doing the same again. I checked her editing immediately after that unblock, to see whether she had at first done better and then slipped back, or whether she had never improved. For a long time she simply didn't make comments in discussions at all, but when she returned to doing so the very first talk page comment she made after the block contained a personal attack. Looking through the history of her many accounts (12 that I know of; there may be more) I see that she has repeatedly been blocked and then claimed that she will not do the same again. As far back as December 2013 an editor wrote in an ANI discussion "This user is incapable of civil behaviour", and her actions since then have done nothing but confirm that impression. Over the course of more than five years there have been I don't know how many blocks on her various accounts, there have been ANI reports on her, discussions of her editing on talk pages of different accounts, and assurances from her that she now understands what was wrong with what she was doing, and she won't do it again. If she were at all likely to improve then she would have done so by now. Ivanvector says she is "capable of listening to advice when it's given gently", but listening to advice and then not taking it is no use. I don't see the evidence of "ongoing harassment", but perhaps Ivanvector can link to it; I do, however, see an editor who interprets civilly-expressed disagreement with her as harassment or attacks, and responds with attacks. The last indefinite block was lifted following recommendations from Ivanvector and me that it be lifted. Ivanvector said then "it seems apparent you know what went wrong that led to your block", and at the time I agreed with that, but knowing what went wrong is no help if that knowledge does not lead to a change in her ways, and it hasn't. I supported an unblock "to give him or her another chance". Giving her that other chance has not succeeded, and the indefinite block should therefore be restored. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't disagree with anything JamesBWatson wrote here. "Belligerent and contemptuous" describes my previous interactions with the user as well, notwithstanding what I wrote above. I wasn't aware of accounts predating Sevcohaha, but if this has been going on for six years without any marked improvement except when they need to convince someone reviewing an unblock request, then it's time we stopped playing their game. I support restoring the indefinite block, and they're going to have to do something better than swear they won't do it again this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that any claims of harassment should be taken seriously and looked into per WP:AOHA, but doing so means that diffs need to be provided as examples of this type of behavior to make sure it's not just a case of WP:HA#NOT. It appears that this editor was using other accounts before Sevcohaha; in their April 2017 unblock request they mentioned two specifically by name (Clavdia Chauchat and Målfarlig!), and stated they would declare all of their previous user names on their user page if their account was unblocked. They never got around to doing that and maybe there's no point in doing so now, but a listing of all of the accounts and perhaps and explanation as to why (at least as best as can be remembered) they were created might be helpful in figuring out if they were really harassed. I posted here because of my concerns about the three comments I referenced in my OP. I don't see this editor being harassed by anything posted in any of those three particular discussions; they weren't even mentioned by name prior to their posts. Rather, I see the posts as an attempt to try and insert personal comments about others the editor might have previously had disagreements with over various things Wikipedia; an attempt to use the discussions for per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SOAP and WP:RGW reasons. They appear to have been more upset by who was posting comments than what was actually being discussed, which is probably why their comments focused more on specific editors and their perceived flaws than actual content. It was a chance to take a cheap shot at another editor they might not really like; so, they took it. Maybe they hoped the other editors would lose their cool and do something that would get them in trouble; maybe they figured their last unblock combined with all of their positive contributions over the years would outweigh any behavior issues. You can't really tell someone they aren't truly being harassed if they feel they are, but specific examples are going to be needed so that the community can make a proper assessment. Personally, I don't think trying to use WP:BIAS as a de-facto justification for continuously attacking others or casting aspersions is a good approach to have been following, and, as pointed out by Ivanvector, it would've been much better instead to get administrators involved at a much earlier stage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add one more diff for reference because I think it further illustrates what JamesBWatson mentions above about how this editor responds when they agree with someone and how they respond when they feel someone is in their way or otherwise preventing them from doing something they want to do. Swarm's response here to a WP:RFP/A request made by this editor doesn't seem to be rude or harassing in any way, and even seemed to include a request for further clarification. However, when the editor posted here on another editor's user talk page a little over a month later, they seemed to feel the need to label Swarm as a jobsworth (just reading the first sentence of the "jobsworth" article should be enough to understand why refering to a Wikipedia administator in such a way is probably not a good idea); not specifically mentioning Swarm by name seems irrelevant here because it wouldn't take much to figure which editor was being discussed. Anyway, I have no idea whether either Swarm or this editor remembered their earlier interaction regarding the Målfarlig! account and it affected their response, but this editor could've posted something on Swarm's user talk further explaining why they wanted to be "autopatrolled", even after the request had been formally denied here. Instead, this editor somehow felt entitled to take a cheap shot at Swarm on some other editor's user talk page, even though the response to the "jobsworth" comment given here actually seems to agree with what Swarm posted at RFP/A. This is similar to what was done in the three diffs I referenced in my OP in that the a personal comment about another editor was added when pretty much the same thing could've easily be stated without posting anything good or bad about anyone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There's quite a lot to digest here and as can be seen, I usually only get chance to edit at weekends. I'd welcome the chance to type a few words in my defence then if I can have a few days grace? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived, to give chance for BBDZ to respond. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Aqooni

Aqooni has violated 3RR [75] [76] [77] [78] despite warning [79] and continues to reinstate misquoted and unsourced material. Aqooni has a long history of edit warring which led to them being warned by @EdJohnston: [80], and they were eventually blocked twice for violating 3RR [81].

The same editor has also engaged in WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying a single editor and requesting them to provide support to their stance [82]. Shortly after being contacted on their talk page, MustafaO responded on Talk:Dilla Massacre and sided with Aqooni [83]. Koodbuur (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Edit warring and canvassing - I looked through your diffs. This does look like both have occurred: 3RR warning was ignored and then sympathetic user was canvassed. What is next after a user ignores 3RR warning? WP:3RR states:"Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident" Regarding the canvassing - a warning is likely in order for WP:VOTESTACK Lubbad85 (☎) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aqooni here, you can see the interaction between the Administrator Oshwah (talk)

( that blocked Koodbuur (talk)), and myself, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aqooni#Dilla_Massacre, the Administrator recognized that I was acting in good intentions, and made attempts to communicate. Afterwards, I also asked another well known user to provide consensus towards the page in question as seen here consensus 1 , and just now, asked a second user, here consensus 2. These are 2 random users, I seen editing Somali pages and thought their insight could help with the talk page discussion. I'm not sure who else I was supposed to ask regarding this issue.

I highly suspect I am just being reported now, as a type of tit for tat, because this user Koodbuur (talk) was blocked for 36 hours. During Koodbuur (talk) edit warring, which he was blocked for 1, I indicated to him on my first edit to use the talk page 2, which he did not do, and left a message on his talk page about his edit warring here 3, and then finally reported him to Wikipedia here 4 , when he was then since blocked. I acted in good faith to the best of my ability. Aqooni (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring at RT (TV network)

RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While on holidays, I noticed (I do not remember how to be honest) the edit-warring whoch started with this edit which I believe to be pointed. The topic is very sensitive, and was discussed multiple times (though not this particular formulation, just merely a general propaganda issue) multiple times at the talk page (search archives for "propaganda"). When I was there, Galassi already had two reverts, and Ahrtoodeetoo was at the initial revert plus two. I reverted them inviting to the talk page discussion. That was pretty much the only thing I could do on an ipad and without much time available, but in the hindsight it was a bad decision, since Ahrtoodeetoo now believes I am a party in this content dispute (though I never made my position clear, and generally I prefer making administrative actions in EE area rather than participating in disputes). Still, my edit was reverted by El komodos drago, they were reverted by Galassi, and they were reverted by Ahrtoodeetoo. Apparently, Ahrtoodeetoo and El komodos drago before starting the reverts has a discussion on the talk page, which did only attract them and one IP who disagreed with them (see Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content). Today, noticing the development, I went to the talk page Ahrtoodeetoo, asking to self-revert and have a proper discussion at the talk page (possibly opening an RfC). The summary of their response was that they believe consensus has been achieved at the talk page, and they are reverting to establish this consensus. They refused to self-revert. They also took my warning as "threats" and said they will ask for a boomerang, which I am sure they will do after I notify them of this topic. Still, I find the situation completely unacceptable, and it has to be resolved somehow.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why this isn’t at AN3. Seems that El komodos drago and Ahrtoodeetoo have discussed on the TP and Galassi’s presence has been repeatedly requested to no avail. I would think the proper course would be to ask Galassi to participate at their TP. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically none of the users made four reverts within 24h. AN3 admins routinely decline such requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Three reverts over a five day period to enforce a talk page consensus is "completely unacceptable?" Really? This is truly a black-is-white allegation. I don't understand how such an experienced editor can have a simple situation like this quite so upside-down. For some reason they refuse to acknowledge that this issue has already been raised on the talk page at Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content. They come to my user talk asking that I discuss this matter at article talk, citing as evidence one of my diffs in which I refer to the existing talk page discussion ("See talk."). Huh? On top that, they're the one reverting while not discussing. Yet they insist they're above the fray and ask me not to "drag" them into this content dispute....double huh? I'm totally baffled. R2 (bleep) 18:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So I should have protected the article and blocked you for edit-warring rather than reverting to the pre-war version? As a hindsight, this seems indeed to be a better solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand this escalation. As you say, no one even broke 3RR and Galassi is the editor that refused to discuss. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, even if I broke some rule, which I didn't, you could not block me over this because you are involved. R2 (bleep) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, seriously. A second before I made that edit I was not involved. The very fact that after having made four reverts in this article you still think that your behavior agrees with our policies is the very reason why I brought you here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and Even if you were not previously involved, you became involved the moment you made that revert. Now, I want diffs of my four reverts, please. R2 (bleep) 19:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

One edit and two reverts before I edited the article, and one more after I edited this. I am sorry to say this but you are wikilawyering right now. This might be understandable in your situation, but does not help. If you have said in the very beginning "I am sorry, this was not my best behavior, I will (for example) revert my edit, wait for two days until Galassi responds at the talk page, reintroduce the edit if they do not, and if they revert again without responding take them to ANI", you have not even been here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs please, or else this is just harassment. Because there were only 3 reverts. And I engaged in exemplary behavior, thank you very much. It's inapporpriate to let the aritcle be held hostage by editors who revert but do not join the existing discussion. That includes you. And speaking of less-than-best behavior, you know as well as anyone that you don't come to ANI with meandering complaints that do not include diffs of misconduct. R2 (bleep) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On 30 May there was said "Galassi, this is where you explain why El komodos drago and I are wrong, instead of edit warring" (00:16, 30 May 2019). I see no explanation, but revert again: 21:09, 2 June 2019--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a proper notification. I am not responsible for Galassi, but for example they are under no obligation to have pings enabled.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Ymblanter, do your homework before you make accusations like this. R2 (bleep) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Good, I stand corrected on this issue. Note that I mentioned Galassi in this thread and notified them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I've fully protected the page for three days and added an edit notice, putting 1RR DS into effect. El_C 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Full prot makes some sense while this dispute is being resolved, but is 1RR really necessary here? It seems like overkill. Aside from this minor dispute it doesn't seem like there's been much disruption in recent months or years. R2 (bleep) 19:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you're right. Let's see what happens with this dispute first and we'll go from there. Remind me. El_C 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the 1RR DS there. Seems reasonable looking into the history of the article and the talk page. Also and this might not be related, it'shard to track Ahrtoodeetoo comments as their signature and their username are completely different so I was puzzled a bit while looking into the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG I'm having a Wikipedia nightmare. Someone wake me up please. R2 (bleep) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

If you are able to demonstrate WP:POINT, I will consider taking the rare step of restoring the status quo ante for the remainder of the protection. El_C 18:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what WP:POINT has to do with it, but we have a 2-on-2 edit war here between El komodos drago and myself, both of whom have discussed the matter on the talk page (we actually discussed the matter before making any edits), and Galassi and Ymblanter, neither of whom has commented on the talk page at all. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) When the only content being added is insertion of "on one occasion" to become "found on one occasion", I would find such edit pointy. However, this is not my main point, my main point is that here edit-warring is apparently being promoted as a means of resolving an editing dispute, and it is being justified by a party who wants to insert content to a long-established version. Thanks for protecting the article, though I am still concerned that content dispute resolution has not been properly followed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that — I'm seeing a content dispute concerning whether the article should read "broadcasting" per se., or "on one occasion found it had broadcast." I realize that it replaces longstanding text, but I'm not sure I see how WP:POINT applies. Feel free to sharpen. El_C 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is fine with me. I think the editing dispute should go back to the dispute resolution. In the end of the day, I do not care what is written in the article as soon as proper process have been followed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ymblanter, but what the fuck are you talking about? What "proper process" did I not follow? R2 (bleep) 19:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're supposed to discuss the disputed change on the talk page instead of edit warring. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not helpful. We already know they've been edit warring and they have been discussing their changes on the talk page. El_C 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, they first discussed and then tried to add the edit to the article, based on alleged consensus. Then Galassi reverted. Up to this point, everything was fine. The dispute resolution procedures should have been subsequently followed. This did not happen, instead, edit-warring started.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What "dispute resolution procedures" should I have followed after Galassi reverted? WP:CONTENTDISPUTE doesn't make sense when the other editor refuses to discuss at all. R2 (bleep) 20:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I outlined one example above. Definitely not to continue edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to your suggestion of starting an RfC? R2 (bleep) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This one. Opening an RfC would be indeed another option.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

At my end, I was under the impression that Galassi had recognised that their edits were in error (the mistake was easy to make as I have explained on the article talk page) as they had not reverted R2's edits for 19 hours or offered an explanation on talk. I was under the impression that, given they said Go to the talk page and discuss, Ymblanter wished the version arrived at on the talk page to stand. I was unclear how else to proceed given that Galassi was not responding on the article talk page and was deleting R2's comments on their talk page. I am sorry if this was unreasonable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm not involved but I had some time on my hands, so...

1. The text at issue is that a UK gov't regulator ... has repeatedly found RT ... of broadcasting "materially misleading" content. This text was added on 23 January 2016 and remained until 29 May 2019. It is the longstanding status quo language.
2. On 12 May 2019, El komodos drago posted on the talk page about changing the language "to show that there was only one case".
3. On 28 May, an IP editor replied on the talk page, disagreeing based on the sources suggesting multiple instances. Up to this point, nobody changed anything in the article yet.
4. Later on 28 May, Ahrtoodeetoo (R2) posted on the talk page agreeing with the suggestion to change the language.
5. On 29 May 2019, R2 changed it from "of broadcasting" to "on one occasion found it had broadcast". The edit summary included "See talk." This was arguably a WP:BOLD change to longstanding (3+ years) status quo language without consensus on the talk page (two editors-to-one, only 24hrs since the second editor in favor posted).
6. Later on 29 May, Galassi reverted R2's change. This was arguable a proper revert under the bold, revert, discuss policy. The WP:ONUS would be on those wishing to change the longstanding language to establish consensus before changing it.
7. R2 restored it later on 29 May. That's out of BRD process; it's 2RR.
8. Galassi reverted again on 30 May. That's 2RR for Galassi.
9. 10 minutes later on 30 May, R2 posted to the talk page pinging Galassi and saying he should come to the talk page instead of edit warring.
10. R2 also restored the content on 30 May. That's 3RR for R2, though not in 24hrs, but 48hrs. R2 at this point is not following WP:BRD, by changing longstanding text without consensus. As of this point, there are two editors in favor of the change (El komodos drago and R2) and two editors opposed to the change (the IP editor and Galassi), so still no consensus.
11. Ymblanter reverted on 30 May with edit summary "Go to the talk page and discuss." This is the only edit Ymblanter has made as far as I can tell, which does not make him WP:INVOLVED. An admin restoring the status quo with direction to get consensus on the talk page is like page protection; it's an admin action, not an action as an editor involved in a content dispute. Ymblanter did not post about this on the talk page and expressed no opinion on the underlying content dispute, as far as I can tell.
12. On 2 Jun, El komodos drago restored the text. There had been no additional talk page discussion.
13. Later on 2 Jun, Galassi reverted, which is 3RR for Galassi (though not in 24hrs, but the third revert in four days).
14. R2 restored the text. Not 4RR because it wasn't within 24hrs, but the fourth revert.
15. Finally, on 3 Jun, El_C protected the wrong version :-), the one with the change to longstanding text that does not have consensus.

Both Galassi and R2 are edit warring, but R2 is edit warring from the wrong side of BRD, by changing longstanding status quo text without consensus. I think this version (the same as had been in the article since 2016) should be restored, and it shouldn't be changed until/unless there is consensus on the talk page. Hopefully the full protection will allow time for that consensus will form one direction or the other. – Levivich 21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I object to this chronology. It is both inaccurate and incomplete, see below. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's not about votes, it's about sources. The claim was unsourced and the IP editor did not provide a new source or even a specification of which source was in question. Additionally, Galassi has proved more than capable of reverting within a few hours but has yet to provide a comment on the week+ old talk thread. El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

EKD, I agree it is about sources and not about votes, and it's "not a good look" when an editor reverts without joining the talk page discussion as Galassi has done. Yet, that doesn't mean there is consensus for the change, at least not yet, and as one of two editors on one "side" of a content dispute, you shouldn't be unilaterally discounting the other "side", you should seek further input instead. There are dispute resolution mechanisms in place for this situation: WP:3O, WP:DRN, and holding an WP:RfC. Practically speaking, all you need is to have one or two more editors look at the sources and give their opinion, and you can get that with 3O or DRN. If that doesn't cement the consensus, launch an RfC. Only once the consensus is clear should the text in the article be changed, though. – Levivich 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, you have a lot of details right but some key details wrong. First off, my May 29 edit was not a revert. I reverted 3 times over 5 days. Second, you missed the fact that after Galassi reverted without discussing, I invited them to join the discussion (1) in my revert edit summary, (2) an their user talk page, and (3) by pinging them on in the article talk page. The article can't be held hostage by an editor who refuses to participate in the discussion. No offense but this is pretty basic stuff. R2 (bleep) 21:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, your May 29 edit wasn't a revert, it was a WP:BOLD edit–a change to longstanding status quo language without consensus. Galassi's first reversion of that BOLD edit was proper within the WP:BRD process. It was a proper revert, even without discussion. After that, both of you are engaged in reverting multiple times over a short period of time (i.e., edit warring). Yes, you did your part in terms of posting on the talk page and inviting the other editor to discuss, but you don't get to make a BOLD edit and have it "stick" while there is discussion. That's not how BRD works. Your BOLD edit stays out until there is consensus, not "stays in while we discuss it". That's basic stuff, too. The proper course of action, after Galassi reverted your BOLD edit, if Galassi didn't join the talk page discussion (or even if they did and gave their reasons for opposing the change), would have been to pursue dispute resolution (3O, DRN, RfC), not to revert Galassi's revert. One side in a content dispute can't unilaterally decide to discount the other side of the content dispute and just charge ahead with the change. You need to seek out additional input from other editors to cement consensus before making the change to the article. – Levivich 21:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're largely correct there. And if Galassi had commented on the talk page then I wouldn't have reverted after that. But that's beside the point. You said I reverted 4 times, when in fact it was 3. Over 5 days. And you excluded important details from your chronology. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we all need to stop playing 'the blame game' calm down and (in the case of me, R2 and Galassi) apologise (as I have done above). Then we can look for a constructive way forward. Right now I'm going to sleep. El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I want Ymblanter to lay the fuck off so I can do some productive editing. I apologize for using some salty language. R2 (bleep) 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to start a thread, "should X be changed to Y", on the article talk page, lay out the sources supporting the change, and even see if anyone !votes oppose at this point. If consensus isn't clear after a few days, post a link to the thread on the relevant WikiProject talk pages to get additional editor input. If that doesn't work, maybe try WP:DRN, and if that doesn't work, a full WP:RfC. (And R2, you're just digging yourself a hole at this point. Take the "out" offered by EKD.) – Levivich 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop lecturing me. My behavior has been exemplary. There are two editors willing to engage on the talk page, and they agree on what the content outcome should be. If someone comes along and lodges their disagreement, then fine, we have a bona fide content dispute. But that's not what has happened. No one has defended a contrary position on the talk page. Your WP:DRN suggestion is nonsensical. There is literally no one to go to WP:DRN with. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You have a bona fide content dispute. An IP editor has lodged an objection on the talk page, and Galassi has lodged an objection in edit summaries. – Levivich 22:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is for editors who are willing to talk. Those two editors aren't. I did everything I could possibly do to get those two editors to discuss the subject matter, yet neither would respond. At some point you revert back to WP:BOLD for the good of the project. Remember, the goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to bury ourselves in bureaucracy. R2 (bleep) 03:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

R2, you are not being accurate about what happened. Here, on May 28 you posted a talk page message expressing support for a change another editor suggested, which was opposed by a second editor. You chose a side in a content dispute, as it were. Nothing wrong with that. The next day, on May 29, you changed the article text to what you thought it should be. Also fine. WP:BOLD is not a problem. Your change was reverted. That's also fine. That's the R in WP:BRD. A reason was given in the edit summary. At that point, it's 2-to-2 whether it should be changed or not. There is no consensus. A little more than an hour later, you restored your BOLD change. Not fine. You did not attempt to engage in talk page discussion between your BOLD insertion and your restoration of that BOLD insertion after it had been reverted. An hour after you were reverted, you just clicked the undo button, you didn't engage in the D of the discussion cycle before pressing the undo button. So it is not true that you "did everything" before edit warring. Edit warring was your instant and repeated response, and you edit warred before pinging Galassi to the talk page. What happened was: you came across a talk page discussion, picked a side, changed it to what you thought it should be, and when someone reverted it, you edit warred. This is not "exemplary conduct". It's not a huge deal, but you persist in maintaining you did nothing wrong, when you did. And your treatment of Ymblanter–who you said you wanted to "lay the fuck off" but then you went and posted again to his talk page continuing the dispute–makes matters worse. – Levivich 04:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand you; at this point you're just repeating yourself. Clearly we have a disagreement about best practices. I am willing to continue this on my user talk, but further discussion on this specific topic isn't appropriate for ANI. R2 (bleep) 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Can we save this as an example of why people call ANI a dramaboard? Meanwhile, allow the protection to go to expiration and then sanction the first editor to revert without a TP resolution, and close this. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor R2 misrepresented the given source as a mere single instance of RT news faking, while the source clearly said "twice in a 2months period".--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no opinion on the content of the edit one way or the other, and this is not where one goes for content disputes. That would be the article TP. O3000 (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page of the article is wating for Galassi. His obvious mistake is already explained there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

We'd be getting somewhere if Galassi were merely to confirm that their source was the Press Gazette at this point.El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please can we only allow the protection to expire once the discussion is resolved as people have mistaken whether it was resolved in the past. Very happy to allow it to be either wrong version in the intervening time. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As with nearly all of my full protections, the protected version is in place randomly. I will need to hear convincing arguments about reverting it while the article is fully-protected. El_C 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The crucial issue of disruptive behaviour here is not the reverting as such, but the fact that Galassi kept reverting (on 29 May, 30 May and 2 June [84]), when there already was quite incontrovertible evidence on the talkpage that his edit was misrepresenting the source (posted by R2 on 28 May [85]), plain for everyone to see, and Galassi did nothing to counter that observation or otherwise engage with the criticism. That makes his reverts disruptive, the other side's not so. I also note (again, as a few weeks ago) that Galassi has actually been under a strict revert limitation that includes an extra requirement for him to discuss and wait before every revert he makes. He seems to have routinely disregarded this restriction for years (see User talk:Galassi#Revert limitation for background).
Under these circumstances, I plan on imposing a lengthy block on Galassi shortly. I'm open to suggestions as to length or further conditions etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Addendum: Let me also add that, unlike some of my colleagues above, I find R2's behaviour in this dispute faultless. Contrary to a frequently-peddled myth, reverting in and of itself is not necessarily disruptive. In the face of stubborn unreasonableness and failure to engage in discussion, as displayed by Galassi here, reverting is, unfortunately, often unavoidable to protect encyclopedic integrity. Some people don't like to hear that there are such cases, but yes, in some edit-wars the faults are entirely on one side. This is one such case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have neither objections (to a block) nor suggestions (as to duration). I simply did not have enough time to investigate this with enough detail and my protection (and application of DS — if you think that was overkill, please feel free to undo) was intended to curtail immediate disruption to the article. Anyway, naturally, I welcome someone else stepping in and taking the lead on this. El_C 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Galassi's edits can be assumed to be a mistake under AGF so blocking them seems unreasonable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Galassi was caught in a good-faith error in understanding the source; that error was understandable and in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is, first, that he failed to correct this error, which he certainly would have if he had made an effort to engage with you and R2 on the talkpage (where things were laid out clearly enough for anybody to understand); and secondly, that this behaviour is part of a larger pattern that has been a problem with him for years, and that he was ignoring an existing arbitration enforcement sanction that was specifically designed to avoid exactly this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: FYI Galassi was under a 2011 Ukraine-related 1RR restriction, and of course the content he was reverting (the "materially misleading" violation "on 13 and 14 July 2014 which concerned the policies and actions of the Ukrainian Government towards the population of eastern Ukraine" [86]) was about RT's coverage of Ukraine, and there were also reverts at Ukrainians in March and April. Last block was for 48hrs in 2014, so the 2-month block duration is a bit surprising to me, but I think the block is within admin discretion in the circumstances. – Levivich 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

This issue was previously raised at ANI here on 10 May 2019 but it was archived with no action taken.

Since that discussion, further editors have raised issues with page moves, including @MYS77: here. Ortizesp said he would start using RM here, but he hasn't, and MYS77 had to raise the issue again with him here. Today I have had to revert another undiscussed page move involving the Rubén García Rey article.

Based on the above, given the number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted his page moves, and given the number of broken promises to stop, it is clear that Ortizesp lacks the competence to make page moves. As such, we need an indefinite topic ban from making any undiscussed page moves, and he can only nominate using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban: Ortizesp is not reaching any compromise when it comes to moving pages, and has not kept his promise of using RMs to raise opinions over the page moves. MYS77 ^✉ 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse TBAN with v. minor exception - repeated issues despite agreement otherwise seems to warrant a TBAN. I've spotted a few things in your edits that look like they will turn either into AfC drafts or articles. If this generates any 1-off redirects that should be fine, but otherwise it needs to cover all pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, an exception of moving from user space into mainsapce is fine. GiantSnowman 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply disagree that moving Rubén García Rey needed nomination from WP:RM. Rubén García Rey is simply not his common name, and all external links and references state that. Most of my moves follow this logic, and i believe are valid. Obviously you and MYS77 disagree with my moves, but they are generally uncontroversial. I haven't used WP:RM because I'm leaving those pages for later, for actual controversial moves. In case you guys haven't learnt, it is recommended to be bold - and not the other way around.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As @SMcCandlish: said at the last ANI, "Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial". The fact you still cannot see that is very concerning, and raises WP:CIR issues. GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• This runs the risk of going stale and being archived again, despite a clear problem. Can somebody please comment/close with implementation of the topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder comment to stop this being archived. GiantSnowman 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat made by editor who identifies as a lawyer

Can someone please let Quaerens-veritatem know that telling an editor (me) that my "attacks" (?) are "actionable libel" is unacceptable, particularly from an editor who identifies as a lawyer on their User page? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how much of a threat it was, but I have left them a note about the policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

However I think there may be other issues, their obsession with removing a wikilink seems odd and misplaced. They do have some attitude problems.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "actionable libel" comes from the statement made by Quaerens-veritatem with their edit here: "In my view, your unseemly, horrid, unnecessary, and bizarre attacks are so far beyond Wikipedia's standards as to need quashing through a minimum of blocking, if not actionable libel as folks know me by my online name." In this context, I would say that the "actionable libel" term used in the comment implies that it means or refers to libel that is legally actionable via a lawsuit. I don't believe that the user blatantly crossed the line and directly made a legal threat that's actionable beyond a warning (as of the time of this writing and assuming no other comments are made by the user that adds more NLT concerns), but the statement could definitely leave a chilling effect and be interpreted by some (if not many) to be intending to do this. I'll also leave a warning for this user regarding WP:NLT and set expectations with them that this not continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The diff of my warning message is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Request an immediate indefinite IBAN of Hijiri 88

I would like to get some help from the community and or administrators to get an IBAN in place for Hijiri 88. Hijiri has been following me, and harassing me, accusing me of copyright violations and now accuses me of racism. I do not follow this editor to harass - or stalk the editor’s articles and to vote against the editor's positions. I follow the editor only to defend myself. I do not revert the editors edits. I do not speak to the editor in my afd ivotes or comments, or in my edit summaries. This is a big encyclopedia - yet this editor cannot seem to resist following me, and stepping on my work here and now is casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling me a racist to other users. Last week I asked for a block or IBAN. Then Hijiri 88 said they were going offline and made some ridiculous comments about me on their talk page about me being a stalker (this is also WP:ASPERSIONS). The ANI I opened was closed with no result and after just two days Hijiri 88 came emboldened to immediately follow my edits and make claims about me being a racist. I want to apply for an immediate IBAN.

If I were able to deal with the editor Hijiri's bullying and unfounded accusations alone I would not bring it here to the community. As I pointed out in the last ANI I filed- Hijiri has a long history of this behavior.

Here are Hijiri 88’s follows of me for just one day June 3.

• Following me
• Following me
• Following me and speaking to me in edits
• Following me
• Following me

Here Hijiri is now claiming I am a racist WP:ASPERSIONS for my WWII reference on my user page which has zero to do with Hijiri. I am a former history teacher and I have made no mention of this editor. Accusing me of racism on another user's talk page And accusing me of racism on Hijiri's own talk page

I will need to apply for an IBAN until I get some relief from this editor's WP:FOLLOWING, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:HARASSMENT.

• Support as proposer" Lubbad85 (☎) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I fail to see how you are being "racist" by remembering the attack on Pearl Harbour, which was a sneak (unexpected)attack that came to the surprise of pretty much every nation at that time. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Oops I misread that. Better rescind this comment as I clearly have no idea what this is about. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 Petitioning a voter directly to change their vote doesn't seem right. Lubbad85 (☎) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Just gonna note that Lubbad has apparently been going around distributing barnstars to pretty much everyone involved in this and the previous ANI thread. I'm not going to publicly speculate on exactly what the motive for issuing mass thank-yous to everyone, regardless of how minimal their involvement in the thread has been, or which "side" they are on, except to say that it's pretty weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I say this as someone who's never interacted with either editor. I see Hijiri returning from Wikibreak and jumping into 4 more AfDs Lubbad85 participated in. Oldest / Longest / Kelly / Resistance with the opposite vote each time. There are many articles for deletion, why must Hijiri follow Lubbad85? starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Iridescent, Boing! said Zebedee, and Toa Nidhiki05: - what about these incidents? If Hijiri88 had a problem with Lubbad85, they could have attempted something like ANI. But here we have quite clear following. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

they could have attempted something like ANI I did. Lubbad was told to stop harassing me like he had been doing. He made a single bad-faith feint at "friendship" on my talk page before going right back to harassing me. He then opened an ANI thread and should have been hit with a boomerang for his harassment and personal attacks against me and other editors, but these were ignored because the copyvio (which was already at CCI and so, IMO, didn't need an ANI discussion) was taken as being more serious. After the ANI thread was closed and archived, he immediately went straight back to harassment and personal attacks (not just at me but also at other editors at the AFDs you link to -- at the 6.3 one he took a needless shot at Banner who had already withdrawn their nomination, and at the Gould one he repeatedly made bad-faith canvassing accusations and insinuated that Bearcat was a serial deletionist who was misrepresenting policy). There were already two ANI threads that failed to deal with this issue because of Lubbad's WP:IDHT attitude toward the advice of others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - so you took them to ANI on 16 May, but you still followed them on 3 June after you returned from Wikibreak. I don't see 6.3 as a shot at Banner, and even so, 5 others, including you, also commented later, 4 saying keep. Indeed, he shouldn't have commented on Bearcat at the Kelly AfD. So they may have had problematic responses in 1/4 AfDs in my view. Still, you followed them to all 4. starship.paint (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

At the "twins" and "marriages" AFDs Lubbad (and the other "keep" !votes) are arguing for the preservation of pretty blatant OR and SYNTH, and at Gould Lubbad not only argued that his insertion of trivia about how she was uncomfortable cursing on film when she was seven-ish made the article not just a list of films she was in, but said she wasn't "faking her notability", which is either speculating about the subject and her involvement in Wikipedia in a manner that arguably violates BLP, or is accusing the delete !votes of doing the same. I have no intention of arguing with you that I am in the right on the 6.3 article; that's for the AFD closer to decide, and I frankly don't care all that much one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I was party to that first ANI (where I agreed what they had said was a PA) and it did not say "stop harassing" anyone. The close was "stop bringing these petty disputes here" (And as you were the filer it was aimed at you).Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The close, as clearly indicated by the diff above, was "Stop doing that", which was directed at Lubbad, in reference to the blatant personal attack; it probably could have gone further and explicitly said something like "stop baiting Hijiri, and definitely don't stick a bunch of random jabs against the country he chooses to call home on your user page". Yeah, the demand that I no longer bring to ANI harassment and personal attacks like the one Lubbad made in mid-May, and like the ones he's been making in the past few days, did discourage me from opening more ANI threads about, for instance, the bizarre Pearl Harbor references; but it doesn't discount the fact that Lubbad was told to stop harassing me and he did not. Anyway, in the past year I think I've filed a total of three ANI reports on issues involving me (not including random trolls/socks/whatever I noticed and thought ANI was the best way to handle it) so one editor's opinion that I repeatedly bring every little "petty" dispute to ANI is just simply wrong on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The close said not to bring such trivialities to ANI,and for Lubbad85 to make no more comments of that kinds, it says nothing about harassment. Now maybe he has been warned not to harass you elsewhere, but not in that ANI. It says nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I responded to the first, inaccurate, draft of the above on your talk page, before noticing that you'd posted a more accurate accounting here. The above is basically a fair recounting, but it fails to take into account that the opinion that I have been bringing "every tiny little thing" to ANI simply is not backed up by the facts -- heck, it was noted further up by another user arguing against me that I should have used ANI to report the harassment, but frankly I've lost a lot of faith in ANI doing its job, and so have been just "bearing the cross" whenever something like this happens, and waiting for someone to notice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No it does not, as the point you made was it was telling someone not to harass you, which it does not (thus I take into account all relevant information, and just point out it was not quite as one sided as you imply). Maybe if you had reported them for harassment you might have got the response you did, rather then for PA's (when you did get the response you wanted, they were told not to do it). Indeed I find it odd that having raised a minor issue at ANI (and got the result you should have wanted) you claim there is no poi t in reporting a more serious matter. It is clear form this thread that you would have in fact got what you wanted, you just did not bother.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone reviewing this, have a good read of this thread before going any further. There's considerably more to this than meets the eye; as far as I can see, Hijiri88 spotted Lubbad85 engaging in cut-and-paste plagiarism, called them out on it, and Lubbad85 has spent the subsequent two weeks trying to needle Hijiri88. ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban for Lubbad85. The copyright violations and the harassment against the editor who remove his violations(making false ANI reports) is enough to get him indeff banned. I don't this editor have made any good faith edits, all are copyright violations. I am not involved in this but I have seen enough of harassment against Hijiri and I think admins should step up and stop this nonsense.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Excuse me? I said nothing of the kind; what's this per Iridescent, I would definitely support indeff ban nonsense coming from? We don't indef people for being annoying, much as I'd love it if we could; I concur with those below in pleading with you to stop commenting on processes you don't understand as your attitude at ANI is just aggravating editors who are already upset. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Iridescent—I'm pretty sure SharabSalam meant they "oppose per Iridescent", not "support an indef per Iridescent". It's pretty common for people to misuse commas like this, and now we see why punctuation matters. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• And the diffs links aka "following me" drama, are laughable. ADF discussions. XDDDDDDDDDDDDD. "Following me and speaking to me in edits" wow that's awful, speaking to you in edits??!! How awful-- SharabSalam (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose after reading this thread, and suggest there might be bendy wooden things flying soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: what are we supposed to infer from the thread you link? It's old, in any case, dating to before the previous ANI report, which was closed without action. I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Mainly that we've seen a very poor attitude from Lubbad85 towards Hijir88, that Lubbad85 responds poorly to civil critique of genuine (and serious) problems, and essentially that there's more backstory here than Lubbad85 is telling us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: My previous request for help at ANI was closed - and one of the reasons was because Hijiri88 claimed to taking a wikibreak and that was mentioned by the closing administrator as a reason to not go farther with the case. Regarding my own editing here on WP, there is no plagiarism... some accidental paraphrasing which has already been fixed. Hijiri88 has accused many editors of copyright violations as I pointed out in the last ANI - it is a useful weapon. None of this gives Hijiri88 the right to call me a racist. My request is for the community or administrators to see that this editor harasses me and then cries victim. In ANI last week Hijiri88 followed and reverted user eggroll97 after a vote in support of my request, and now Hijiri88 has petitioned user kingerikthesecond to change their vote. I am asking the community for protection. Calling me a racist without proof should be reason enough to enforce an IBAN. An IBAN does nothing to hurt the community or Wikipedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to bring me into this again. I already removed myself from this discussion as I misunderstood it entirely. My points are null; I am not in favour of a punishment towards you or Hijiri. I am going to sit on the fence again. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, and this should WP:BOOMERANG back at Lubbad85. This is verging on harassment of Hijiri88 at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 17:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—having read through this and the last one, and the discussion Iridescent links to, it's clear that this is just harassment. I don't know if Lubbad85 should be blocked or banned or anything, but there should be some sort of restriction on them bringing this back up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• A 2 way IBAN will not hurt anybody. No harm comes to Wikipedia from a two way IBAN. For my part I do not edit where Hijiri88 edits and I do not interact with the editor in any way. Regarding Hijiri88's claims that I am a copyright violator. The accusation was made by Hijiri88, and now it has stuck to me like glue. Editors have gone through all of my started articles and major contributions - as any other editor is welcome to do. The WP:following behavior started long before Hijiri88's claims of copyright violations. The WP:following by Hijiri88 began when I started helping the Article rescue Squad. As I pointed out in my only other request for help on this forum: Hijiri88 began following me and calling me out in comments, and edits and edit summaries, as soon as I began working with ARS. I ignored the editor until finally Hijiri88 was tendentious on a deletion review - I responded to the editor on the deletion review. Then Hijiri88 came to my talk page to extend their comments, and at that point (on my own talk page) I told Hijiri88 to "get out of the basement and take a walk". These were my first ever words to Hijiri88 after ignoring the editors tendentious editing, commenting and following. Hijiri88 took me to ANI for the comments on my talk page, and the item was speedy closed. Hijiri88 has had issues with other users on Article Rescue Squad. Most recently ARS contributor Dream Focus was granted an IBAN with this editor for the same reasons that I am asking for an IBAN: Hijiri88 accused Dream Focus of Copyvio and harassed and followed Dream focus. I became a target of Hijiri88 at the point that I started on Article Rescue Squad. In conclusion, like all of you here, I do not want to be harassed or to be accused of racism. I do not want to spend my time in here when I could be editing. I do not want to waste time on negativity. I want Hijiri88 to leave me alone, and for my part I will leave Hijiri88 alone. If a two way IBAN can accomplish this, I am all for it. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2-way IBAN. It is clear these two editors don't get along, and are intent on needling each other - I think there's a strong case that both have not acted well since the last ANI. Hijiri does seem to have followed Lubbad to the specific AfDs mentioned, given that all !votes were after Lubbad's and Hijiri did not visit any other AfDs on the day in question. But then again, the comment about Pearl Harbour on Lubbad's homepage seems to have been reasonably clearly targeted at Hijiri. These two just need to keep out of each other's way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 way IBAN This has been going on for almost a month now, with one or the other filing ANI's. In all fairness whilst (as far as I know) the initial attack was aimed at Hijiri88 it's also clear they have no backed of either. No harm can come from a 2 way (if wither user genuinely is not going to poke the other), and achieved the aim (I would hope) of ramping down the drama.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: One-Way IBAN

Something needs to be done, and it is User:Lubbad85 who is causing the disruption.

I propose, as the first, and what I recommend, alternative, which is a one-way interaction ban without the usual exceptions, so that User:Lubbad85 is absolutely banned from interacting or commenting on User:Hijiri88. This will allow Lubbad85 to continue editing as long as they stay clear of Hijiri88 and recognize that Hijiri88 and other editors take copyright seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• I do not communicate with Hijiri88. Not in my edits, not in edit summaries, not on afds, not on any talk pages, I do not talk with other users about Hijiri88. So a one way ban against me seems like an inappropriate application of IBAN. It is me who asks for an IBAN because the user speaks to me in all of those ways, and now accuses me of racism to others and in public. I do not have a long history here on WP, however my history does not show me to be an editor who requires IBAN - not in this case, nor any other. I ask the administrators to close these two additional proposals and respond to my proposal regarding protection from Hijiri88's racism accusations Lubbad85 (☎) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) IBANS include opening ANI threads, and frankly we're all sick of the endless threads on Hijiri you keep starting. It also probably isn't the wisest idea to try to shut down proposals on a boomerang, but there's no explicit rule against it, so just know that ANI is a two-way street- you opening this thread opens you wide to criticism of your own behavior as well as Hijiri's. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support after all of this, it is now obvious that something should be done to stop Lubbad85 from doing what they are doing. They wasted Hijiri88 time and our time.--SharabSalam (talk)
• Support Per SharabSalam. This needs to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN; as worded, Lubbad85 wouldn't be able to respond if Hijiri88 were to request a WP:CCI, or nominate an article on which they've worked for deletion. I would have absolutely no issue with a broad "any more shit from you and you're no longer welcome" formal final warning; Assuming good faith is a fine policy, but it doesn't mean the rest of us should be expected to clean up messes indefinitely once it's been explained that something isn't acceptable. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't want my name to be mentioned on WP:RESTRICT. I have historically had one-way IBANs with two other editors -- one of them ended with a third party repeatedly claiming it was a two-way IBAN, and reading the singular "they" in the ban's wording as meaning an unrelated TBAN also applied to me, and me having to request the ban be lifted for that reason; the other ended with the banned party complaining how unfair the one-way IBAN was and it being upgraded to a two-way IBAN for basically no other reason. Also, IBANning Lubbad would not actually solve the problem (not just copyright, but also the habitual personal attacks and harassment of anyone who disagrees with him -- see what he's been doing to Bearcat on the Gould AFD), and would only make it easier for him to claim I'm "poking the bear" and making unfair actions to which he can't respond by not withdrawing my CCI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a no-exceptions IBAN, as per Iridescent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: BAN

If you don't like that, the alternative is a boomerang ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this was already suggest in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support indeff block per WP:DCV for copyright violations, the editor was warned about copyvio and he constantly reported Hijir who removed his copyvios claiming that Hijiri is harassing him see user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds. this was already suggest in here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding.. There was a consensus to actually sanction Lubbad85 for copyvio and boomerang. It was a mistake that the discussion was closed because Hijiri took a break. If the discussion continued there, Lubbad85 would have been sanctioned already.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Some type of action should probably be taken. Not sure if it should be an indef ban or just a limited amount of time but this user is harassing people and making serious breaches of policy on Wiki pages. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose None specific sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, assuming that, per the definition at WP:SBAN, Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban, and that a site ban is essentially indistinguishable from a community indef. As I said at last week's ANI thread, I would have supported a final warning that any more copyvio or revenge harassment would result in an indef block. This really should be the last straw. I would also not be opposed to this thread ending in a final warning (not a slap on the wrist like last time but "you're going to be blocked for a long time on your next infraction"), similar to Iridescent's "any more shit" comment above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this is getting beyond a joke. Lubbad85 clearly is a disruptive influence on the project, as I said in the previous thread copyvio is a very serious matter and continually bringing Hijiri88 here for having the temerity to call them out on it only doubles down on the probllem and exacerbates it. Site ban Lubbad85 ASAP, please. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as someone described it below, this vague, hand-waivy, "something something off with his head" ban. A site ban is way over the top. Begoon's advice below is excellent. Clear warnings identifying the problematic behavior, issued by an uninvolved experienced editor or admin, followed by closure of this whole thread, would probably be most helpful IMO. – Levivich 03:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think either editor has conformed themselves to a high standard since the last ANI was closed, and I would support some sort of block for both of them, but, CCI report aside as that's serous and justified, I think the project would be better off at this point if the two editors involved can just agree to stop antagonising each other and wasting our time here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it's not clear what sort of ban individual people are supporting here and there's a general feel of "I support something but I don't know what". It was clarified below by the proposer, but obfuscated again by the "But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction..." addition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Editor gets caught violating CCI by second editor and files a retaliatory ANI report full of bunkum as revenge." That pretty well sums up the previous ANI thread, and if things ended there, warnings and "let's do better" closures would be fine. But Lubbad85 has a stick, won't drop it, and is trying to use ANI to bash Hijiri for expecting Lubbad85 to adhere to really basic and significant rules of editing. I don't see how a boomerang isn't justified. Grandpallama (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  You don't see how a community site ban isn't justified for an editor who has never been (as far as I can tell) blocked, sanctioned, or even formally warned? Let me give you one potential reason why that's not justified: because we should try something less than the ultimate sanction as a first step. – Levivich 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I see how someone who has been on Wikipedia for barely seven months is quick to lecture others and discuss the community as if he were a longstanding part of it. I also see how a problematic editor here has engaged in copyright infringement, reacted largely in a very poor manner to being caught, and has repeatedly tried to get the person who caught him "in trouble" by filing numerous reports, which is fundamental bad faith and a serious misuse of these boards that goes beyond the initial CCI issue. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Those might be reasons to issue a warning, or an IBAN, or maybe a TBAN, but a site ban, for someone who's never been sanctioned or even formally warned before, is way over the top. – Levivich 18:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing over the top for someone who violates copyright. Grandpallama (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the proposal based solely on the interaction between the two. Now there may be other reasons for banning Lubbad (e.g. I am seeing comments in this section alleging any or all of WP:CCI, WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE on their part; but those are topics to be tackled elsewhere, and I am not commenting on them here). But on the interaction itself, IMHO I see two parties who don't get along and seem intent on trying to wind each other up through oblique references on user talk pages and other prickly comments. But not to the point of warranting punitive action. That's why I recommend an IBAN which would ensure they can both continue to contribute without reference to the other, and be quickly blocked if one or other does infringe again.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd say the ban should not be indefinite. Maybe six months instead? Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Something has to be done, and a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions isn't strong enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have never been in trouble on Wikipedia, and I came here because there was not a resolution last week. My perception was that I still had a problem with the other editor following me. The issue I brought to this ANI is an issue between two editors. I came to ANI because it was the only available process, as I knew it. I did not intend to offend anyone here on ANI. I love to contribute to Wikipedia and I only want to be left to do that in peace. I have a long productive history on Wikipedia. This experience however, has been mind numbing and stomach turning for me. Reading through this ANI board, it seems many complaints often wind up with no consensus and a frustrated administrator who has to weed through the threads.

Here are some guarantees regarding my own behavior which I can make going forward:

1. I will not perpetuate the problems or the controversies submitted on this ANI.
2. I will treat ANI regarding the other editor as off limits, My only request is that I am not followed by the other editor.
3. I will not respond to the other editor and I will not interact with the other editor.
4. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were copyright violations in the past: it will not happen in the future.

In conclusion, the goal of ANI should be to solve a problem (and it has for my part). If discipline should be required it should be progressive and corrective, not punitive and destructive. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia together and we should ask how a resolution on ANI will contribute to that mission. I hope to work with you all in the future under better circumstances.

I am interested in fixing the problem, not fixing the blame. To that end: A dual IBAN is acceptable to me because it likely fixes the problem between me and the other editor. I sincerely apologize to all concerned, including Hijirii88. 02:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Lubbad85 (☎)

• Oppose - definitely, the wrongdoing as presented here isn't at a level to warrant an immediate site ban, the harshest punishment out there. In this case, escalation is warranted. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In no way is this merited. Would the person who proposed this please sign the proposal? Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3:One-Way IBAN with Usual Exceptions

Something has to be done. I think a one-way interaction ban with the usual exceptions may be gamed, but we need to do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This proposal is that User:Lubbad85 be banned from interacting with User:Hijiri88. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: - it's likely you're referring to Lubbad… you should explicitly say so. starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  My omission. Thank you for calling it to our attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing sufficient to warrant this has been provided or demonstrated. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thread discussion

• I have no idea what kind of "ban" is being proposed. A limited block? An indefinite block? A community ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I meant a community-imposed site ban. But I am interested in any lesser type of restriction that will at least stop Lubbad85 from filing these stupid reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nor me. Could be any of those things, including a topic ban. Anyone? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• It says boomerang ban. I don't know maybe ban from reporting to this ANI. Or for the copyright violations. I don't know what type of bans that a copyright violator deserve see this discussion user_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  So you support it but you don't know what it is? -- Begoon 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support a boomerang ban, I don't know how that sanction is imposed but I believe the ban should be applied because it is boomerang. It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction. Whether it is 72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc that's something up to the admins.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ok. "the ban should be applied because it is boomerang", but you don't know what ban (or what one is, really) and "It wouldn't matter what is the type of the sanction". It's an opinion, I guess. Not one I understand, but an opinion, nevertheless. -- Begoon 18:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• "72 hours or 24 hours or indeff etc" are not bans - if you don't know what a ban is, you should not be supporting one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well I thought that a 72 hours is a ban. So I am now puzzled. I think there should be a suitable sanction for all of these reports and the waste of time and copyright violations. Whatever that sanction is. I said 72 hours blocked. Maybe topic banned from this notice board. Or indeff block for copyright violation. In any case I support, just to stop this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• 72 hours is a block, not a ban (or, at least, a 72 hour ban from something would be stupid). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Something something off with his head. 2001:4898:80E8:8:3A83:2DCD:7473:53F2 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means... Support. -- Begoon 18:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It means there's a quick race to block, any block, by SharabSalam. That is concerning. 2001:4898:80E8:A:C648:CDEE:794:B9B7 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I do know what is WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know the sanction against it. I am not really familier with these policies. I supported when I saw WP:BOOMERANG ban.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What is WP:BOOMERANG, as you understand it? And how are you specifically "applying" it here to reach a "ban but I don't know what ban (or what one is)" conclusion? -- Begoon 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That an editor is making a report when it's him who should be reported and the sanction will turn against him. In my support vote I said the editor should be sanctioned for copyright violations and for constantly making reports against the same editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You said. "I do know what is WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know the sanction against it.". That doesn't make any sense. WP:BOOMERANG isn't an offense, it's a description of a common outcome and a reminder that all behaviour will be considered - including a filer's, so how can there be a "sanction against it" (and what is "it") ? -- Begoon 19:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the vote for better.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You also said: "I am not really familier with these policies". Given that, do you really think it is a good idea for you to be supporting sanctions on editors? I wonder if you might consider that easing off on your recent, heavy participation at these boards until you are familiar with policy would be a good idea? -- Begoon 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I made the vote with a good faith. I read what that policy says and I thought the editor deserve it. I just didn't know what is the suitable sanction. Anyway this discussion is time-sinking and it might make editors not see the survey. I am here to learn about these policies as stated in my userpage. I have been here when the editor made his first report, I saw all of what was happening between them. I knew that the editor who made the report should be sanctioned and then again another report today and again with completely baseless accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So "no"? Fair enough. Now, please go back to your vote and use strike-through to make it clear what the original comment was, and where you altered it, and never change comments that have been discussed or replied to. Thank you. -- Begoon 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the strike-through. Now, I really would be grateful if you'd consider the advice I gave above. There are a couple of reasons. One is that comments on this board have the potential to influence the ability of other editors to edit this site, so commenting here is a serious thing that requires knowledge and experience. When you comment from an ill-informed position it is detrimental to the fair and policy-based discussions and decisions that need to be made here. The second is that if you do this a lot it reflects badly on you, and this board is highly visible. I know you have the best of intentions, but the impression you make on others can be lasting, and it would be a shame if that was a poor impression. Sorry if you found any of this harsh - my genuine intention is to help you. -- Begoon 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That I don't know all of the banning and sanctioning policies doesn't mean I shouldn't be here. I would be here voting what I see right. The above vote was corrected. everyone make mistakes, and the rationale of my vote is still the same which is copyright violations. I just didn't know what would the sanction be. That isn't a good reason for me not to be here. Just because I made a wrong comment. Thats asinine. I have made a lot of contributions here. Made a lot of good votes. Now I should be kicked out because of that small issue?. Also it's just these days I am active in this notice board mainly because I am fasting and I wanted to waste my time with something that is effortless.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, please listen to what Begoon is telling you, before you get yourself in trouble. The very fact that you're talking about "voting" shows you don't understand the purpose of ANI. We're neither an electorate nor a judiciary, and we don't do votes, we discuss whether people have violated policies and if so how that violation can be prevented in future. If you don't know the policy on which you're commenting, then by definition we don't care about your opinion on this board. That's certainly not to say that your opinion isn't valuable elsewhere, but ultimately this is the administrators' noticeboard, and uninformed commentary just disrupts us trying to do our job. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, anyway, it's already the end of my fasting but I am interested in this particular case. Editors like Lubbad85 should probably get banned for this type of behaviour. Constantly reporting an editor and harassing them. I have sent to Hijiri wikilove for deleting reverting his copyvios. This is the only case I will be participating in.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I received this message on my talk page. I do not appreciate such a direct message from the subject of an AN/I thread and and feel that it is entirely inappropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Both users have been posting comments on users talk pages about this ANI. I am not sure either party is exactly whiter then Gabriels knickers here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I messaged you because you made an inaccurate statement above, which implied you had misunderstood the nature of the dispute, and then blanked your own message -- would you have preferred that I restored your message in order to respond to it? The circumstances of me messaging Erik are similar: he owned up to his mistake and struck his comment. That's about it on my end; Lubbad has been systematically messaging everyone.

BTW, anyone considering taking Lubbad's requests for friendship seriously really needs to read up on what happened when he tried to pull the same thing on my talk page: I accepted, offered him friendly advice on how to be a better Wikipedian, he pretended to listen to my advice, and then two days later showed back up and started complaining that I hadn't stopped sweeping his edits for the copyvio he was still engaging in despite my advice.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm so you contact two users who had expressed doubts about your actions, in order to correct them. And Lubbad contacts everyone (regardless of what they said).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85 posted a star on my talk page as well, but not as specifically as on Nick Thorne's, though I don't consider the post on my own talk page inappropriate as I did go through to fix any copyright edits they had introduced, see [87]. However, the post along with the fact that Lubbad85 claims "I am not a copyright violator" on Nick Thorne's talk page extremely concerns me, as I looked through the articles they created and the vast majority of them had at least one potential copyright issue, along with some blatant copy-pastes which I fixed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree something needs to be done, but its clear that solo sanctions for lubbard is not going to swing it. The only thing I can see passing is the Two way IBAN, and continuing to try and find a way to sanction Lubbard alone is just dragging this out without getting anywhere. I think either this needs to be closed now as no action or the Two way is put in place, and we see where it goes from there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 behaviour

Charles01 condescending and bully-esque attuide towards me

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me.

Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content:

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [88]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [89]

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [90]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [91]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [92] [93] His reply to the template message [94]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [95]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [96] [97]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [98]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [99] [100]

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [101] [102] [103]

The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me.

I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference falsification at Cantonese

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

---

Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) believes that Cantonese has over 100 million speakers, but instead of finding a sourced figure, continues to replace a figure that has a supporting source, thus misrepresenting the cited source. I would like them to stop doing that. Kanguole 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

He seems to revert every day or two. I've edit-confirm protected the page for four days, in the hopes that that will bring him to the Talk: page (or here) to discuss this. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify that that is extended-confirmed. I've no idea if the two are usually synonymous, I just went to look for my own clarification. Nosebagbear (talk)

I dropped him a bit of advice, perhaps they'll listen to a fellow Cantonese speaker. Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Nationalism, nationalistic sentiment, lack of neutrality, lack of response

• Stan Tincon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) utilizes pro-German nationalistic (Wikipedia:Nationalist editing) sentiment and exaggeration on articles related to Poland and its history. Disrupts all Polish articles linked to Germany, lots of mistakes and somewhat anti-Polish sentiment which can be clarified by the highly un-neutral and controversial tone when adding irrelevant information on cities or towns that are part of the Recovered territories. This has been going on for weeks or months perhaps. I posted an answer on the user's talk page, however, it was completely ignored. User:Mike Winowicz has also noticed this action and also posted a message on Stan Tincon's page but no again no answer was provided. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Stan Tincon has misunderstood the meaning of Wikipedia and turned it into a political and controversial tool to misinform users. By adding singular secondary sources, the user exaggerates, blames and adds biased information. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Stan Tincon has incorporated personal lengthy opinions instead of well-sourced factual sentences. In every single alteration nationalist editing is clearly present, which suggests that the user's permanent role on Wikipedia is to continue this conduct. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs please.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Elbląg - 0 Not true; personal opinion. I explained why on Stan Tincons's talk page.
• Malbork - 1 No source given. Apart from resettlement and language change to signs the castle was reconstructed.
• Dobre Miasto - 2 Is this addition necessary?
• Krosno Odrzańskie - 3 Exaggeration and strange language.
• Kołobrzeg - 4 No source. Contradicts to Slavic settlement.
• Szczecinek - 5 Not neutral. Hasn't explored why Germans were expelled nor who has conducted this. Suggests Poles stole property, if so a source needed.
• Jelenia Góra - 6 Poor grammar, punctuation. Obviously does not care how the information is written as long as it is there. The source seems unreliable; no page given nor link to the published source.
• Masurian Lake District - 7 Ceded per Potsdam Agreement, not just annexed and kicked out.
• Gryfów Śląski - 8 Again the same unnecessary exaggeration about being "settled for centuries".
• Warmia - 9 Per Potsdam Conference borders were redrawn. I don't know anything any peace conference and no source provided.
• Świebodzice - 10 Personal misleading opinion. Suggests Poland was complicit in redrawing the borders without a source.
• Poznań - 11 So he describes Poles as settlers after border changes in World War II, but the Germans that came to settle in Poznań after it was annexed by Prussia in the 18th-century were normal ordinary citizens. There is a trace pro-German or anti-Polish sentiment entailed.

I think a warning is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I find many of these edits unobjectionable. For example, it is clearly correct to call the territorial changes between Germany and Poland after WWII "annexation" rather than "cession" (since Germany wasn't in any position to voluntarily "cede" anything at that point); it's also correct to not call people "settlers" after they and their ancestors had lived in a certain place for several centuries (as opposed to a new population group coming in after them). These are legitimate content disagreements, if anything. On the other hand, several of the additions have a WP:COATRACK tone to them, and insisting on the term "annexation" for the Polish-German territory shifts while at the same time changing "annexed" to "reattached" for the Polish-Soviet shifts reeks of tendentiousness. Also, for a newish contributor with a couple hundred edits to be focussing entirely on edits of this kind is something of a warning sign, so I do agree he needs to be advised to dial it down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that a warning will be sufficient enough; the user was already informed and he continues to edit only the articles that have to do with war or repressions against Germans, or former German territories. This has been going on for months and it seems the account was created for that purpose. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Oliszydlowski, you forgot to notify Stan of this thread, which you were required to do. I'm doing this now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding false information to articles

Last month user:Forest90 was adding false information to international politics-related articles. It looks like he's at it again (replacing "Iraqi" with "Baathist", which is not supported by the sources):

• [104]
• [105]
• [106]
• [107]

User was also previously warned to stop [108]. Alex-h (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's clearly wrong, but it's been two days and they haven't reverted back to it. El_C 23:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand why @Alex-h: make everything's personal? I tried to improve some article in wikipedia but it's look like @Alex-h: don't like anybody comes here and work on article, specially the article that I have worked. I had a problem about using correct phrase with some user's. The Baathist and Saddam Hussein's Army is equal in many Article and book and sources. But I finally decided to use Iraqi Army as the sources said. So, in this discussion about using better word inside the Article, user Alex-h had never participated and I can't recognize why he/she trying to open for me a subject here and for solved problem??? It is not fair for daily problem and issue which happen for every user, start a fight here...Forest90 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - The reason that Alex-h created this discussion here about your edits to Operation Forty Stars is because the references cited in the article do not match what you're repeatedly changing the content to state. This is problematic, as your changes not only contradict the references that are already cited in the article, but your edits don't cite any references or sources at all to support your changes. Doing this repeatedly is disruptive, and if done repeatedly despite numerous warnings and requests asking you to stop - can lead to administrative action (usually blocks). Please assume good faith and don't jump to believing that Alex-h is doing this to be personal or to give you a hard time (unless you have diffs to show concrete evidence of this). Instead, you should continue to discuss the content-related matter with Alex-h on the article's talk page properly and respectfully, and come to an agreement. Until an agreement is made, please don't edit or revert the article and add the same content back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As you, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, can see, in article the user Alex-h never participated and he/she suddenly decided to create a subject here, he/she did this act before too. Is it usual? he didn't talk to me about article changes and suddenly comes here and open a subject to open a fight against me... Is really normal Wikipedia user act?!!! Because I have never seen a user like Alex-h. All his/her work against me is an emotional response, this user, if you go and see Article history, never participated in discussions or helped to improve the Article or something else, but he/she had a strong resume in many article and places in Wikipedia for fighting against another writer or editor or user. I hope you understand me, I tried to expand that Article and somebody frequently changing my work. First I think they tried to change facts, but after opening a new subject in Article talk page, I found that I was wrong and I changed my mind. But it's very weird that a outside user, without any comment in main subject, open a subject against me here. I hope the Administer group, see the Alex-h act as a vandal and punish him/her. I changed my viewpoint about Baathist and Iraqi army as the sources said (I added that sources and expanded the article), but I can't understand Alex-h role in this subject. He/she only make everything personal and quickly open a new subject here for what?Forest90 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - If Alex-h did not discuss this with you (either on the article's talk page or on your user talk page) at all before creating this ANI discussion, then yes - I would say that going straight to an ANI before doing so is premature. We always encourage and ask users to discuss issues and problems directly with the other(s) involved before coming here and after such discussions have shown to be to no avail. However, making accusations toward Alex-h about his actions being an "emotional response", him having a "strong resume in many article (sic) and places in Wikipedia for fighting against another writer or editor or user", and his edits being attempts to "change facts" - and without any kind of evidence, links, diffs, etc is not acceptable to do. All accusations must supply sufficient evidence in order to support them. Alex-h, did you discuss this issue with Forest90 directly at all before coming here to create this ANI report? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, He never discussed me about this subject or last subject that he/she opened here. And this is not fair, I'm a Wikipedia user, I'm not a newbi, I always tried to improve Wikipedia Article and I created some Article before. I saw many user in many sensitive subject, but this kind of behavior of Alex-h is really weird. He/she twice opened to subject directly here without any discussion in my talk page or the article talk page. If I make a mistake in any of my work or article, it's not personal or I do this for my pleasure. It's only a mistake, when an user didn't say why deleting my work, I will revert it (because I don't know why he/she did that and I consider it as vandal), but many of my mistake or other user mistake solved after they discussed about that, as you can see I didn't revert the Article word to Baathist after had heard the other user (who frequently deleted my work and didn't explain why) reasons. But I beg you, saw the Article history, please search about the last subject that Alex-h opened against me here, he never discussed me or speak out about that with me. He/She comes here and open a subject against me to persuade you to act against me or block me. I don't know, but it's obvious vandal against another user. That two user which were reverting my edit and I reverted their edit, never opened a subject in article talk page to explain their reason for their revert, finally I opened and after discussion I found their right and I have not revert the Iraqi Army to Baathist since 3 days ago. But Alex-h wasn't there, never commented there, directly comes here and opened a subject against me. It's completely unfair.Forest90 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last month I noticed Forest90 adding false information to articles about Middle East politics, a subject I edit on Wikipedia. The information Forest90 was adding was false and, at least to me, of slanderous nature. I brought this to ANI (which I wasn't sure was the right noticeboard for this at the time). Instead of accepting or repenting, Forest90 accused me of "personal attacks". This led to several editors explaining to Forest90 that adding false content to Wikipedia was not ok: [109] [110][111]

Now, I noticed Forest90 also adding false information to the Operations 40 Stars article, and saw that user:PersianFire had [112] warned him to stop, but Forest90 continued, so I didn't see a reason to pile on to PersianFire's warning. The user was aware that what he was doing was disruptive, and continued to do this repeatedly. Alex-h (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} can you Check out the Alex-h claim. I beg you. This is really vandalism. He/She attached four link in his/her claim, in non of them he/she never opened a subject in my talk page or article talk page, even he didn't participate in non of them, only directly comes here and open a fight against me. It's not Wikipedia way, I know. He used some of my discussion with other users to condemn me!!!! That's the correct way which I used, I opened a RFC in related article, because I taught for a well sourced subject should exist at least a paragraph inside the article, but the other users said no and I respected them and finished the discussion, it's a normal manner inside Wikipedia. Alex-h mentioned the user, PersianFire, discussed with me and I accepted this user reason, but before this discussion that I had created it, the user only removed my edit, and didn't explain why, it was his/her mistake that without any reason deleted my edit, finally I opened a subject in Article talk page to communicate them. If you look and think, you will see the Alex-h never participated on them, only comes here and open a fight against me, he/she comes to Wikipedia to see what I am doing or where I am speaking with another user, harshly comes here to open a fight against me and make it completely personal. I didn't open this subject But I ask you to consider my comment seriously and knock up the real vandalism user. When I'm working to write a new Article or thinking how to improve some article with adding phrase or sentences or paragraph or adding needed citation to article, Alex-h looking me to find a subject and comes here and open a fight against me, without speaking with me before. Please, I beg you to open All of links that Alex-h sent here, you will understand what am I saying. It's second time which this user trying to use another user emotion against me, and I have not understood why? But I hope you find me and let me to ask you see the Alex-h user as a Vandalism.Forest90 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, I forgot to say something. If you look, the user, Alex-h, pinned the other user who I discussed them inside the talk page of article, user:PersianFire, to invite him/her to comes here and comment against me. You Are the ADMIN, You can recognize who is real vandal and hurt Wikipedia. Thanks.Forest90 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - I need diff links, man... You can't just make accusations toward another editor and ask me to go searching through that editor's contributions in order to find what you're accusing him/her of... You need to provide links to the actual edits that support exactly what you're trying to say. What policies and guidelines have Alex-h violated? What diff links can you list that support your accusations? Keep it short and simple so that I can easily follow what you're saying... Else, I (as well as any other admin) won't be able to help you... If you're confused at all about what I'm asking you to provide, let me know and I'll be happy to explain. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC), what link should I give you. The Alex-h opened the fight subject, which I wasn't agree, if he don't like my article or my edit, or see I made a mistake in my edit, he should open a new subject and discuss me in my talk page or article talk page, not here. He/she inserted four link for his/her claim, look them, in non of them he/she never participated. He opened a fight here against me and inserted four link which show I spoke another user and accepted other user comment. NOW, it's me who should find diff link to show he/she never spoke with me about the subject. You find the Alex-h claim usual? He/she must spoke with me in my talk page or article talk page, not coming here and open a subject against me. If all another user do this and for every subject comes here and call you, is it correct one?! He/she inserted four link which show in non of them he participated and I spoke with other user and accept their comment and idea. So why am I here?!!! Where was Alex-h, the user who opened a fight against me if he bothered or was against my edit?!!!Forest90 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - If you're making accusations including the ones I quoted in my response above, then yes - you need to provide evidence for that. You obviously can't show diffs to support a lack of edits. :-) There are issues with what you're trying to say in rebuttal here... The argument you're making that Alex-h didn't edit the articles or pages involved in the diffs he provided in this ANI report doesn't matter at all and is completely irrelevant. Why would he have to do that in order to file a report here and express concerns to the community? That doesn't make sense. The other argument you're making that Alex-h didn't discuss these concerns with you directly first before creating this ANI, while discouraged (if this is true - Alex-h has said otherwise in a response above), doesn't automatically nullify the ANI report and cause it to close without a further look. We sometimes do this, but that's a judgment call by the patrolling or responding administrator and it's made on a case-by-case basis... Yes, I understand that it's frustrating to suddenly see an ANI discussion created about you and while feeling that you weren't talked to first. I get that... really, I do! But we need to move past these arguments and talk about the issue itself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand you, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, But I ask you How can I provide a diff link to show the Alex-h didn't talk to me in my talk page or article talk page when it's never exist?He/she claimed I edited and added false information and given you four link, which you open them you will find I had started a RFC in a talk page and finally accepted other user comment. The only claim that I say against Alex-h is the user who should noticed for vandal is Alex-h not me, because He/she must talk about my edit or article in my talk page or article talk page, but he/she open a subject here, give you some link that you can find for every other user in Wikipedia and call me vandalism or some body who try to insert false information inside Wiki Article. He open a subject against me here for second time, maybe he/she like to open against all of my work a new subject here. I typed here near one or two Article length, without doing anything, and now asking you stop this user, Alex-h, maybe he decided to open a new subject against me every month. It's not fair I come here and explain you that I didn't do anything or vandalism and he/she seat there and watch me. It's not fair. I don't have any link against Alex-h or I didn't try to accusing him/her, I just said this user act for opening a subject here against me is more look like vandal not my act that added some information or started a RFC.Forest90 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h, Forest90 - Now that you're both here, why don't you two take this discussion to another place and sort this out between yourselves? Forest90 feels that he wasn't contacted first before this ANI report was filed, and I believe that Alex-h just wants to resolve this matter and for the issues and problems to stop. I think that this is the perfect stopping point for continuing the discussion here, and the perfect opportunity to move this to a relevant talk page. Where do you two want to continue this discussion? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I always ready to speak with other user about my work and edit or my mistake. This is Alex-h who open a subject here. I respect you admin, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, but I'm not sure it's work, because if Alex-H wanted to speak with me, he/she did it. It's second times he comes here to solve some usual problems in a weird manner. I was hoping this time you do something that stop this kind of Alex-h act against me or other user...I always ready for negotiations with another user and Always accept my fault. Thank you Admin.Forest90 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - Let's not hold grudges or doubt against Alex-h and assume that he'll do what's asked here (unless he has reasons against it, which he would add in a response here). Talk this over with Alex-h, find a location to discuss this matter that works for the both of you, and work together to resolve this in a civil matter and without any negative assumptions or grudges about the past. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK,Thanks ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}.Forest90 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last time Forest90 spinned his adding false information to Wikipedia into it being a "personal attack" against him, and it worked for him, so is doing the same thing here again. Nevermind he falsely represented the sources repeatedly, that's surely not the problem here. Alex-h (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h - Try and discuss the issues and work things out with Forest90 as I suggested. If things don't come to a resolution and if Forest90 continues repeatedly making the same edits with issues after this discussion attempt, let one of us know and we can take action from there. I'm trying to suggest a solution that is mutually acceptable to both of so that we can at least try to work together and toward helping Forest90 to stop making the problematic edits you described in this discussion. Can you try and do this? Please? So that there's no room for push-back if the issues continue? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have seen Forest and tried to help him with spelling and grammar. I can say he is editting in good faith. Alex made this report without discussing the issue with him in the talk page or in his talk page. If Alex-h made a similar report again I would suggest a one way IBAN for Alex per WP:Boomerang.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, that's not gonna happen. Good faith is not a license to edit in a manner that is disruptive or incompetent. There was already another Incidents report (archive) about this user's subpar editing. Hopefully, this one will resonate. El_C 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, your suggestion is wayyyy far off as El C said above... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Obsessive SPA on a Hulk crusade

The user User:Hhggtg3279 has been here for 48 hours and has made 50ish edits and counting. They are a single purpose account focusing on the article The Incredible Hulk (film). Their goal is to prove that the actor Edward Norton, who portrayed Bruce Banner in the film, also portrayed Banner’s alter ego the Hulk. They added it to the article three times, plus probably another four times while logged out. After I protected the article they took to the article talk page (as well as my talk page). They posted dozens of notes proposing sources which they said proved their point. Their sources were either nonreliable or did not say that Norton portrayed the Hulk, or both.

I warned them yesterday, on their talk page and the article talk page, that their obsession was becoming disruptive. Their response was to continue trying to prove their point, posting another seven notes at the article talk page. IMO at this point they have exhausted Wikipedia’s patience. I am not advising any particular action because I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't make that editor angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry. Dumuzid (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I needed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think you're involved and would invite you to take action as you see fit. El_C 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But since I have discussed content with them, I do feel involved and would like someone else to handle it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I gave the user some words of advise. If they continue to act as if this issue is their raison d'être, then perhaps some sanctions would be due. El_C 03:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but let's not close this just yet. Let's wait and see how they react. They've been advised before. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what the user does since the warnings and notes have been left on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's very likely that any post-2012 sources that say Norton portrayed the Hulk are confusing Norton's Hulk with the supposedly-sharing-continuity-but-otherwise-completely-unrelated character portrayed by Mark Ruffalo. The Incredible hulk is a relatively obscure film (and appears to have been a box office disappointment) that is most notable for a Robert Downey, Jr. cameo kinda-sorta tying it in to another film that was released the same year and virtually nothing else connecting it to the later "MCU" films. I can totally imagine unreliable fan sources just forgetting about it and getting it confused with the more notable Avengers and Thor films in which the character appeared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are overplaying any disassociation of this film from the rest of the MCU. We've seen William Hurt's Thunderbolt Ross in three further MCU films. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't wanna say it in advance of someone making that comment, but I figured someone might. He's essentially a completely different character. As far as could be gleaned from the films themselves, the two might as well be twin brothers who share a surname and a face. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

IMDB lists Lou Ferrigno as the voice of the Hulk in this film. I therefore choose to believe it exists in the same cinematic universe as the 2009 film "I Love You, Man." Now please imagine the sad piano line from the television series while I log off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the most sensible ANI comment I've seen in months. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Absurd case of citation bombing by Pr12402 over the last month

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

---

Note: this was originally reported on WP:CCLEAN.

On and off since 2017, Pr12402 has been citation bombing (WP:REFBOMB) a handful of articles to a height of absurdity I've never seen. Single sentences have up to 30 citations apiece, and this article about a Belarusian band has 327 citations, almost 50 more than the article on the American Civil War. It's almost surreal how bloated the citations in these articles are. See also: Cyruĺnia Svietu; Gentleman (Hair Peace Salon album); Open Space (band); Bristeil; beZ bileta. I was going to speak to this user myself, but I feel something like this warrants an intervention from an administrator. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 - I don't see anywhere on Pr12402's user talk page where anyone has attempted to notify them or even educate them in good faith about over-adding citations to articles where their placement aren't trivial, relevant, or useful. I see one warning left for this user in January 2019 about overlinking, but that's completely different from "reference bombing." I think we need to start at square one here: We need to assume good faith on the user's part (I'm sure that he/she believes that their edits adding references are helping; any user doing this would...) and talk to them about their edits, and try to educate the user in a positive and encouraging manner. Just leave them a custom note and help them out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a nice word may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pr12402 (talk · contribs)'s reaction to the problem of refbombing Hair Peace Salon was to offer more refs (Special:Diff/872893540 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon). This needs more than a nice word. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Most experienced editor did unknown reason revert my expand with reliable sources

I've expand this article Y-Zet and added issues with reliable soures; but most experienced editor WikiAviator; did unknown reason revert i added infos (reliable sources proved) and did edit wars. See Talk:Y-Zet and Check source [113] Princess of Myadaung (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}} to both editors. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, three reverts without an explanation is problematic. WikiAviator should be explaining the reason behind their reverts. I'm not sure the uw-disruptive2 they left at the IPs talk page counts as sufficient explanation. The expanded section is not ideal, either, but some guidance is to be expected as to any correction or removal. El_C 12:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I already give reasons in edit summary. And User Slatersteven also did reverted without reason. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd, you a user objects to your addition you have to make a case for reinsertion, you do not just reinsert.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The user need to explain why they reverted, in the first place. El_C 12:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be good practice yes. But you still should not just reinsert. As others have said, this is two users not playing the game.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in theory, they should have gone to Wikiaviator's talk page and asked: "why did you revert me? — why did you place the uw-disruptive2 template on my talk page? Sure, that would have been ideal. El_C 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Restore my expand or not?. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This is about user conduct, not the validity of your edits (or theirs).Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

What is up with all these unexplained reverts? El_C 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I did give an explanation [[114]] "if it is reverted you do not reinsert it.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not an explanation. El_C 12:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Its not? How is telling them you should not reinsert contested information not an explanation of why I reverted?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Because the original reverts remain unexplained. El_C 12:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SlaterstevenPlease see the talk page of the other involved user for the detailed reason of reverts.WikiAviator (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

He nominate AFD for the singer; i don't understand; the singer is clearly meets WP:NMUSICIAN... and sources are very reliable from Myanmar strong media. easily pass WP:GNG. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot comment on why another user might have reverted, only on why I reverted. Thus my edit summery explained why I was reverting contested material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

But you don't know why it's contested, yet you feel confident to revert it on that basis? Okay...? El_C 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on the talk page, I could not see why it was inserted in the first place As I say below, I could see why I would object to it. The fact it was being edit warred back in (however) was for me the main issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm at a loss here. User expands the article, then they are reverted without an explanation save for uw-disruptive2 — then there's an edit war during which at no time is an explanation offered as to the revert. Am I the only one who is finding this a bit puzzling? El_C 12:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm finding it puzzling that an editor who's been here 3 hours is citing WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:GNG, and bringing cases to WP:ANI. Not their first visit to the dance floor I think. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

They were editing as an IP beforehand. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiAviator, what do you mean Changing the wording without community consensus — it was a bold expansion. What specific fault did you find with it? El_C 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair I agree, I cannot see a real explanation of why it was removed (I can see a reason why I would remove it). But it does not alter the fact that the onus is on the person wishing to include to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not if they don't know what they are arguing against! El_C 12:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Second. The user reverted must provide an argument at least, using consensus as an excuse is basically saying "I don't like it but I don't have an argument/don't want to find one", as if we're discussing every change we make to an article, that's not how Wikipedia works. Viztor (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note, My expand or edit is not attack to the singer; i added facts base on per sources. it is not WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I know we aren't supposed to discuss content here, but anyway... part of the revert cycle seems to be that the article called "debut album Pyaw San Par" a "duet album", which the former IP wanted to change to "duo album" instead. Looking at the details of the album at myanmar music store, it seems as if it isn't a duet album, but a hybrid split album, with three collaborative tracks ("duets", if you like), 4 songs by Oasix without Y-Zet, and 4 songs by Y-Zet without Oasix. While "duo album" perhaps isn't the best monicker, I can certainly understand what the IP is trying to improve, as it isn't a "duet" album either (which brings to mind something like Duets (Frank Sinatra album) of Forever Cool). Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If you check the talk page it seems to be about the killings at the concert more then anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

After looking at these edits, I am also at a loss here:

1. The first edit corrected grammar (e.g. changing "collaborations" to "collaborating", removing an unnecessary "to" and "that song") which is objectively an improvement.
2. The second edit added sourced content about a brawl at one of the subject's concerts that led to a death (and changed "duet" to "duo", explained by Fram above, and added a detail about the subject's education "at the second year"). No comment on the content issue of whether that should stay or go, but it's clearly the addition of sourced content (sourced to Coconuts Media and The Irrawaddy), plus wording clarifications, which are at least possibly an improvement.
3. The third edit moved a source from one paragraph to another paragraph, in an obvious improvement to text-source integrity.

WikiAviator's explanation for reverting, posted after making three reversions in 24hrs (3RR), was The edit is not relevent because this is just an unneccesary change of wording, which is not constructive. These uneccessary changes are disruptive. This explanation does not appear to be substantiated by the edits, nor do the multiple warnings posted on Princess of Myadaung's talk page appear to be justified. – Levivich 17:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please restore this article while it is at AfD...

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

---

Could someone please restore William Cussans while it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cussans? I'm not going to argue with this editor... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae - You did not notify Cygnis insignis about this ANI discussion you created. I left a notification on his user talk page for you. Just remember to do this next time, okay? ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I was hoping that this was going to be a quick housekeeping action rather than an extended exercise (i.e., I was trying to avoid "a discussion about an editor") - but you are right, I probably should have. Sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Which one, I removed the redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Which leaves us with a blanked page with an AfD banner; just as undesirable as a cross-space redirect. The article should have been left in place until that AfD was finished. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorted by Oswah, thanks; restored AfD banner. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I should point out I did not remove the article, just the redirect. The article content was cut and pasted to user space.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware, sorry if this was unclear - just thought it wasn't a good solution to the original C&P. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept it was not the best solution. I have never been confident with doing page moves, and was not sure if a cut and paste would work. But I did know that a back door AFD avoidance like that should not be permitted (and that is how I see it, move the article to user pace and keep a redirect in main space). It does not help I find the user...trying at times.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was moved from the mainspace to Cygnis insignis' user space, then somebody tried to make a copy of the article's content and paste it to the article's original location after it was moved. I performed a histmerge while moving the article back to its original location in order to resolve any issues created with the copy-and-paste attempt. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would screw up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven - No big deal. It's all fixed; nothing to worry about. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've moved the article and talk page back to the main space and under its original title while the AFD discussion is open and ongoing. Both pages are also move protected for one week. I've also left the user a note on their user talk page here regarding the page move they made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD and deleted the article. Quite apart from the fact it almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion per A7 and it's copied verbatim from a book, it's snowing already and there's no point in wasting anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Sandbox Fixation Sonicfan200530/JohnSmith13345

I have concerns about the fixation editors User:Sonicfan200530 and User:JohnSmith13345 have with the sandbox. You may remember that Sonicfan200530 had an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post a few days ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009) complaining about vandalism in the Sandbox. This seemed unusual to me as the point of the Sandbox is to test edits and nothing placed there remains for long. I observed their edit history and JohnSmith13345 who appear to be regulars and both have the majority of their edits in the Sandbox, multiple times edit-warring over changes. Neither editor, JohnSmith13345 especially, have extensive edits outside of the Sandbox. I have no proof, but the interactions between the two editors seems to indicate that they know each other in real life, and perhaps are younger editors. I posted a request on Sonicfan200530's talk page to not try to police the Sandbox and got my comment changed to "Harassment" and then reverted. I am not the only one with concerns, as User:Ponyo and User:Davey2010 have also tried to talk to Sonicfan200530 and have been met with hostility and claims of vandalism. I do not have a sanction request in mind, only that this behavior have more eyes on it and maybe somebody could mentor them. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was just crafting another message to Sonicfan200530 when I received this notification. They continue to blank editors and bots in the sandbox almost exclusively to any other edits that actually serve to improve the encyclopedia. At first glance I thought that they were perhaps making the bizarre edits to game EC-protection, but their responses to concerns raised regarding their edits lead me to believe this is more of a CIR issue.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not physically know any Wikipedians in the real world, nor do I have any personal connections with any Wikipedians. I cannot make any statements about User:Sonicfan200530. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've indeffed Sonicfan200530 as NOTHERE. I already told them in the last ANI thread to stop doing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Was just to support this with diffs etc but no need now, Many thanks Bbb23 for doing the honours & thanks 2001 for the ping.. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt response @Bbb23: but I would also look at JohnSmith13345's edits, as they are almost entirely on the sandbox as well. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you see any similarity to Sonic's edits? After all, editors do edit the sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise I would have not brought it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&dir=prev&offset=20190603131138&target=JohnSmith13345 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&offset=20190603131406&target=JohnSmith13345 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&offset=20190524114235&target=JohnSmith13345 I do not know how to look at the percentage of edits an editor edits a particular page but it appears to be the majority. If you do not feel it is actionable, I will not object. I am just concerned. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't show any similarity in their edits. I already know that they both edit the sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, I will not continue this. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This is strictly coincidental and I have absolutely no affiliation with Sonicfan200530. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:WikiUni - WP:CIR issue?

WikiUni (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since 2009, but apparently still doesn't understand its rules, especially around WP:COPYVIO and non-free images. WikiUni's talk page is a giant wall of warnings, which would have been much longer, had WikiUni not deleted many warnings:[115][116][117][118][119]. WikiUni may have also edited as 112.201.85.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); WikiUni deleted similar warnings from that IP's talkpage:[120] WikiUni was blocked for non-free uploads in 2010. Today, WikiUni created an article that had to almost immediately be moved back to Draft space. WikUni then recreated the article in main space. Both the draft and the article had to be purged of copyright violations, which were most of the article(s).[121][122]. WikUni has made perhaps a half-dozen talk page comments. I submit that WikiUni is a WP:CIR issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg - Wow... that's a lot of copyright warnings for one user to receive. I also see that this user was blocked back in 2010 for repeated copyright violations involving the uploading of non-free images. I believe that the best solution to this is to start holding WikiUni accountable for each violation of copyright that they add to Wikipedia from here on out, and beginning now. These are serious violations that have been ongoing for years; we just haven't been enforcing it with this user and with proper actions in response. Because of the numerous warnings this user has received in the past for copyright violations, I applied a 24 hour block to this account for their creation of Tiyanak (film) today that included text copied straight from external sources that were copyrighted. I think that from here on out, any further violations to Wikipedia's copyright policies should be met with longer blocks (24 hours - which I've applied now, then 72 hours, 1 week, 1 month?, indefinite). This user has had many opportunities to learn the policies, ask questions, and receive help. I'm absolutely willing to help the user if they ask; otherwise, we need to stick to strict enforcement with WikiUni moving forward and without any further warnings... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The second copy of the article appears to still be in mainspace? Should I just redirect it to the draft? (Sometimes I rescue these things, but I haven't the time right now to look for sources.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yngvadottir - Whoops! Forgot about that other article... Yes, please do! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Actresses" in "actors"

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

---

I apologize, is the mass replacement of "actresse" for "actor" approved? [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]

Earlier, I opposed a similar replacement at the request of a Third Opinion here User_talk:DalidaEditor#Dalida_actress/actor_revert. But I doubt the validity of my opinion because English is not my native language..--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't harm the encyclopaedia in any way; in English, a female actor is more likely to be called "actor" than "actress", though different national varieties of English may differ. It is not incorrect in any case. To me, that kind of systematic change doesn't seem to fill any function, but again, no harm done.

And it is not an administrator issue, since it's a content question, not a behavioural question. --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Nicoljaus! The word "actress" is typically associated with a person who self-identifies as a female, and "actor" is associated with those who self-identify as males... but I'm also getting into "gender identity territory" as well as "national varieties of English" territory, which I'm by no means perfect at - especially in specific areas like this ('actor' vs 'actress'). In fact, I'd trust Bonadea's response over mine... :-) See Wikpedia's manual of style sections for established norms regarding gender identity, gender-neutral language, and national varieties of English for more information. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Account compromised and User Should be checked clearly.

At first, to be frank, here this user [131] was last active in 2015 and he directly appeared on 2019 and try to delete Editor of Naya Patrika and tag undisclosed paid on Naya Patrika [132] like he knows everything after four years? and after that, he started to edit on the editor page of Naya Patrika [133] and then he moved a draft himself by thinking that he is moving it to namespace but moved to wiki talk page[134] than after that he/she himself put COI Tag and he again removed COI by telling that he doesn't know anything [135] than he moved vidfish five times [136][137][138] and you can see more on the history and again he voted delete and arguing another editor by telling him that Nepal News Network International is non-reliable to be on Wikipedia ? seriously? this is one of the oldest news portals of Nepal. Then again he was not stopped by that he started attacking more Nepalese journalist pages like Ganesh Dhungana , at first he proposed it for deletion [139] than after one editor removed prod he again put afd on it like he did on other many writers who are international from Nepal[140] I really thinks that this guy has some serious issues with Nepalese media network and reporter and I am amazed that he knows everything without being active on Wikipedia and appear after few years being inactive. so, we can directly see that the account is compromised and I request to review and block this account. Owlf 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The diff linked above shows that Justlettersandnumbers added the undiscolsed-paid tag, not Usedtobecool. If fact Usedtobecool removed the COI tag.

I am confused by Owlf's claim that Usedtobecool moved the page five times. I see one apparent misclick moving the page to WP namespace, and seconds later moving it to draft space. This is most easily visible in the edit history of article_talk.

Owlfs outrage over the AFD for Nepal News Network International is also rather over the top. Coincidentally, I commented there yesterday with no position yet. On one hand my first impression is that a company with apparently significant multimedia operations would be Notable, however thus far no one has been able to locate any independent sources to support Notability. This is clearly a case for reasonable AFD debate on both sides.

Regarding Owlf's charge that Usedtobecool is "attacking more Nepalese journalist pages", I suspect that this refers to certain open-AFDs.... but I assert that Owlf is required to substantiate this charge by identifying their exact allegations. I suspect the consensus here will be that Owlf is "unreasonable" in bringing any of this to ANI.

And as a final note, I came across this ANI notice because Owlf reverted me and slapped me with a "test edit" template (lolz) after I removed an unreliable source from an article. (The about page of that "online newspaper" declares it has a "staff" of two people, plus two international "correspondents". A third party just reinstated my edit.) I don't think I ever met Owlf before a few minutes ago, but I'm beginning to question their qualifications for NewPagePatrol userright.

Oh, back to the ANI topic: I see no meaningful indication here that anyone's account has been compromised. I don't recall encountering Usedtobecool before two(?) days ago so I'm not familiar with their old behavior, but I see nothing unusual about their current edits. Alsee (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this [141] SPI page, started by Usedtobecool, and referring to Owlf, may be of relevance here... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Being an wikipedia editor everyone has right to start an ANI discussion and yes, ofcourse i would love to slap you Alsee cause when i created Draft: Prakash Neupane few editors removed articles which doesn't follow WP:RS and really this is related to New Page Patrol right? And usedtobecool is attacking the page you can see the sources of Naya Patrika and Annapurna Media Network which is one of the oldest and National Newspaper of Nepal? We are free to express and pur of views on wikipedia. And yes IP boy you can chdck the sockpuppet i am happy to leave wikipedia if i declared as sockpuppet cause i am amazed that the dansong account was created 8 or 9 years ago when i even dont know what wikipedia was LOl

Owlf  22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer

Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't seem to be working. I need it for something. Is there another bit that's working? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I imagine it probably has something to do with the recent schema changes. Seems to be open on the author's talkpage here: User_talk:Σ#Editor_interaction_too SQL^{Query me!} 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)