Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010

IP edits to Emma Tate (actress) – rangeblock(s) requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An anonymous user with an dynamic IP address is edit-warring over the birth details at Emma Tate (actress) and leaving silly user talk page posts along the way. Previously they were making threats in edit summaries on other BLPs – see the edits from 31st March to 9th April at Julia Sawalha.

Could an administrator proficient in IPv6 rangeblocks please block the range(s) covering the IP addresses below? (I don't have the skill and as I've reverted this user I'm probably too involved anyway.)

• 2a00:23c5:3f9c:4400:803a:cc57:ccf4:6340 (talk · contribs)
• 2a00:23c5:3f9c:4400:a54f:9e06:c884:975a (talk · contribs)
• 2a00:23c5:3f9c:4400:5de2:1bd5:7861:cf10 (talk · contribs)
• 2a00:23c5:3f9c:7700:ecb3:f41b:1955:fc20 (talk · contribs)
• 2a00:23c5:3f9c:7700:2560:eedf:8a23:a4bf (talk · contribs)
• 2a00:23c5:3f9c:7700:90d2:5712:6839:9a83 (talk · contribs)

SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Two /64 blocks will take care of these. ST47 and Ad Orientem have taken care of them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Buaidh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Buaidh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being angry and abusive at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maine.

e.g.

• [1] height of stupidity
• [2] Perhaps you could learn to spell
• [3] lazy elitist know-it-alls

It's not at the serious personal attack stage, but there is clearly a lot of uncontrolled anger, but it's highly disruptive to consensus-formation.

Please can some uninvolved admin keep an eye on this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Buaidh has my sympathy. If I were in that situation I doubt I'd have the energy to be angry. It is painful to read that whole shameful discussion. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course Buaidh has my sympathy too. But personal circumsances are not a license to disrupt Wikipedia with rage against the dying of the light. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds a wee ageist.  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the slightest bit ageist. Just take your rage elsewhere, whatever its cause, and join in Wikipedia's consensus-forming discussions only if and when you are willing and able to discuss the substance, with civility towards those who disagree with you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Don't you realise that anyone who's old enough to be a grandparent (as I became last week, at the same time as my mother became a great grandparent and went to work the next day where she uses a computer) is over the hill and gets sympathy rather than respect. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid this whole subject of portals, because I can see that it's a time sink, but I must say that User:Buaidh's responses to the irrational hatred of portals that has been displayed by various editors who should know better look pretty reasonable to me, and don't come anywhere near the disruptive behaviour that we have had from the people who have decided that portals are a Bad Thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am systematically scrutinising portals and MFDing with detailed, reasoned nominations those portals which have abandoned at at very low quality level. Your decision to call that irrational says a whole lot about Phil Bridger, but little about anything else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to get a little less emotionally engaged with your knee-jerk opinions about what should happen on Wikipedia and listen to people more. I agree with your opinion on the spelling of organisation/organization in category names, but disagree with your position on portals. That's all part of life's rich tapestry, rather than a moral failing on anyone's part. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Phil, you are projecting. The emotionally engaged and knee-jerk opinions are not being expressed here or at MFD by me.

I welcome reasoned disagreement. However, calling hose who disagree with you irrational and emotionally engaged and knee-jerk is just ad hominem commentary. It is not reasoned disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

On this subject User:Buaidh provided the reasoned disagreement: "we spend far too much time philosophizing about Wikipedia and far too little time improving Wikipedia". I support that wholeheartedly as it's pretty much the founding principle of Wikipedia. If you don't like something then improve it. It's quite normal for anyone to become exasperated when this place gets taken over by carpers from the sidelines who complain about what other people are doing or not doing rather than improve things themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Phil, you misread the discussion. I provided a rationale for deletion, Buaidh provided a rant, complete with attacks.

I am improving Wikipedia, by identifying abandoned portals which waste the time of the readers who visit them because they massively fail the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". You may legitimately disagree with that, but it's a core policy of Wikipedia that you express your disagreement with civility.

If you do insist on ignoring that policy and repeatedly making personal attacks, then ANI is not the wisest choice of venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin assistance required

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin remove the {{template for discussion/dated}} template from {{use American English}}, {{use Australian English}}. {{use British English}}, {{use Canadian English}}, {{use Indian English}}, {{use Irish English}}, {{use New Zealand English}}, and {{use South African English}}, pursuant to this close by me at WP:Templates for discussion? Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 17:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Katie, thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jpsorts cut and paste moves and general failure to communicate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It pains me to do this but I can no longer ignore the situation. I think Jpsorts has good intentions but they keep ignoring policy so I must assume this is a deeper problem. Both myself and other editors (e.g. recently Dl2000) have tried to communicate with them and failed. I counted five previous warnings about cut and paste moves from four different editors: Special:Diff/739714170 Special:Diff/800747579 Special:Diff/866054340 Special:Diff/870524471 Special:Diff/880544955. This did not stop them from returning to the same behavior now: 1) cut/paste 2) cut/paste and recently 3) cut/paste. The third one was preceded by a request for an uncontroversial technical move which was contested and then tried again as uncontroversial. Perhaps the meaning of "uncontroversial" is also not clear? This is not even counting numerous warnings about lack of communication over the years which are promptly removed from their talk page and ignored. Please assist. --Muhandes (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that the same behavior and unwillingness/inability to communicate, continue. I left Jpsorts a message with further warnings and a note about this discussion, which they removed and they still refusing to communicate. Now another invitation was made. --Muhandes (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Doing something once is an acceptable mistake. Doing the same thing 5+ times despite multiple warnings is just disruptive, especially as they've been told about how to move pages properly. Cut and paste moves are akin to copyvios IMO (as they don't include the attribution which is required by Wikipedia's copyright licence), and so if they won't interact with the community, I support a short block and stern warning against doing it again. Note I count as involved as I gave the first warning listed above. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• User has blanked the warnings and has continued editing without responding. Joseph is indeed correct that copy/pasting without attribution is a copyvio, and combined with a refusal to communicate, there is no other option on the table. I have blocked the user indefinitely. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ape spam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8805:9980:26D:E988:85BC:5AAA:2993 is spamming stuff about apes around Wikipedia. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Four edits total, has been warned; house ain't burning yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully no more monkey business from them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• apes around Wikipedia – At this point I don't think we can afford to turn anyone away as long as they're here in good faith to build a collaborative encyclopedia. EEng 18:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:70.243.160.124

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This blocked IP user keeps removing a shared IP notice from their talk page contrary to WP:UP#CMT. Should their block settings be changed to remove talk page access so the shared IP notice can be restored and remain intact? EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 20:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, and in doing so would ask two questions: what does this add that's so important that we should remove talk page access, and also, who thought it's a shared IP? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I can answer the second question: Alexf. And in my view, which appears to be the same as yours, it shouldn't have been added, so our vandalizing IP has done us all a service by removing it, no doubt with the worst of intentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. I added it some time ago to show who owns it (certainly not the user), and to let them know what it says (they can be reported at some point). is it shared? Maybe, don't know for sure. ATT addresses are not static. They do change. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The standard language for an IP Talk page says that the IP may be "shared" by others. The template you added is generally helpful for "schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots..." (see WP:BLANKING). AT&T Corp. is not even the name of one of AT&T's many ISPs. This particular one is AT&T U-verse.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Technically, the several users have only been adding or restoring a {{whois}} template :p The documentation describes this as mainly for "Non-shared static IPs". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that the template that's used for schools, etc., or is there another one? (I don't pay much attention to these things, but I found the template that was added in this instance to be unhelpful.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's {{Shared IP}}; this is {{WHOIS}}. They're similar. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Does it matter which one we use, again with respect to schools, etc., where I most frequently see them (one of them, anyway)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Schools should use {{Shared IP edu}}, other public places should use {{Shared IP address (public)}}. The full list of templates is here. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, I like the list. Now if there were only a way for me to remember it exists... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the list is transcluded on the template help pages e.g. Template:Whois or click any of the above templates. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objection to premature closure of SNC-Lavalin Affair discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Notifying possibly interested parties: @El C, Safrolic, Darryl Kerrigan, Curly Turkey, SMcCandlish, SWL36, PavelShk, Ret.Prof, Springee, Blackmane, Handy History Handbook, and Levivich.

I request re-opening of the sub-section #Proposal: WP:ABAN Curly_Turkey, part of the discussion #Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others closed today by User:El_C with the comment: "Closing because I just don't feel keeping this open any longer is useful to anyone or anything. Let's hope some lessons were drawn from the lengthy, month-long discussion, and go from there." El_C has rejected a request to re-open for another 48 hours.

While it is indeed about time to close this discussion, I maintain that closure of the ABAN discussion was premature: it had been open for only three days (where customarily seven days is allowed), was still active, and is a viable option to resolve the disruption at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Re-opening the ABAN discussion for four more days is no great matter, while failure to address the behavior extensively complained of will be to condone it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you forgot the header! El_C 01:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I did. Hopefully now fixed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, the entire discussion was open for a full month — adding further subsections to it does not appear to advance resolution. Fact is outside editors are clearly shying away from it — I don't think we'd be seeing substantial difference between 3 days or 7 days, or another month, for that matter. I sense that we've had enough of SNC-Lavalin Affair on the admin boards, for now. El_C 01:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support the reopening of the ABAN proposal specifically. While the discussion preceeding it was long (thanks largely to CT, actually) and uninviting, this was a proposal on the table that in my view is the only way we can move forward. Curly Turkey continues to throw accusations of POV, IDHT, edit warring, and other misbehaviour, misrepresenting others' words and actions in the process. He has also called for both J.Johnson's Darryl Kerrigan's and my own banning from the topic. I don't see a way that this group, or any group, of editors can resolve the underlying content disputes while he keeps pushing for fights. Safrolic (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't called for J. Johnson's banning from the topic—I called for yours, Legacypac's, and Darryl Kerrigan's. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the misidentification. I've been away from the debate for the last week due to issues with moving apartments. Safrolic (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, if I wasn't clear — I am more interested in what outside editors think. El_C 01:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see you specifically express interest what anyone thought. I was addressing my support to the general group of editors reading this discussion. Safrolic (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much point in re-opening it. I should state that had I not been busy over the weekend, I would have opposed the ABAN proposal as well. I take a staunch view that parties in dispute with one another should not be initiating sanctions discussions against each other. The whole thread became tit-for-tat bickering that went nowhere. I commend El_C for closing it. --Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Many complaints get archived without a definitive action. I can unarchive the complaint (as anyone can) if you sincerely think there is a possibility of resolution. But if we are at a stalemate (at the moment) then there is no point in prolonging the discussion. So are the parties willing to work together?

By the way, I have never understood that complaints at ANI have to stay open for 7 days. Complaints are often closed in a matter of hours after they've been opened. I don't think that this is correct. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone can recite the policy to back up their point of view and prove me wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the discussion was open for a full month — this latest subsection was open for three days. El_C 02:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose we do? I'm honestly asking. We have an uncivil and disruptive editor treating the article like a battleground. Should we just try to work around it and ignore him? Do we just have to keep responding to the reams of text he puts out mixing arguments both spurious and specifically addressed with aspersions and personal attacks? Do we give up, walk away, and let him delete whatever sources or text he wants? I know I'm new, and I'd appreciate the direction; I just don't see the alternative solution here myself. Safrolic (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The proposed ABAN wasn't about "deleting whatever sources and text he wants"—whipping out this accusation from thin air should be setting alarms off for people. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Approaching this by adding to a month-long discussion was the wrong call. If I thought there was a good chance that evidence regarding this could be compiled and presented in a concise manner, I might suggest that. But I get the sense that is less-than-likely. El_C 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing premature about the closure. That thread dragged on and on with no clear consensus for any action. Re-re-re-arguing about the same stuff a day later will not help.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good close, time to drop it and move on. There's absolutely no such "7 day rule" as is claimed here, and shutting down a discussion as ultimately unproductive is a valid admin response. Attempting to start a new thread and further drag out something that has already gone on for a month is not a good look. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eyes, please, on Talk:Glyphosate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Glyphosate and its talk page are within the GMO topic area of Discretionary Sanctions, and the page is subject to 1RR. There has been a lot of reverting lately, but not beyond the point of 1RR, and there have been some personal attacks on the talk page in the past few hours. I am not asking for anyone to be sanctioned at this point, because I do not think it rises to that level. But I do want to ask uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on the situation for a while, to prevent things from getting any worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Different pages of Wikipedia have very different rules of engagement it would appear. This strikes me as much more worthy of toxin-patrol vigilance than anything on the glyphosate page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls: Elsewhere he was casting aspersion against me [4]. Ishbiliyya needs to take care of the words he uses. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks from Kansas Bear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[5] Editor Kansas Bear deleted my notification to him about DNR in a very rude form. First, such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG. Second, I don't care about this guy, but I will not tolerate such outrageous violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA from anyone. If he or somebody else thinks that I am a sock-puppet, I will glad to hear his concern on the respective noticeboard.

I will wait for the sanctions, that community will find appropriate and I hope this editor's bad conduct and lack of manners will be assessed. John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While Kansas Bear isn't being particularly polite, they're well within their remit to remove anything they want from their own talk page. I suggest dropping the matter before you risk a Boomerang. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I will drop with a great pleasure, if someone will finally explain me, what the hell is going here, since I am already thinking that there is a sort of anarchy in English Wikipedia. Administrator threatens me with ban just after I asked an innocent question related to the conflict resolution procedury and very vaguely accuses me in nationalism, then he claims that I am a sock-puppet, whereas I am not and it is easy to check — you have special noticeboard, I mean. Then one of the editors delete my very polite notification in a very rude form, makes an accusation without any proof and thus violates the basic Wikipedia rules, and then you threaten me with boomerang. What the hell is going on here? Editor makes an evident violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA and that is just OK, but for some reasons, that only God would know, boomerang should hit me. Okay, I don't mind that, but only if you will find out something contradicting to Wikipedia in my very friendly notification about WP:DRN. I am not fan of conspiracy theories, but it looks like everyone wants me to leave the Wikipedia. Or just the rules don't work and are overshadowed by the influence of well-established users. Sorry, for a little harshness in my words, I just got a little nervous. I don't want to insult someone. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You returned from a two year wikibreak by almost immediately resuming the same dispute from two years ago. Your conduct at the time [6][7] was unproductive, and continuing it now is unlikely to be productive. Rivselis (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Soo, how should I understand it? I cannot add peer-reviewed sources, because two years ago my conduct not that well? Or it means that if I have returned to the same discussion, because at that time I couldn't finish it, Kansas Bear have a right to insult me? Just please explain how does it works. Because I don't think that "I think you did somewhere wrong, so he can do wrong with you" logic is OK. Don't think that I try to troll you with such questions, I just try to understand rules of this Wiki, as in Russian Wiki, where I am pretty well-established, the things don't go like this. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You also failed to properly notify Kansas Bear that you've started this discussion, which I've gone ahead and done for you. Rivselis (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I barely see a need to write him something on his talk page, since he deletes my messages. But I thought that he will be notified from the user "template" that I've used (it results in notification in Russian Wikipedia, at least), so there is just a little misunderstanding. I didn't have a wish to leave him unnotified. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment John Francis Templeson has been editing this encyclopedia for about 2,5 years, however, i checked his contribs and, to be honest, it's hard to find out how this editor has been a net positive for the project. Many of his contributions are comments on talk pages and his main space edits include some controversial changes like this, this, this or this. The common point between all the previous edits ? Removal of sourced content (often a Persian ethnicity/language/identity) replaced with some unsourced/poorly sourced pro Turkish POV. This editor has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an irredentist/Pan-turk agenda, thus, When he disagrees with an established user like Kansas Bear who is not driven by any bias and a real net positive for this project, he comes here to open such an irrelevant case. I would support WP:BOOMERANG and some strong admin action to put an end to the disruption from this editor.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied already on this. I was new and young and easily got involved into the conflict. What wrong you can find in my contribution of this year? See Talk:Qizilbash and Talk:Iraqi Turkman, discussions of 2019. What is wrong? You will see well-sourced arguments, polite style of conversation. And I repeat: If my conduct two years ago wasn't that well, it means that now anyone can insult me in a very rude form? Two years ago and know, feel the difference. I acknowledge my previous mistakes. Now, as you see I try to be very nice, but some editors just don't understand it. And yes, I have mentioned in my page, that my main field is Russian Wikipedia, and I come to English Wikipedia, when I see disagreement between the latter and former. And I try to discuss it, of course not just because my opinion is such, but because I have plenty of sources. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"What is wrong" : Coming here to open such an irrelevant report is wrong. "anyone can insult me in a very rude form" : I don't see any insult toward you in a very rude form. On my end, i see an editor, you, trying to WP:GAME the system while playing a straw man here. I repeat what i said above : you have been editing this encyclopedia for 2,5 years and i don't see how you helped this project. In other words, don't feel offended, but you sound like a WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user. Think we're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't know, accusing someone in sock-puppetry without proofs is a personal attack. If it will be proved that I am sock-puppet, ban me. But I am not. I am basing only on the WP rules. If you don't mind I will wait for the opinion of administrator and I hope he will understand me why my report is irrelevant. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't edit for 2.5 years. 2.5 years ago I made a list of edits, which I admit to be disruptive to some extent and regret them. Now, month ago, I returned and want to start from a new scratch. I try to be very polite, do everything according to the Wikipedia procedures, but face only accusations in sock-puppetry. But anyway I am tending to improve this encyclopedia. I already showed good conduct in Talk:Iraqi Turkmen. My flowless edit log in Russian Wikipedia, where I am editing for 3 years [8] should assume my good faith and the fact that I never use sock puppets. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Considering he posted this link with the deletion and note to stay off his talk page due to SOMEONE ELSE'S assertion that you were both disruptive and possibly a ban evading sock puppet. I think it may be necessary to break out the Australian throwing stick here. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How should I understand it. Sorry, maybe I am not that acquainted with such terminology. I should wait for boomerang? John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

Over the past few years, John Francis Templeson has wasted much time of the community through his persistent efforts at gaming the system. Forumshopping and adminshopping have become synonyms for his editorial pattern, in addition to his tiresome efforts at pushing an irredentist pro-Azerbaijani Turkish/pan-Turkic POV. Two years ago, John Francis Templeson left the English Wiki for the Russian Wiki, as he was already hanging by a thin rope.[9] On the Russian Wiki he's pursuing the exact same pattern.[10] Now, he has returned to the English Wikipedia for "Round Two", determined to waste more time of the community. Admin JamesBWatson already left him an elaborate message a few days ago, a summary of his disruptive editorial pattern.[11]-[12] However John Francis Templeson decided to trample JamesBWatson's message right under his foot; he continued with the same disruption as soon as possible, and started to make renewed attempts in order to venue-shop his POV into Wikipedia.[13]-[14]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is unable to edit according Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world, in addition to a 6-month ban on creating sections at WP:ANI, WP:3O and WP:RfC.

• Support As nominator. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per my above comments and this edit, reverted shortly after by another editor, showing that John Francis Templeson has not well understood what JamesBWatson told him.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look on this edit. It is well-sourced and does not make pov-pushing (as you see I represented several opinions on the laguage of Nader). So I have a question: why this edit is disruptive. How I can understand this limitation to add well-sourced information? User HistoryofIran doesn't agree with my edit — well, for such cases we have a talk page. I don't understand why you so hesitate to discuss good-faith edits. John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See my edits on Iraqi Turkmen article. I have brought several academic sources, these were deleted, because, according to the Selçuk Denizli they are not academic. Well, I showed the contrary and the 3O supported me. Now, I have proceeded to DRN. What is disruptive in my contribution, can you explain? If you consider this as disruptive as well, then I can say that I have already a topic-ban, as all my good-faith edit are seen as disruptive by some community members. Louis Aragon, in Russian Wikipedia I was never been accused in pov-pushing. I am established user, I have over 3300 edits, several articles created, one of them has good article status and one more is nominated to the selected articles. I collaborate with Russian, Azeri, Armenian colleagues and never face such accusations (I have several blocks two years ago, since then I was not experienced, but now I improved my conduct). John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I previously expressed my concerns on this users pan-Turkist edits, specifically pushing for Azerification on the Iraqi Turkmen article. It is reassuring to see that other users have also taken notice. But, if this user is simply continuing with the same attitude they had two years ago, I question how effective a 6 month ban will be. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to notice that it is place for discussion, not for ill-motivated revenge. You questioned reliability of several sources, including Iranica and Gerhard Doerfer, and even the 3O couln't make you give up such uncompromising conduct. I have to ask other editors, isn't it WP:DIS. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• For administrator: Let me once more clarify my intentions. I will talk about my recent edits, not the ones from 2017. Two years ago I was unexperienced and I acknowledge that my conduct was bad and I regret it. Now, let's talk about my last edits. I am not a warlike one. But I perfectly know that consensus can be described as flowchart: Make an edit — Someone reverted? — If no, then cool; if yes, then discuss and if the discussions fails, appeal for 3O, RfC and so on. And I tried to stick to this formula, extensively discussed the issues on talk page and when they failed I called for the conflict resolution procedure (see for example Iraqi Turkmen talk page). If the latter supports me, I would be happy, if not — well, I will let it go. And this is what I want. Unfortunately, some editors for some reasons don't accept my right to use this procedure and I don't know why. This all would be unnecessary if my colleagues allowed the discussion to go with its normal pace, but my notifications were deleted with some rude comments, clearly violating WP:PA. I hope, this will be taken into account. And I don't know why resist me, because if they did not, the problem would be resolved. Third-party user would express his opinion and that would be over. I hope, I was clear. If there was minor violations in my contribution, I ask to explain me and I won't repeat them. Thanks. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am about 97% certain that "John Francis Templeson" is a sockpuppet account, evading a block on an earlier account. If I were 98% certain I would block. I have seen editors blocked on evidence far less certain than what there is in this case. The more he attracts attention to himself by such means as starting this thread, the more likely it is that eventually he will slip up and provide that extra 1% of certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I am not. Call for sock puppet investigation, call for CheckUser, I don't care, because I am not. Just stop accusing me, I don't have any other account in English Wikipedia and already two investigation have proven that. Maybe I don't understand some rules, maybe you can consider my edits as disruptive (though, I do not agree), but I am not a sock puppet. John Francis Templeson (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: The only account I can think of that may be tied into this would be RoslynSKP (talk · contribs), who hasn't editing since December 2014, but had been topic banned for Ottoman/Turkey related disruption following community discussion which was logged here (if you care to look). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was 14 at that time and didn't even know that it is possible to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, you can check. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Definitely not RoslynSKP. I've crossed swords with her before. JFT doesn't have the same combative style as she did. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any chance at all that John Francis Templeson and RoslynSKP are the same person. There are numerous ways in which the two accounts are not even remotely similar, indeed so much so that I am surprised that anyone would even consider it as a possibility. However, there is another account which has numerous similarities to John Francis Templeson, and, contrary to what John Francis Templeson claims, the relevant sockpuppet investigation did not prove that it was not a sockpuppet: it left the question open, and nobody could reasonably read it differently. This is in line with John Francis Templeson's misrepresentation of his editing history on Russian Wikipedia as "flowless" (presumably "flawless"?), carefully ignoring the history of 7 blocks, various warnings, continual conflict with other editors, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, flawless. Sometimes, I misspell the words. About Russian Wikipedia: Last time I was blocked on the 2nd of October, 2017. I don't know, how it is in English Wikipedia, but in Russian Wikipedia the current situation is the one, that is considered, not the one, that was 2.5 years ago. And I ask you. Isn't it possible that someone that way blocked for 10 days 2.5 years ago, makes positive contribution? Or you think that being banned is indelible sin, whenver it was made? We don't conflict, we discuss. I am still waiting someone to start this sockpuppet investigation, because I am tired of this psychological pressure, that surrounds me here. I hope this investigation will be conducted properly. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- although, given the level of disruption, I would also support a Community Ban, as all he is doing is Wikilawyering, and his contributions are not helpful to the project. We could just implement this ban as described above and then escalate it to a CBAN if he doesn't behave Rockstonetalk to me! 18:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - most likely a sock of a blocked editor, with POV pushing etc. A net decrease for the project and as Rockstone35 has said, I would not be opposed to a community ban or a discussion about such a ban. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - And I commend the admins for staying so calm in the face of all this! Thunderchunder (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI case (archive)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Francis Templeson/Archive

If Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs) and Cangevar (talk · contribs) were JFT's sockpuppets, then why his main account is still open?! And if they were not his socks, why nobody has moved that SPI case?! --Wario-Man (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: In both cases John Francis Templeson was accused on being a sockpuppeter; both cases were unfounded, or at least unproven. ——SerialNumber54129 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but it was second sock puppet investigation, that involves me, and both showed that I am not a sock puppet. I think here everyone should stop accusing me — or start another investigation, which will be surely in vain. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, for clarity, you are not a sockpuppet, you are a person, but the account you are using to edit Wikipedia may well be a sockpuppet. Contrary to what you say, neither sockpuppet investigation showed that your current account is not a sock puppet; one of them merely established that there was no technical evidence of connection to one of the other accounts mentioned, which is not at all the same as showing that there is no connection; in the other investigation nobody even suggested any reason for thinking that sockpuppetry was not taking place, and the closing administrator explicitly stated that he was leaving the question open, with an invitation to editors to provide further evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No implication of anyone being a sockpuppet but the way it works is that we will use technical evidence to correct our suspicions. If a link is blatantly obvious, blocks can be made on behaviour alone. Having technical proof on top of that is a sureshot ID. If the behavioural case is weak and technical link is not established, then it acts an impedipent to our behavioural case but it's not a double jeopardy situation, you are certainly innocent for the time being, it does not exonerate you (or anyone else) — since sockpuppetry is a dynamic, in-the-present evasion. There have been many cases of sockpuppetry where the account holder was a reputed editor on enwiki but got caught via surprise checks on suspicions (Ricky, T13, et al.). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: @JamesBWatson: There's also this SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qara xan/Archive - LouisAragon (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Yes. When I first saw that message from you I thought you had come up with another one I had forgotten, but then I realised it was one of those I was referring to above. I have also seen other evidence not mentioned in that investigation, which pushes me to virtual certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, a little further down you'll find a similar thread concerning the behavior of one 89MsHm (talk · contribs), whose editing pattern also seems to bear some resemblance to this. I'd make no assumptions, but it may be worth considering page protections or such for affected articles. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• I ran a check in March against JFT. I found that he was unrelated to the users listed. He edits from a different country and the other technical data does not match, either. I should also say that if I had seen any evidence in my check that JFT was using another account, I would have stated so. However, I can't comment on users I've never checked. Although behavior can trump technical evidence, I find it unfair to sanction a user for socking when the user(s) to which he is behaviorally connected are completely unrelated. Finally, JFT has been editing from the same country since at least 2017.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Appeal

[15] John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of Undo on revisions User:Itchyjunk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Itchyjunk decided to go through a page I watch, List of Murder, She Wrote Episodes and undo all the short plot summaries I had created, which involved watching the TV show for hours upon hours, for no good reason. Then I see on their talk page they have been doing it to other people as well. So I am also making a complaint here about undoing edits recklessly to play some game called The Wikipedia Adventure. --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What were the results of the prior conversation you had with ItchyJunk? --Jayron32 17:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I must say that I'm not seeing these complaints about them misusing Undo on other pages, am I missing something? They seem to have just done one, ill advised, revert to an earlier version to undo some vandlaism and your edits were in there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, there will probably be a complaint when someone watching Scooby-Doo notices 16 edits by experienced editors reverted to a 12 Apr 19 version with the claim of vandalism. (edit to add) I think ItchyJunk is just eager and inexperienced, maybe a bit too zealous about calling things "vandalism". Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Zoinks! I restored the previous version of the article and incorporated the most recent edit. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

On their talk page at the bottom there is a complaint from another user. I am not sure if I am reading the talk page correctly but it looks like they have already been banned from editing? I apologize if this is not the forum for this but I just followed the link from the other complaint lodged against them. I spent 11 hours watching Murder, She Wrote and writing original short summaries for the episodes to have them deleted for supposed vandalism. There was no merit for the deletion and no reason given. It leads me to believe that the user was simply making edits to complete quests in The Wikipedia Adventure game they seemed to be a part of. --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at many of this user's recent reverts, they do seem to be using a rather loose definition of vandalism. However, the previous ANI notice on their talk page seems to be unrelated. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Repeated_misuse_of_undo_accusations_by_an_IP. I do see that the user has been active recently on IRC, hopefully they will be able to explain how these confusing reverts happened. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deusexmechanicus: You shouldn't believe anything until you talk to them. ANI is NOT The first thing you do when you have a dispute, it should be the last. You've short circuited about 5 steps in the dispute resolution process before coming straight here. Step 1 is always "Start a cordial conversation with the other person to try to understand their point of view, and to get them to understand your point of view, and to hopefully reach some sort of compromise or consensus on how to proceed". You haven't even done that! --Jayron32 14:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I left a message for Itchyjunk detailing what vandalism is and isn't and encouraged them to respond here. They haven't edit since yesterday, and I don't want them pilloried for good-faith attempts to edit. We don't want to bite, but inform. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While we are here, can we consider whether there is a vehicle for reopening the discussion of “Itchyjunk” as a username? Despite the outcome of the prior discussion (reprinted on Itchyjunk’s talk page), it is obviously not appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be "obviously not appropriate" when a discussion between experienced editors already has decided that it is acceptable? Isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? That discussion closed less than one month ago, so while CCC, it rarely does this rapidly. Fram (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In other aspects of the project, there are forums (such as DRV or MR, or a renewed nomination) to revisit a discussion that has reached a patently ridiculous result. I think that albeit in a different context, this is such an instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Then start a new RfC for it. That's what we do with other RfCs when they don't give the expected result. An AN discussion about a username which has just been decided in an RfC is not warranted, this is not a serious enough problem and not something specifically for admins to decide. You give the example of DRV, but DRV is for when a closer has judged the consensus incorrectly, not for when you simply disagree with the result. Are you claiming that the RfC was closed incorrectly, and have you raised this with the closer? Fram (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to raise it here given that we are discussing the editor already, and there is a limit to how much process for its own sake we need to engage in to maintain some degree of decorum. And I don't actually know whether WP:UAA allows for reopening of an RfC or a second RfC on the same name, hence my question. You are right, though, that I should alert @Primefac: to this discussion, which I've now done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not legitimate to raise an unrelated issue which had been resolved contrary to your liking, in a section about the same editor but about completely unrelated issues. Fram (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I too, as a relatively new wikipedian, see the name as offensive and it certainly doesn't help carve perception of someone here to help. If the first thing that comes to mind when you see the name is something offensive, then it is an offensive name. The name is vulgar when presented without context. The fact he has already refused to change it indicates a NOTHERE viewpoint. The reckless editing also tips the scales of NOTHERE. There is correlation with someone with a vulgar name and their actions --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Some people probably find your username offensive as it's implying there's more than one god which is contrary to some people's strongly held beliefs of the universe and is taking the name of god in vain. Would you be willing to change it because of that? I personally don't see anything offensive in ItchyJunk's username as junk is an incredibly mild schoolyard term that I personally can't see is in anyway offensive. I guess we could ask them to change it to ItchyScrotum since that would then be more accurate and less colloquial. Finding it offensive isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I read it, I find it humourous actually. Just because you think something is offensive doesn't mean it's offensive. You have a right to choose to be offended, but being offended doesn't give you rights. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Meh. --Jayron32 14:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. Usernames that connote poor genital hygiene or genital affliction (whether venereal, dermatological, or otherwise) should not be permitted. Leviv ich 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is inappropriate. Who knows what junk they are talking about? It's childish, but not inappropriate. I don't think they would ever win a request for adminship or something with a name like that, but meh, it's not that bad. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Pinged/closing admin note: the original RFCN discussion was closed based on a 6/2 majority opining that the username was "not in good taste" but not offensive enough to force a change. I see no problems with re-examining the issue, but it should be done at WP:RFC/N and not here if only to keep the behaviour and username aspects separate and not derail either conversation. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No bots sandbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier today an user placed the no bots template in sandbox at which is supposed to block bots and the sandbox wouldn’t be automatically cleared. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/896312712 Sonicfan200530 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sonicfan200530, We'd have to ask Cyberpower678 to be sure, but it doesn't look like Cyberbot I's sandbot task supports nobots. It certainly looks like other sandbox bots don't. SQL^{Query me!} 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, interesting... Certainly not something I've seen before. Sandboxes, however, are supposed to be cleared and reset periodically - so I wouldn't be surprised if the bots ignore the template on those pages or ignore them completely. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

For a while now I have been concerned about poor, undiscussed page moves made by Ortizesp (talk · contribs), and I am not the only editor. These moves go beyond BOLD; some of them are just bad. Some examples/a quick history:

• On 1 March 2019, @Matthew hk: raised concerns about bad page moves and asked Ortizesp to use RM;
• On 5 March I repeated those concerns (related to this page move which introduced unnecessary disambiguation to an article);
• On 6 March 2019 Ortizesp said they would start using RM (plot twist: they haven't);
• On 6 March 2019 I noted a slight improvement in page moves, but repeated that RM should be used;
• On 6 March 2019 @Struway2: raised concerns about bad page moves;
• On 6 March 2019 Ortizesp undid their moves;
• On 26 March 2019 Matthew hk asked about removing the 'Page Mover' user right given the concerns;
• On 26 March 2019 Ortizesp said they were "still learning" and acknowledged mistakes had been made ("in doing mass movements there are bound to be a couple here and there that slip through the cracks. I think the moves I'm making almost always are justified");
• On 26 March 2019 @Primefac: removed the Page Mover right, based on the concerns previously raised;
• On 31 March 2019 I raised concerns about bad page moves again;
• On 28 April 2019 @Randykitty: reverted bad page moves by Ortizesp;
• On 9 May 2019 @R96Skinner: reverted bad page moves by Ortizesp, which Ortizesp acknowledged;
• On 10 May 2019 (today) I reverted bad page moves by Ortizesp.

Concerns have also been raised at WT:FOOTBALL here.

Some poor/ill thought/hasty moves earlier today include, in the space of 8 minutes, moving José Díaz (footballer) to José Díaz (Argentine footballer) and then to José Díaz (footballer, born 1938), and in the space of 4 minutes moving Antonio Díaz Jurado to Antonio Díaz (footballer, born 1969) and then to Antonio Díaz (footballer).

I simply do not think they understand naming conventions, and I therefore propose an indefinite topic ban from making any page moves by any way other than starting a proposal on the talk page using the WP:RM process. GiantSnowman 07:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, most of my edits follow WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore I don't see a need for WP:RM in those cases. I think GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) has different definitions of what is uncontroversial than I do. And I think it's easy to highlight the errors I have made, because I don't delete them from my page. I think generally my moves are informed, justified, and follow the rules; I am running through Category:Spanish footballers, and previously Category:Portuguese footballers because a lot of the page titles don't follow convention. For example, GiantSnowman reverted made undid this move reverted, on an uncontroversial page move (all sources and external links use my recommended page name, as opposed to the one GS reverted them to). I'd also like to highlight that I don't accept those moves as "bad". José Díaz (footballer) to José Díaz (Argentine footballer) was done because i realized he wasn't the only footballer with the name (see José Díaz (Spanish footballer)). Then, when i edited Jose Diaz to add José Díaz (Spanish footballer), I realized there were two Argentine footballers by the name of José Díaz, and moved them to José Díaz (footballer, born 1938) and José Luis (footballer, born 1974) as per naming conventions. The same process happened with Antonio Díaz (footballer)] - originally I thought he was one of many footballers with the name until I moved moved Antonio Díaz Gil (which GiantSnowman unjustifiably redirected). I think GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) is overstepping his boundaries, and urging me to use WP:RM in cases that it isn't necessarily required. I accept that I have made the rare error, but am also quick to learn and undo those errors. Let me know what you think.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

But numerous editors have raised numerous concerns about your page moves, clearly showing that you are not following COMMONNAME, as you don't understand it! GiantSnowman 13:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the list above, March 5threpeated those concerns is your error - I tried disambiguating Joel Silva (footballer) because he's not the only footballer with the name, that you reverted. And the other one's are not the same kinds of mistakes, and part of a normal learning curve when moving pages - for overtly disambiguating, creating a disambig page when not required reverted, and yes, admittedly some errors that I myself reverted. I understand your concerns, but I think it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If there are multiple footballers called 'Joel Silva', which did Joel Silva (footballer) remain a redirect to Joel Silva (footballer, born 1989) and not a redirect to redirect to a disambiguation page (ie rendering the move pointless, hence my revert)? Why didn't you then use RM to move the page? GiantSnowman 14:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, given the large number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted your page moves, have you never thought to stop and start using RM? GiantSnowman 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. Numberous editors have reverted, and yet he still doesn't get it - hence why the topic ban is neccessary. GiantSnowman 15:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety

There has been contention on the variety of English in the article Taiwan. An Rfc decided there was consensus to prefer no particular style of English and where there is dispute, the principles of MOS:RETAIN should be followed. According to MOS:RETAIN, "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." This was found to be British English with Oxford spelling and discussed. However User:Fyunck(click) disregards discussion results and continues to convert words to American spellings, which constitutes disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

As the response below shows, the user has constantly brought up irrelevant points such as "American English taught in Taiwanese schools" and "Taiwan will make English an official language" instead of following established guidelines on Wikipedia. Ythlev (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, that other Rfc was for the Taiwan Project as a whole. The Taiwan article does have consensus as shown back in July 2018 when this editor was using two other aliases. It is at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_28#Spelling. The article was overwhelmingly done in American English before his changing 100s of Taiwan articles. We had to have an administrator step in to stop his disruptions, and it took us months to revert all his changes. He was the one sole against the consensus. This particular article was overwhelmingly done in American English through the years. You can see the chart breakdown under the archive. With that consensus (which did not include American style dates by the way), based on article usage, American English taught in Taiwanese schools, and now in 2019 Taiwan will make English one of its two official languages, I'm at a loss why Ythlev alias Szqecs, alias Szqecs1 is here. He was disruptive then but I was hoping that was in the past. Any advice on how to proceed would be much welcomed by me. I don't know where a compromise lies but if one can be found I'm all ears. Editor BushelCandle appears reasonable on the issue, but I've been following the 2018 consensus on this particular article. This consensus does not apply to other Taiwan related articles as a later general RfC said. Off now but I'll check back in 12 hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  Consensus is not permanent and can change (WP:CCC). The February 2019 RfC, which you participated, is more recent and the results were added to the article guidelines. where a compromise lies. Oxford spelling is a compromise by using non-British -ize, which neither I nor BushelCandle prefer. Yet you do not accept the compromise. Ythlev (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  If everyone were to just stop reverting, this would resolve itself. What does it matter what variety of English that the article uses? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  If only it were that easy. I don't much care which way the spelling goes (I use some fairly idiosyncratic spelling rules, myself :-)). It is sort of annoying when users who haven't learned our arcane rules "correct" the spelling or date formats in articles, but arguing over which variety of English applies in an article is low priority for me. - Donald Albury 15:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment "American English is taught in Taiwanese schools" is simply not a viable or logical argument. Just about every European country (except of course GB & Ireland) tends to teach and use a different variety (or varieties) of English from its neighbours, according to the idiosyncracies of national history (and the personal histories of teachers and users). Were we to attempt to limit article use to the preponderant variety taught or used in a country, we would need guidelines for each and every country. I have no reason to believe the rest of the world is very different - countries with strong ties to UK, Australia, US etc will tend to teach and use English according to those ties, while their neighbours may teach and use a different variety. If English does become an official language of Taiwan, there might be a stonger argument, until that happens, MOS:RETAIN seems the only viable guideline, except where a very strong cultural tie exists to a particular Engvar. I don't see how anything Taiwanese could have such a strong cultural link. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on this matter is still ongoing (English variety: non-consensual changes), but the user ignores the points put forth and continues to convert words to American spellings (diff). The user has also removed a previous RfC result from the article guidelines without explanation (diff) in what is apparently an attempt to dismiss or hide consensus. Ythlev (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:JerzyA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• JerzyA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 73.114.17.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Jerzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps adding nonsense to talk pages and uses overly long and meaningless edit summaries. Most of their edits get reverted, and those that stick are typically trivial. I initially thought they were doing test edits, but now I just don't understand what's going on. I don't think they're editing in bad faith, but I'd question their competence. A few diffs: nonsense on talk page, using html comments for more nonsense, null edit to chat in the edit summary, more talk page nonsense. Isa (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow. That's a whole truckload of garbage. The edit to WP:DAB mentioned above seems to almost be asking for a CIR block. I think we should comply with that request asap. Indef for CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And I thought my edit summaries were bad! Anyway, I've given the user one last chance. El_C 07:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Before anyone adds any more snark, realize that JerzyA is claiming to be admin Jerzy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I knew the username sounded familiar: User_talk:WJBscribe#This_will_either_make,_or_ruin,_your_day. El_C 07:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Having a quick look at Jerzy's contributions, they seem similar enough that I wouldn't be surprised if they were the same person. Both seem to be spouting nonsense most of the time. But since Jerzy is an admin, this thread just turned into something I didn't expect and I'm unsure how to proceed. Isa (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

   What a bunch of amateurs. I was invited to become an admin after most of you were born. I pooh-poohed the idea to Angela; i dunno whether she's either scrubbed herself off the Web by now, but my guess is that she would respect her own role enuf to not severely extend such scrubbing to the project itself. My guess is she may still have a presence in Wikia, but i don't assume any she holds trivial sentimentality about the early years. (I stopped myself from the conventional hyperbole of "early days", but if you'll do research you'll see that both "recent" and, even however figuratively, "medieval" are inapplicable on the timescale in question.)
   Well, it's four AM here, and i intended to taper off around midnite, but my indignation contempt is fading as i type, and i'm not going to use the f-b word bcz i'm most likely as much in the dark about what range you-all spread thru, as you are about me. And i'm satisfied to harbor a suspicion about how many of those active in this discussion would scuttle away into the shadows and marshes if i shared my picturesque resume here.
   Turning to what's relevant, i trust you can see i'm neither drug-addled nor incoherant, and that i am quite able to curb my ironism and my awareness of human absurdity when and to the degree that i see reason to. If there's a medical or psychological professional among you, i welcome -- despite their no doubt appopriate reservations about the sparseness of the evidence that can pass thru this narrow portal -- their assessment of that claim.
   Go review the behavior guidelines, and perhaps our equivalent of legislatve history, and listen to your peers. Oh, and go take your sense of the irony of the universe (Oh, yes, that) out for a nice walk.
--73.114.17.8 (talk) JerzyA  • 09:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I became an admin in 2005, so that won't work on me, sir. El_C 09:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, see, i forgot: "Jerzy is an admin". Well, "no", and "so what"?
   Any of you who are quailing

(hmm, as in "quailing and quaking" -- not synonyms, but a complementary -- nnnh, what must be described at complement (logic), complement (mathematics), and perhaps even wikt:complement would be too specific (the spelling of "the mot jus", i'm guessing, is outside my competance, and i won't even pretend to recall the French definite article that is) ... a propos... (similar regret))-- to "quake" is, on reflection, more of a counterpoint than a synonym for "quail": surely any quivering by terrified birds of that species or genus is irrelevant in that -- hhmm -- "commonplace" is the mot just (surely English phonetisation is off-base and the "t" is silent, or elided, or whatever the frogs would call it. So surely "quailing and quaking" is not a pair of -- front-rhyming ? ah, no, alliterative, i think -- not synonyms (both seemingly of "shaking") but rather an alliterative pair of conceptually (even if not behaviorally) compatible fear-induced behaviors: quaking/shivering/shaking motion, and "quailing" vocalizations, not like chirping, but much like cooing by pigeons, perhaps in both cases serving to calm/reassure nestlings and perhaps to induce a nearby predator to attend away from a parent in the nest, and toward a more agile and mobile parent (father especially? -- whose primary role in propagating the species has been fulfilled, making him less critical than the mother, who should logically be more valuable in hiding chicks, and putting food directly into their beaks or gullets). Ok, its more than an hour later, and i am detremined to sleep. Having finished that small, but surprisingly elaborate, thot.
--73.114.17.8 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jerzy or their I-forgot-my-password alias being an admin should make no difference to this issue whatsoever. Neither text notes nor edit summaries are intended as platforms for someone to get off on what they apparently consider erudite banter. This stuff is so convoluted, it's almost in code. Any factual content is not only obscured, but obscured in an aggravating fashion. Knock it off please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• I have no idea what point they are trying to make, if any. It is perhaps fortunate they have mislaid the password to their admin account, and that account can be retired quietly without issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• I checked JerzyA because it was possible that they were an impersonator account. Without checking as thoroughly as is my usual wont because I don't like checking administrator accounts (Jerzy), I am satisfied that the two accounts are operated by the same person. My recommendation is that ArbCom be contacted, especially if anyone is considering blocking Jerzy (I'm not sure what "retired" just above means). I'll ping a few arbs as this is already public anyway: @KrakatoaKatie, BU Rob13, and GorillaWarfare:.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• They are indeed operated by the same person. We've begun a discussion about this. Katie^talk 15:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Based on what El C cited above (User_talk:WJBscribe#This_will_either_make,_or_ruin,_your_day), this may require some rather sensitive intervention, but certainly a block on that IP and both accounts seems in order until this is worked out. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• God I hate ANI so, so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Admin or not, this is looking more and more of a potential WP:NOTHERE block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LilySophie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LilySophie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) called WanderingWanda a "transtrender". Normally, after a single personal attack a warning could be sufficient, but implying someone fakes being transgender to get attention is particularly offensive, and keeping in mind Wikipedia should be open to all editors, including LGBT folks, I believe administrative action is necessary here. Some may view this as a possible typo, but considering the user not only switched the "g" with a "t", but also added a "r" after the "t", I find that highly unlikely. --MrClog (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@LilySophie Your use of that term has the appearance of a deliberate insult. If this was an accidental typo you need to state as much. If you did intend to use that term, then we have a problem. But at the very least an explanation and apology are called for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Lily's message:

Respectfully want to notify you transtrender of the ongoing consensus discussion in the article's talk page, since you were previously involved in the discussion and since I would like to avoid an edit war with you and NewImpartial. Thank you.

My reply:

If you weren't aware, "transtrender" is an offensive term. Per WP:AGF I will assume you didn't actually intend to call me that. Perhaps it was just some weird autocorrect glitch?

WanderingWanda (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I left the user a warning. That is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. El_C 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Recommend looking at the user's contributions. All of them. --131.107.159.145 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know if I'm gonna get a chance to do that, but if there is something specific you want me to look at, please feel free to bring it here. El_C 20:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][20]]. They only have one page worth of edits. Draw your own conclusions based on every single edit they've made and what topic it relates to and what POV those edits push. --131.107.159.145 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of the overarching tendency, I meant do you have anything else actionable. I see some soapboxing, the rest seems like standard pov pushing. El_C 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume the IP's point isn't that the other diffs are necessarily actionable in themselves, but that they provide context which makes clear the edit wasn't a typo or autocorrect glitch. That said, the last diff is page-blanking, which certainly also does seem actionable, in combination with the edit in question. Grandpallama (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pj1437

Pj1437 has been making edits with very aggressive and vulgar edit summaries, the edits they did were easily justifiable but the attitude I think is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Diffs:

[21] [22] [23] [24]

He has been warned before for making personal attacks on other users.

Another account that is likely them for future actions:

[25] --Vauxford (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have give this editor a one week block for their aggressive, harassing and hateful edit summaries. The fourth diff is racist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

He's got a bunch of sock puppets, and he's already evading a long-term block. I've upped it to an indef CU block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection request

Resolved

 – Protected by Lectonar --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Vandals are constantly adding cuss words at the Madan Mitra article. Although, I have made a request for page protection at WP:RPP, I would make the same request here. Please protect this page as soon as possible. Please note that, Mitra is an important leader of his party and currently, the general election is being held in India. RRD (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: Please only make a request in one location. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ISIS edits and socking, Part 2

• Louisborromeo12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like the user from this ANI thread is back again. The problems include WP:OR, WP:IDHT and just plain vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sock. —DoRD (talk)​ 10:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Need range block (2A01:4C8:C1E:1EEE:)

• Samir Handanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marco Reus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kepa Arrizabalaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (already page protected)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:c8b:a55c:b002:48f7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:4ed:520e:c16b:b3b4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:d45b:45fc:fd24:a2b8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:a980:b51b:677d:73cf (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:15a2:b5f8:1b0e:2e82 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:406c:f8dc:35f:6c8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2a01:4c8:c1e:1eee:603b:d8d1:8434:22cb (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.139.49.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The articles were suffered from many ip from the range that start with 2A01:4C8:C1E:1EEE: . plus another ip 212.139.49.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from another ISP. The ipv4 received the final warning, while ipv6 technically each only received their "first" warning . However, by edit pattern the ipv4 and ipv6 are related, as well as those IPs from the two pools were quite active in vandalism and also touching other articles, it seem a block is required to prevent them to vandalise . Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

And may also related to already blocked user Editbro2021 (talk · contribs). Matthew hk (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock applied, also blocked the 212 IP. GAB^gab 17:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Siteban req

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor should be immediately sitebanned, please see this [[26]]. This is beyond disgusting. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a well-articulated argument you put forward there.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Just looking at the allegation you can see they are ridiculous. One of the allegations was (redacted) That would be what you posted and sorry you don't need to be in this community. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of what I posted, are you trying to say it's a personal attack? you're not being clear here. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's just reprehensible. Are you saying you're not aware of Mens rea, or was that just a provocation? El_C 04:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:El_C [[27]] his agf is gone. He needs to go. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I was beaten to an indef block by El_C. Support the block (or ban), disgusting comment hot on the heels of his sexist comment to GorillaWarfare. Fram (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 04:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) When I saw the comment cited by HIAB, I honestly thought it was trolling – but Eng.M.Bandara has been an editor since 2014, so it seems like he's being serious. I support an indefinite block, and I sincerely hope that Eng takes the time to read up on matters relating to consent and sexual assault before he considers rejoining our community. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been this disgusted by an on-wiki comment. The community should consider whether to upgrade it to a community enforced indef block. --Blackmane (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not make it a ban at that point? In fact I would support it. I propose an indefinite siteban of user:Eng.M.Bandara until such time as he realizes what he did wrong. This will also serve to illustrate to him that it is not the admins who find his behavior deplorable, but the entire community. --Rockstonetalk to me! 06:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose a site-ban at this time. The correct response to such editors is to educate them, not shut them out and further their viewpoint among themselves. I believe people have the capability to learn and should be allowed the opportunity to learn - unless they have displayed a continual behaviour of an unwillingness to learn. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not going to raise a fuss but I don't think this should have been revdelled. We're adults here and people should be able to see what the block was about. And yes it was an unacceptable post for wikipedia, but if it's literally the most disgusting one you've ever seen, you must be new here. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RD2. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that the revdel here may be due to context - in other words, in light of this user's previous sexist outburst at GorillaWarfare it's likely that this user is not presenting a nuanced and informed viewpoint on sexual assault. There is nothing to be gained by keeping this bigoted screed out in the open. WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

2a01:cb0c:cd:d800:9863:c18:28b2:16fd and GetRealNow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP editor 2a01:cb0c:cd:d800:9863:c18:28b2:16fd has made two edits: to my Talk page and then to the Talk page for the Brexit Party immediately after. Both contain partial threats. Both refer to climate change, but are barely coherent.

GetRealNow has made three edits around the same time. The first, to an individual standing for the Brexit Party, was just petty vandalism. The latter two, to Brexit Party here and to Politics of the United Kingdom here, both reference climate change. All three had misleading edit summaries.

Both are a problem. The timing, the choice of target, their somewhat incoherent nature and the references to climate change suggest they may be the same person. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nil Einne and Tommy Robinson (activist)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nil Einne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have a bee in his bonnet about keeping a tabloid source (the Daily Mirror) on the BLP article Tommy Robinson (activist). I've replaced it with a better source as agreed in talk but the user is now edit-warring to keep the source. Can someone have a gentle word please? Thanks a lot. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have protected the article to stop the edit war. Hopefully, this will help to further facilitate the discussion that's already taking place on the article talk page. El_C 08:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think the user may also need a nudge that their edits were harmful. Also, you've protected the Wrong Version. Any chance of putting it back to the one which uses the BBC source meantime? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Both versions provide a non tabloid journalism source, so there's no justification for such a change under BLP grounds. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not realise until now that MarchOrDie had started to add a new source to replace the Mirror. If I had, I would not have reverted so apologise for my 2 recent reverts and agree they were a mistake and it's my failing for not looking properly. I would note that this is yet another example of the harm of misciting a policy to support an action. If it had been said "replacing Mirror with BBC" or "replacing Mirror with BBC for BLP reasons" rather than claiming the source must go, or vandalism this would have better explained what they were doing with their 2 most recent edits and it would have been easier to see even without looking carefully at the diff. I agree it's not unreasonable to replace a more tabloidish source with a better one for BLP reasons, but as I said, there are no grounds under BLP policy for automatic removal of tabloidish sources just because they are tabloidish and legitimate discussion could take place for keeping the tabloidish source whether instead of, or in addition to the tabloidish source, depending on the circumstances and all allowed under BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tommy Robinson and the article Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)#Daily Mirror. So far, MarchOrDie is the only person who alleges a BLP concern. The claim is that BLPsources prohibits sources that engage in tabloid journalism. But the cited section explicitly says only that material sourced solely to tabloid journalism is prohibited. 7 editors including myself agree that this means the source is not automatically a problem for BLP reasons, and there has been zero explanation from MarchOrDie why it is a problem under BLP grounds. As me and others outlined at BLPN and the article talk page, there may be reasonable grounds for removal of the source based on the ground it adds nothing not already provided by the other source. However as I've also pointed out, it's not simply a procedural point to object to the removal of a source in spurious grounds, whether BLP (or an incorrect claim of vandalism). It's an important issue since BLP matters, and editors who misuse BLP in ways that aren't supported by policy are harming legitimate efforts to deal with actual BLP problems. Further, they're also effectively trying to shortcut normal editing processes to get their way, by claiming that something is a BLP problem and therefore requires consensus and they do not have to discuss, when under normal editing, it's intrinsic on both sides to outline a reason why their edits improve the encyclopaedia. Note that the uncertainty over whether the source add anything does not in itself mean it must stay out. It could be consensus would be achieved, whether written or WP:silence if someone tries but that remains uncertain. I fully admit I likely would not have reverted if the source adding nothing was given as the reason for removal. Instead, I would have watched the discussion, if any, and participated if I felt I had something to add. In the end, I have no idea what I would have said, since there has been limited discussion over this probably in part because we are distracted by the pointless BLP issue. For this reason, I do not feel my editing is a WP:POINT violation, since I'm not disrupting to make a point. I'm trying to prevent a shortcircuiting of the normal editing processes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, not quite yet. Nil Einne, why was the BBC source removed in the first place? El_C 08:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now explained above in an EC, my mistake. I did not notice that MarchOrDie had started to replace the source rather than simply remove a source. I do not object to the reversion of my edits, and in fact if you unprotect I will not edit further since I feel that the replacement of the source sufficiently overrides my concerns over simply removing a source without a reason being given. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MarchOrDie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ancillary to the above report about Nil Einne [[28]] user MarchOrDie has shown a marked disregard for other users opinions about what is or is not a BLP violation [[29]], [[30]] in essence (I suspect I am being generous) saying that everyone but them is wrong [[31]] and declaring the discussion over (in their favour, see below), edit warring (but making sure not to breach 3RR, just [[32]]. And now engaging in (what are) PA's [[33]]. It is clear this has now crossed over into tendentious editing and battleground mentality.

The users behavior is now being hugely disruptive, and I suspect is not going to go away. As it is clear they have decided what the policy is and everyone else is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at their user talk page yesterday + a few edits, due to an earlier report. They're certainly at the aggressive end of the spectrum. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Assertive maybe. But the real problem is that I was right and poor Slatersteven was wrong. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Being right does not give you license to be a prat. AFAICT the underlying content dispute has been resolved, this should be closed and everyone should shake hands & move on. GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No MarchOrDie, not assertive, aggressive, with a bad case of WP:IDHT. Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In in response to this ANI [[34]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OK if I am wrong and BLP forbids the use of tabloid sources I appoligise and ask for this to be closed. If not I would ask that the user in question is told this, officially. Otherwise (I truly believe) they will be brought here again, and they will end up with a far more severe sanction then just a warning. This is about cutting the rope before they take anymore.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• MarchOrDie needs to desist now. The discussion at BLP/N here clearly shows consensus against them, and the responses here do not exactly engender confidence that they will respect that. "You've gone off crying to mummy" - really? The consequences are inevitable if they continue to edit in this manner. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Desist what exactly? I was right on the content issue, it's all figured out, and I reserve the right to call out crybaby behavior from losers, just as I reserve the right to edit articles in compliance with BLP. Please take the time to read up properly before commenting here in future. Thanks. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did say the consequences were inevitable, and so they are. Blocked for a week for persistent personal attacks. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is sad, all I asked for is that they be told to listen to the consensus and that they were wrong, a block was never my intention. I will draw a line under this now, it went far further then I had intended.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Atomiccocktail / Einfach machen Hamburg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Atomiccocktail (talk · contribs)
Einfach machen Hamburg (talk · contribs)

The editor who owns both the accounts Atomiccocktail and Einfach machen Hamburg is a paid editor who has been editing English Wikipedia since 2008. His proper contributions are sparse to say the least, if not lacking entirely. In the past ten years, he has created 15 articles, out of which none are proper articles. All of these articles are just plain advertisements. Two of his articles were deleted; one article was rejected before it made it to the mainspace, and seven of his still existing articles suffer from substantial flaws, and were tagged with article maintenance templates (The topics of this article, and this one may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations, this article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism, this article contains content that is written like an advertisement, this article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience, a major contributor to this article, this one and this one appears to have close connections with their subject). Only 5 articles were not tagged with any “issue badges”, but I doubt that these articles couldn’t be tagged with one.

In total, this editor doesn’t contribute to Wikipedia. He abuses it for advertisement purposes, even using a (known) sockpuppet. I doubt that we can expect any useful contributions from this user, but I fear that harmful contributions will follow, as the past ten years have shown. I therefore suggest an indefinite block for the accounts Atomiccocktail and Einfach machen Hamburg. --185.249.125.13 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefnite block --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all very funny here. An Austrian IP occurs and wants a blocking here. Two day ago the following happend at de.wikipedia.org:

• There was a tough argument about labaling article Ringo (Ballade) as "featured article". The discussions (in German) can be found here). In this context, completely baseless allegations were loudly made against this article (orginal research and missleading sources). These allegations were submitted by Johannes (see above). Steigi1900 showed that all these allegations were baseless and far fetched.

• Suddenly Kanisfluh, former name = Austriantraveler, indefinitely blocked at de.wikipedia.org, came around the corner and has evaluated the candidacy. He, an Austrian, decided AGAINST an award "featured article", although the course of the discussion was clear: The clear majority of the votes and their arguments spoke clearly FOR labaling as a "featured article".

• I crossed out this strange evaluation. Because Kanisfluh violated administrative warnings, he is now blocked for two weeks. The article in question was re-evaluated by two not involved Wikipedians. Result: "lesenswert" (featured article), see here.

Johannes was obviously upset and hinted that he wanted to leave de.wikipedia.org, see here. Now he arrives here and supports the this questionable application of an IP from Vienna...

To me this all looks like a cross wiki and cheap revenge action. Atomiccocktail (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefnite block. -- Bwag (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC) This moneymaker binds only manpower: [35]. Obviously, he gets paid by bytes. Look at the excessive references or does he want to push the Google ranking?

The evidence gives cause for concern. However, an immediate infinite ban from en.wikipedia is not a good idea: - The primary cause for concern are paid edits. Unless other problems are found, a ban from paid editing should be sufficient even if it has to be done - The user has not been blocked here yet, has been here for an extended amount of time. Talking about them why their edits are problematic(if they are) should be sufficient if they understand it properly.

The potential revenge aspect should also be evaluated. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• strong oppose: of course its a revenge issue on this problem on de:WP and following quarrels - and nothing but. I blocked the account Einfach machen Hamburg in de:WP once in 2015 [36], revised at "Sperrprüfung"[37] (similar to Wikipedia:Appealing a block in en:WP). Since than in de:WP he hasn't interacted between his two accounts in a wrong way IMHO. In opposite its obvious, that he managed to control the difference between his "paid editing" account and his editing as a normal user. Scanning his edits on en:WP with both accounts, I see no offense against project scope here. --Rax (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (please excuse my broken english)

• strong oppose, per Rax. This is an obvious try to get some sort of revenge by people who don't like Atomiccocktail on de.wp. Pathetic. Stefan64 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Close I am not willing to entertain a call for an indefinite block from an IP with no editing history on any Wikimedia wiki (global user contributions) and this should be swiftly closed down on that basis. Use your account. Insofar that this is a dispute that has been imported from de.wikipedia as has been alleged, we do not take kindly to that kind of behaviour. Keep your disputes to your own manor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"get out of your basement"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't possibly see how Lubbad85 (talk · contribs) could think this comment appropriate. (I'm going to be opening a CCI in the near future since it seems about 2/3 of their substantial mainspace edits are plagiarized, and I guess the research I was doing into that is what "follow" and "get a hobby" refer to. No need to explain why that's an incorrect interpretation of the policy[38] but more importantly I'd rather not discuss copyvio here; I'd just like for this editor to receive a stern warning or a short block for the above unambiguous personal attack.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG this editor has been WP:TENDENTIOUS. I see this ANI as another form of harassment. I ask the editors to look at Hijiri 88's behavior to see if WP:BOOMERANG applies. I was likely wrong to tell the editor to get out of his basement. However I am human and was tired of the behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)

Some evidence would be nice, if there is a background we need to see it, not take your word for it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This basement comment was posted on my talk page - not sure it is a personal attack. However this editor has a history of attacks and other editors have called them out. here. I have to get on with business now, but I can find more if the administrators need more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)

The users history (of which I am well aware) is irrelevant, two wrongs do not make a right. If he attacked or provoked you that is one thing. But if your defense is "but he does it to other people", then...well no PA's so there is not a lot I could respond with.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hard to see how that is not a PA, I think a warning is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility by User:2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:94

2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being abusive and incivil. Mikemyers345 reported them as a vandal. I don't think that they are a vandal (since it isn't obviously vandalism), but I do think that the IP needs to be reviewed. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for 72 hours for harassment by El_C. aboideau^talk 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple other IPs have also been blocked for the same behaviour. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you think they're socking? Rockstonetalk to me! 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• User is back and doing some socking: 209.232.226.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rockstonetalk to me! 20:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• User is back again. 12.246.149.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rockstonetalk to me! 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• And again. 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:4E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looks like he earned a ban.Rockstonetalk to me! 23:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock applied to Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:800:0:0:0:0/60 for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Rockstonetalk to me! 18:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Users Shashank5988, article Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier AfD

Hello I'd like some help please. The above article which dealt with racism in India has been nominated for deletion by a user who appears to also be issuing threatening templates when instructed not to delete content within the article nominated. The deletions also appear to remove content providing context to the notability of the incidence and appear quite strongly of being guided by PoV due to sensitivities in being accepting of issues such as racism in India (the AfD will be self evident) The article appears to be being edited by two editors both with Indian user names who have twice now deleted the same content, and it is heading towards an edit war. I would appreciate some admin oversight and page protection may be an appropriate step. Please review. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Links and diffs please. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The DS alert was not a threat, many perceive it to be - because once you've been informed, you're eligible to be sanctioned. But, I do agree Shashank and RaviC have strong nationalistic point of views, and have been warned repeatedly in the past for their questionable edits. Furthermore, their tag-teaming at Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier to remove sourced information (the part where rueben_lys claims it precipitated the tensions is OR, it should just be included as history) is very, very questionable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  You also did not inform the editor, as the big, red box on the top of ANI shows. I did it for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Attic Salt

• Attic Salt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is persistently and provocatively reverting multiple edits on Rigel to be pointy. This edit[39] is especially worrisome, stating "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit.", and the following edit here[40]. There may of been possibly some excuse for such reaction, but they had been immediately prior told beforehand[41]: especially "Again. When you don't understand something, don't edit, and don't revert unless it is clearly vandalism." This follows policy, and suggests motive as a deliberate tactic to interrupt the editing process. PARTR says: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." The discussion regarding these edits already previously appeared under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section and the issues of ES here[42]. Other examples of similar everts and behaviour include[43][44][45][46][47]

Each of these matters were all properly discussed in length on the article's talkpage. An example is again pointed out under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section about following policies under summaries in disputes and H:FIES.

There is a futher pointy issue under Talk:Rigel#Brightness and parallax, after the removal of this Rigel text here[48]. Discussion on why brightness was related to distance was explained to them in this section by two editors. Yet when asked here to restore this removal here[49], they instead reverted my edit here[50], they then again modified the article here[51], which was not what was requested to be restored.

Possibly suggest either a Rigel article ABAN and/or a warning for this individual to keep away from me and my edits when ever feasible. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, "when they had been told"? Don't you mean, "when I told them"? You were chided at the last ANI thread you opened for talking about yourself in the third person, so you thought repeating it a few days later would really be a good idea? This may come as a surprise to you, but Attic Salt is not beholden to your requests. Changing [52] to [53] looks like reasonable WP:BRD to me, so mebbe back off with the jumping to calling for an ABAN. You are editing a collaborative encyclopedia; your edits will sometimes get edited or reverted (particularly since you continue to refuse to use edit summaries). Get over it and assume a LOT more good faith. And quit pestering them on their talk page; they've asked you to stop. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the only question here is whether the aboriginal weapon should be used. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Little of this seems to be particularly relevant.

• The statement "when they had been told" does not appear in the text above nor in the given link here.[54]
• If there is a third person issue, it is minor. If i've done so, my apologies. (I've been as careful as possible and tried to heed the advice.)
• Saying: "Changing [55] to [56] looks like reasonable WP:BRD to me," looks reasonable, but the change was about brightness not the parallax error. They say in their edit summary "Restore sentiment of an edit by Arianewiki1.", but this ignores the earlier request here[57] to restore "brightness and" or "and the star's brightness". Asking a question is hardly disruptive behaviour.
• Saying: "You are editing a collaborative encyclopedia; your edits will sometimes get edited or reverted." But in this instance them saying in the edit summary: "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." is far from collaborative. Worst, the "sometimes" is in fact "most of the time" in this Rigel article, as exampled.
• Lack of edit summaries is not relevant here, as it is about using edit summaries against other editors by being pointy. The statement "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." is not behaviour expected by anyone, and is against policy. Is this factually wrong?
• Complaint of "pestering them" is rather flimsy, when all[58] advises the adding of templates and guiding them on policy. They have been warned about the rules of notification here[59]. My advice is far from controversial, is far from harassment. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon Please explain what "...the only question here is whether the aboriginal weapon should be used" means? Its usage implies an abstract concept which reflects on editors based not on fact but by inference. If you mean "payback", then please explain why "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." in an edit summary is an acceptable behaviour or practice here? If a "Reasonably acceptable" edit exists. then why revert it, then go on to place an alternate version? I'm interested to hear the justification for this action in light of discussions already made properly on an article talkpage. How am I supposed to react here? Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It means WP:BOOMERANG, that being a hunting weapon used by the indigenous inhabitants of Australia. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see how reverting an edit by saying "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." could WP:BOOMERANG on me. This is their reasoning not mine at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not anything anyone else did that could boomerang, it is your decision to open this ANI thread that could do so. VQuakr (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 routinely harasses me, often with walls of issues, seemingly hoping that I will respond to each one of them in detail. For numerous examples of this harassment, see the Rigel talk page: [60] and my talk page: [61]. Here, in particular, are a couple of interesting examples: [62] and [63]. Another continuing problem is that Arianewiki1 does not use edit summaries, even when reverting edits. Attic Salt (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Saying: "...often with walls of issues, seemingly hoping that I will respond to each one of them in detail." is in fact the opposite. When an edit is made, it's quickly reverted, and even after it is explained as to why - mostly because of a misunderstand context - it is just removed again. If someone reverts an edit, it is the responsibility of the reverter to explain themselves either in the edit summary on a talkpage. What is disturbing here is acting like a policeman trying enforcing a likely incorrect viewpoint or perception of policy. Even when the actual policies or guidelines are pointed out, finds attitudes like here.[64] Evidence shows when stating "Reasonably acceptable, but rolling back to next edit." looks like policing. Another example is saying "As I explained in my edit summaries (see, I use edit summaries)" Repeatably doing this is frustrating and interrupt the editing process. A quite detailed summary of this kind of frustrating the editing process is here[65]

Clearly when reverting any edit, there must be some justification. It might be unclear, but if is an editor is one you know that has a good knowledge of the subject, their edit is likely to be reasonable. It is quite unlikely they are vandalising. My complaint is by removing a word that has context, and even when it is explained in detail, finds continuing the angst to make a "point." e.g. A deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point." It is against policy and I would like you to stop this behaviour. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Question: –. If the edit summaries problems are being used to justify reverting an edit, then how can "often with walls of issues, seemingly hoping that I will respond to each one of them in detail." on any talkpage ever be an issue?

If I make some edit, and someone disagree with it and reverts it, BRD suggests the reverter needs to be prepared to say why they reverted it and justify it. If I make and edit, and has explained it fully on a talkpage, but someone disagrees and reverts it, BRD suggests the reverter needs to be prepared to say why they reverted it and justify it. Either way, it makes little sense that original editor is writing their edit just to force the (possible future) reverter to respond to them in detail (except, perhaps, if they were a vandal.) If it were on a User talkpage, there is no actual obligation to respond as pointed out here You can even just delete them. However, general notifications on your talkpage like here can hardly be described as harassment when they just point out related policy. Moreover, since your declared 'ban' of me from your talkpage, and the continued reverting of my edits on Rigel, leaves no where else but article talkpages to sort article revert or article matters out. It seems me doing so is now being deemed as this 'harassment' too?

If you have doubts about any edits, there is no harm asking a question, and there are some who will answer you quite well. e.g. The whole section of Talk:Rigel#Brightness and parallax. Yet even when given the facts nicely and accurately by me (and another editor), but then seeing this pointed hostile reaction[66] or this edit[67] by another ISP, then do this[68], then this[69], then this[70].

I feel most of the problems here would evaporate if you just stop all the 'pointy' reverts, and consider a little more kindness, perhaps. Is this unfair? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

More eyes on 109.157.32.223

Need more eyes on 109.157.32.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - tripped a pile of edit filters and I can't tell if it's a vandal or gnome so far. Was reported on AIV, bringing here for more potential reviewers. They're editing a whole pile of English Police Department articles. Possible pattern someone else may have seen before? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't look gnomish. Removing the number of employees as "sensitive disclosure", and removing the homeoffice reference used elsewhere in the article? This strikes me as bizarre. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism continues

So, the user blocked Jahmalm is continuing its vandalism through two IP's and have reverted two dozens of articles (for now I've only reverted one[[71]) but think that action needs to be taken from administrators. Look at the two IP's histories [72][73]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ahmedo Semsurî, I see no evidence whatsoever of socking, nor do I see why the IP's edits are vandalism. You need to present actual evidence if you want us to do something--and if you start reverting, it will have to be on the basis of either a. solid evidence of socking and b. some indication/proof that the edit is somehow disruptive or vandalism. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The specific question is whether it's appropriate to push for the notion that every present-day and historical Yezidi settlement is part of Ezidkhan. Now as seen in the talkpage[74] and the main page, Ezidkhan is not even defined geographically (nor does academia). So, to continue re-adding stuff like this is inappropriate[75], especially after a discussion which included various admins and settled the question. Most of the users (incl. IP's) who do these reverts get confirmed to be affiliated to Jahmalm[76] and admins block them. (His sockpuppetry case). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Harimua Thailand

Harimua Thailand (talk · contribs) has been engaging himself in an edit war in several tokusatsu articles, specifically in these articles:

• Kamen Rider Series
• Super Hero Time
• List of anime distributed by TV Tokyo

The user insists that the Kamen Rider Series will move from TV Asahi to TV Tokyo this year, despite showing no proof of this happening. Furthermore, he has ignored all warnings from other users on his talk page. - Areaseven (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc.

A user in Queensland, Australia, has been routinely adding empty "History" sections with "{{Expand section}}" templates to hundreds or possibly thousands of articles. When they do add content, it's always unsourced, and in many cases a copyright violation. They haven't responded to the many warnings, previous ANI reports, and blocks they've received, and are continuing nonstop at a furious pace...

They edit mainly from several IP numbers and ranges, and at least one account, the most recent and currently active being:

• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 (since 1 May - this is the main range currently)
• Special:Contributions/120.153.192.228 (since 30 April)
• Special:Contributions/202.53.36.43 (8-9 May)
• Special:Contributions/124.19.16.206 (since 8 March)
• Special:Contributions/58.96.59.233 (since at least October 2018)
• the account Special:Contributions/JohnLickor372 shows exactly the same patterns of behavior.

Thousands of older edits are mainly on these ranges, but there are many on various other IPs:

• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700::/64 (20 January- 30 April)
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:4000::/64 (26 October - 28 December 2018)

ANI reports - I found a couple of previous reports, but nothing much came of them. I don't think people realized the extent of the disruption:

• Question about an odd series of changes - March 2019 - Pinging Laterthanyouthink, BlackcurrantTea, and EdJohnston from the discussion.

• Edits by IP 121.222.88.51 - January 2019

Warnings and blocks: They were blocked at least once for the empty "History" section edits, 21 April: User talk:2001:8003:E405:F700:FA:9C5B:12C7:B651 - but I believe they've been blocked several times before, and are currently evading an active block - more on that below. There are dozens of warnings on various IP talk pages (eg. [77], [78], [79], etc.) and in revert edit summaries. The JohnLickor372 account has ignored warnings, and I've left a fourth "final warning" for them about the empty sections, referring to MOS:BODY. In addition to the blank sections, they often create a "History" section then demote other sections (eg. "Heritage listings") to subsections of it. They also regularly rename existing sections to include the word "history". Sometimes these are helpful, but most often it's pointless and doesn't improve the article. Not every single article needs a "History" section!

Copyright violations and warnings:

• Special:Diff/895313632/896209061
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800:A14F:9A69:D22A:BB0F
• Special:Diff/895839452/896008464
• Special:Contributions/120.153.192.228

etc...

Unsourced contributions: ofthen they will add some material along with a "History" section, but it is invariably unsourced: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], etc. etc. Longer additions often turn out to have been copypasted from other web pages, if not copyright violations then unattributed and uncited freely-licensed text: [85], or this addtion to Easter: [86], copied from the New World Encyclopedia: [87].

Other disruptive behavior includes repeatedly inserting undue-weight material about child murders in various articles, see [88], and [89], etc.

Block evasion: in addition to the expired block that was specifically about the empty sections, there's a currently-active block on Special:Contributions/120.151.0.112, set by NinjaRobotPirate in December. Although the edits look rather different - mainly adding "adventure film" categories, and editing "visa requirements" articles, I suspect this is the same person. Here are some "smoking guns" of IPs adding blank "History" sections etc., and at the same time adding "adventure film" categories, "visa requirements", editing "year" articles, etc.:

• Special:Contributions/220.101.5.165
• Special:Contributions/124.150.90.69
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700:D9D6:15D3:496F:6ECF
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800:796D:2C57:851E:3BA2
• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700:D4F8:E432:F3A7:3677
• Special:Contributions/58.96.59.233 - especially around 22 March
• Special:Contributions/58.161.80.53 - see 4 & 12 March, leading to block for block evasion
• Special:Contributions/121.222.65.53 - see 22-25 January (history/heritage sections, adventure films, visa requirements, and child murders, all mixed together)

There's a related expired 1-month rangeblock in March on the above-mentioned Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700::/64 range, several on the other Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:4000::/64 range, and various others. There were some responses to the blocks, indicating that their English is about the same level as JohnLickor372 et al. They were somewhat unclear on the concept of being blocked: [90], [91], [92], [93]. Should I file an SPI report? If so, what should I use as the master?

Cleaning up: I've been removing the empty "History" sections, as have many others. I'm not quite sure what to do in the case where they've also added a "main" or "see also" pointing to a related history article, as I suppose that could be helpful. I guess renaming, or moving existing sections to subsections of a new "History" section, should be dealt with case-by-case. Probably most of the unsourced text should be removed, especially if it constitutes block evasion.

--IamNotU (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some further cleaning, IamNotU, and good work for documenting all of this. I did some clean-ups a while back and it's very tedious. I reported JohnLickor to WP:AIN earlier today in the hope that at least that one would be blocked, but it would be good if all of the others could be blocked too - preferably forever. Such a waste of so many people's valuable time! (I don't know enough about SPIs to advise there, but hopefully an admin will be able to help.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I did some clean up after this user just now, and only part of the mess Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 made. A quick block would be warranted especially if alternate accounts already have been; adding empty section headers is not contributing to the project. Reywas92^Talk 06:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the research and documenting this so thoroughly, IamNotU. More examples of unsourced history sections they've added: Bernesq, Hýskov, Stašov (Beroun District), and Bykoš. This is obviously the same person who was editing disruptively in March. I spent a fair amount of time deleting their empty history sections and other unhelpful changes then, as did others. They may have good intentions, but very few of their edits contribute to the project, and the amount of time other editors spend cleaning up makes them a net negative. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In between the time I left a notice about an unsourced addition on their talk page and posted here, they re-added the unsourced material. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I deleted a dozen or so empty sections, to see if I could get their attention - it hasn't worked. But it's only a drop in the bucket. It looks like they've been at this several hours a day for many months. I also took a closer look at a few of the hundreds of unsourced history sections they've added. Some are obviously close paraphrases of un-free websites (copyright violations) for example these additions to Iya Valley, taken from japanvisitor.com, a self-published travel site, or to Çiğ köfte, taken from a Turkish "foodie" blog. I think a large number are unattributed copy-pastes from WikiVoyage (not a reliable source), such as the one to Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, taken from: [94]. Others are clearly "urban myths" and other nonsense taken from who-knows-where: [95]. I think we have to assume that every unsourced contribution from them is potentially a copyright violation, and likely taken from some unreliable source such as a blog, wiki, travel or recipe website, etc. My opinion is that we should just delete them all, as the effort needed to track down the sources and verify whether each edit is legitimate or not - with the expectation of "probably not", given their behavior - isn't practical.

Since they're continuing to edit, and undo reverts, and show no signs of slowing down despite all efforts to communicate with them, I think a block of the account and the IPs is in order. --IamNotU (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There's evidence of repeated copyvios in the revision history of Cardamom starting with the edit at 1:00, 18 April 2019 and ending at 00:16, 19 April 2019‎: they added copyrighted material, it was removed by Sphilbrick, they readded it, Sphilbrick removed it again. I removed unattributed text translated from fr.wikipedia from Velaux. You can add Special:Contributions/211.27.132.105 and Special:Contributions/193.116.197.55, too. They sometimes return to the same article under different IPs. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just removed another copyright violation they added a few minutes ago to "aioli": [96], and also found several more of the larger copyright violations, and copypastes from eg. New World Encyclopedia, from the past two weeks: [97], [98], [99], [100]. I'm sure many of the smaller edits are copypastes or close paraphrases too, but I didn't check them all. And yes, there are many other previous IPV4 IPs too, I didn't list the older ones I found, only the main IPV6 ranges, and there are a few more IPV6 ones as well. I guess it would be good to compile a list somewhere, if people want to go back and check them. I imagine it would take several person-weeks (or months) to clean it all up.

If they continue on without communicating, which seems to be the case (they just removed the copyvio-revdel template from aioli) then the numerous IPs might make blocking difficult. But I think a block of the account and the main 2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 would be a good start, and go from there. --IamNotU (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely time to start blocking, in my (non-admin's) opinion! I've just done an AIV on JohnLickor again - hopefully that will result in a block. It really looks as if this person is just intent on deliberately and systematically vandalising - they've had the chance to prove good intentions and not responded, IMO. I'm not sure how best to tackle this but an admin will no doubt have a good suggestion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they honestly believe they are improving Wikipedia, but are going about it in the wrong way, so it's not vandalism - though removing a template that says "Blatant copyright violations - do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it" I'd say crosses the line... In any case, there's now a temporary block on the JohnLickor372 account. I've started reverting the ongoing IP edits on Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 as sockpuppetry/block evasion, probably we could use a rangeblock on that too, since they seem to have no intention of stopping or discussing the situation, which they're surely aware of by now. --IamNotU (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this on my watchlist but didn't realize how widespread it was, and just want to say thank you to the editors here for tracking this down and fixing it. I'd support admin action here to prevent further disruption. Leviv ich 20:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

False edit summaries by User:Froid

User:Froid likes to edit disambiguation pages with edit summaries about changing "category/ies", when these edits have nothing to do with categories as that term is used on Wikipedia. (Some diffs: [101], [102], [103]; there are dozens more in the User's contributions.) These inaccurate summaries have the effect of reducing the attention drawn to Froid's often extensive reorganizations of dab pages.

Froid has been asked (and warned) to stop using these inaccurate summaries, first by me in September 2018, then by User:Uanfala in November 2018, and again by me on May 3 and May 7. Froid has almost entirely refused to respond to these requests/warnings, and apparently believes they may be ignored, having repeated the behavior just in the last day, after the most recent warning. (EDIT: And yet again, after being alerted to this ANI discussion. I now believe a block is in order. 14:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

I would like Froid to be informed by the admins here that false edit summaries constitute disruptive editing, and as such may lead to sanctions if repeated. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disruptive. What do you advise is be the appropriate description for the renaming table of contents levels, and the promotion or demotion of some of those levels? Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You've of course been told this before, and had plenty of chances to get it straight before now, but: you can call them headings, headers, sections, or subsections as appropriate. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 20:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• If they have already been warned I think a short block may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've encountered Froid on numerous pages over the past few years, usually after they've "copyedited". Many of their edits improve articles, but they also exhibit a frequent carelessness, or unfamiliarity with actual grammar, such that the edits can result in the introduction of errors, which Froid has no qualims about edit warring to maintain. They also occasionally engage in what can only be considered disruptive editing. Their talkpage is littered with warnings about edit warring, deceptive edit summaries, and enforcing idiosyncratic organizational rules on disambiguation pages that don't seem to be rooted in anything other than Froid's preference. Froid is a valuable contributor and a net positive, but they really could stand to be more collaborative. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unfamiliarity with actual grammar?" LOL! No one (including this editor) is perfect, but I also happen to be well versed in grammar. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unfamiliarity" was meant to give you an out. The point isn't that any editor should be perfect, but that editors should listen when their edits are reverted and learn from their errors, instead of continuing to do the same thing over and over. This ANI report is primarily relying on your edits at disambiguation pages, but the overarching problem is one of not adjusting your editing behavior in response to feedback or engaging with the community at all, much less in a positive manner. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Froid has continued to make the same edits that prompted the filing of this report, but hasn't bothered to participate here. That's not a great sign. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Here I am. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Showing up only because you were told you would be blocked otherwise is not overly inspiring, either. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Inspiring other editors is of no interest to me. I recommend you don't quit your day job, because psychoanalysis is not your forte. I didn't show up here because I was told I'd be blocked; I showed up only in response to an explicit request to do so posted on my page.

I showed up only in response to an explicit request to do so posted on my page or else be blocked. When confronted with the community's lack of patience for non-collaborative behavior, your response is to continue to double down with a non-collaborative attitude and begin attacking. I'm not sure what you think is happening at this thread, but choosing to insult the editors who have serious concerns instead of listening and determining that you need to adjust your approach is not a winning strategy. Grandpallama (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have requested that Froid cease editing until they are prepared to address the concerns raised here. If their intent is simply to let this thread die out and continue on as they have done, I will likely block the account until they agree to communicate, as is required to edit here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is Froid's apparent determination not to take feedback on board. I've encountered them on dab pages, where they sometimes do good work, but sometimes introduce unhelpfully complicated structure. I mentioned this on their talk page some time last year, then had to bring it up again in February, then raised the general question on a project talk page in March (a couple of people participated and there was agreement that the edits weren't helpful), then again this month I asked Froid a little bit more firmly to please either gain consensus or to refrain from making such edits. All the while, they haven't responded to any of the messages or participated in the discussion, and they've carried on making such edits again and again. – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Same comment I made above, to Grandpallama. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored Bizarro (disambiguation) and Barbarella, since the ordering by Froid made no sense. Any edit with a deceptive edit summary should be reverted at will as far as I'm concerned. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your second statement reflects a throwing the baby out with the bathwater mentality but results in disruptive edits, when you don't like the edit summary and don't review whether or not the edits improve the page. Sadly, not an uncommon mentality on Wikipedia. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your first statement and actions regarding the two articles you mentioned reflect a preference for pages that lack organization, as well as a disregard for or lack of comprehension of the MECE (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive) Principle, which many Wikipedia pages, especially disambiguation pages, would benefit from following. Froid (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This principle can be quite helpful if applied with common sense and tempered with considerations of usability. If you believe disambiguation pages should formally adopt this as a new principle, you can propose that on the talk page of MOS:DAB. And regardless, if you make certain types of edits and other people disagree with them, then the burden is on you to gain consensus for these types of edits. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Xezbeth did not express a preference for "lack" of organization, but for proper organization. There is consistent agreement here that you often err at that, and more importantly, that you refuse to acknowledge or improve when specific errors are pointed out to you. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 21:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverting edits wholesale, to restore lack a setup lacking organization w/o improving that page in any way, reflects, in my book, a preference for lack of organization.Froid (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't read from your book. We read from the book of consensus, where editing is a privilege. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated on alphabetizing dab pages. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#User:Sweepy for an example of why that is a bad idea, especially if you continue to do it when challenged. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the alphabetisation, the main issue with respect to dab pages has been the breaking up of the page into tiny sections and subsections, to the point where the table of contents becomes comparable in size to the rest of the page. This is an example from today. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Froid is largely responding to the complaints here with a continued basic refusal to listen or accept them, which is the basis of the original complaint. Responding to concerns that they should leave proper edit summaries or else accept that their edits are likely to be undone, they claimed that doing so would actually make the other users disruptive ( Your second statement reflects a throwing the baby out with the bathwater mentality but results in disruptive edits, when you don't like the edit summary and don't review whether or not the edits improve the page. Sadly, not an uncommon mentality on Wikipedia ), and that the reverting of their edits, which do not conform to consensus, equates to a preference for lack of organization. Not sure what the next step is, but it's clear that Froid is no more interested in listening here at the ANI thread than they have been throughout the rest of their editing history. They've also been continuing the very editing behaviors that elicited this thread even while the discussion is ongoing, instead of ceasing the behavior until the issue is resolved, which is about as clear as WP:IDHT gets. Grandpallama (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, they've changed their approach to edit summaries. Froid, thank you for that, you new edit summaries are excellent! As for the second concern – the organisation of dab pages, I don't think I'm seeing enough to know whether you've taken that on board or not. The third, and probably most important issue, is the past refusal to engage constructively with the rest of the community. I don't feel like this has yet been addressed or acknowledged. – Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Spamming of Astral Airways

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several accounts have been spamming Astral Airways (related content and wikilinks) in articles. They are Astralair778 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sweety9909 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Flyastralairways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They have focused on linking the article from Air transportation in the Philippines (i.e. Sweety9909 and Astralair778), Template:Airlines of the Philippines (i.e. Astralair778, Flyastralairways and Sweety9909). All accounts have edited this article.

There have been IPs and editors reverting this. According to the edit summaries of the reversions "Removed Astral Airways after vandalism was revealed.", "Removed Astral Airways, which is a fake airline company", "Removed Astral Airways. It is a non-existent airline and doesn’t have a CAAP Airworthiness Certificate." and "Removed Astral Airways. The airline never existed. It was just a fake airline created on Facebook to scam people.". There have been editors and IPs adding warnings in the article (e.g. IP with edit summary "Put a disclaimer warning people about the fake airline and their scams.").

It seems that the accounts are linked. I suspect that the person who controls the accounts are creating new accounts to avoid detection. Although this is not necessarily sockpuppetry (as the accounts are not editing at the same time), this is something which needs to be dealt with. It is debatable whether the account move from Sweety9909 to Flyastralairways was a valid clean start (as they went back to their previous editing area, after editors had reverted them), but I still chose to report here instead of SPI. Furthermore, the actual airline is a massive hoax due to my reasoning over at the in progress AfD for this article. I am reporting here now, as I investigated further the contributions of these accounts and discovered the spamming. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Astralair778 was the first account and was soft blocked. Sweety9909 was created after Astralair778's last edit and has exactly the same userpage content. Flyastralairways was created after Sweety9909's last edit and has a very similar username to the first account. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Also adding Jackjil667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as on further investigation they have editied this draft and created another hoax airline in the Philippines.

This is now moving to the realms of sockpuppetry, as this account was editing at the same time Sweety9909 was (and on this same article). Jackjil667 edited Astral Airways three times in succession (e.g. start diff). Jackjil667 created Draft:Divergent Air, which is yet another hoax (Google search brings nothing (except facebook page)). This supposed airline has a similar Facebook page to Astral Airways (i.e. pasting their logo on airplanes). Marked for G3 (hoax). Both the draft and article share similarities (mainly the fleet section on both Astral Airways and Divergent Air. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Opened SPI. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Hopper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I want to let you know that there is a vandal hopping between user:202.57.49.146 and user:202.57.47.122. CLCStudent (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked those two. One might expect more to turn up at some point. This is WP:LTA/MRY. Just throw them at AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and vandalism by ‎217.126.202.110

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

‎217.126.202.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A quick look at their most recent edits says it all really. --Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wearisome accusations from 87.88.187.158 at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 87.88.187.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (more in the link below)

An IP-hopping anon, who has a bizarre personal vendetta against me for implementing a consensus of an AFD is now at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit, openly lying about my actions. That article is, frankly, a mess of fringe science and almost certainly WP:BLP violations. I understand that nobody wants to touch that kind of thing, and I'd really rather avoid the drama-boards during the closing weeks of the semester, but the lack of outside involvement is really becoming a problem. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that they habitually edit their own comments after they've been replied to, which makes the simple task of having a conversation remarkably frustrating. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why haven't you list the whole bunch of IPv4 adresses, XOREaster and asked to ban them all? Isn't your claim ridiculous when you mix and confuse things in order at the end to censor only sourced facts but opposed to your opinion ? Why is it so difficult for you to understand fringe science can be listed on WP when suitable criteria defined in WP policies are met (and they are met)? Why are you bringing wearisome accusations against me? --87.88.187.158 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you mention I edit my own comments only to correct typos? Isn't this typical of your misleading behaviour? --87.88.187.158 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Because that would be a lie. You edit your own comments to make your walls of text even bigger, this being the most recent example. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

An older example. And another. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And despite your attempts to muddy the waters by insisting otherwise, I have no problem whatsoever with fringe science being covered on Wikipedia. (I have explained that to you explicitly.) I have never said, for example, that the article on Jean-Pierre Petit himself should be deleted. Nor do I think that an article on the man should omit mention of the "Janus cosmological model". Its occasional appearance in the pop-science media is enough to support that. The current state of that article is, however, an absolute mess. That in and of itself would be a content-dispute matter not suitable for ANI. Your conduct, though, is not helping. Whatever your problem with me is, I advise you to let it go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you precise that the edits you mentioned are simply in relation with the sentence I put in my beginning : "I'm going to add below sources to prove Notability of Janus model" ? Because you are not reading me seriously? Did you really expect I add all these sources in a single shot ? Who are you trying to misleading here (again) ?

If you have no problem (now) with the content of the "fringe science" section, please go back to the Talk page and write that again, and that you accept the creation of a dedicated article about Janus model. Will you do that? --87.88.187.158 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you precise that the edits you mentioned are simply in relation with the sentence I put in my beginning — because I was pointing out a long-term conduct issue of yours, which has persisted across three Talk pages now.

If you have no problem (now) with the content of the "fringe science" section, please go back to the Talk page and write that again — that's not what I said, and I'm pretty sure you know it. I have plenty of problems with the entirety of the article Jean-Pierre Petit, as do other people trying to fix the mess (pinging @Deacon Vorbis).

and that you accept the creation of a dedicated article about Janus model — your attempts at imperious dictates were entertaining, two Talk pages ago. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For starters, XOR'easter and the IP: stop bickering back and forth here. You're not helping anything by flinging attacks at each other. While we certainly can cover fringe topics on Wikipedia, I find Jean-Pierre_Petit to be very misleading and poorly written. I think it needs a major rework. Much of the fringe stuff is presented as fact, and the coverage is way past WP:DUE. In terms of the IP's conduct, the IP needs to not edit their comments, not level personal attacks on XOR'easter (or anyone for that matter), not try to WP:OWN articles and be civil. But considering that this has gone to ANI before, it seems the IP has not learned a lesson. I'd support a rangeblock for the IP. The level of disruption shows that the IP is WP:NOTHERE and is simply trying to push a WP:POV. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize for not managing my exasperation as well as I should have. (Stressful time of year, etc.) I'll take a trout on this one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You're chill, I understand how annoying it can be in these situations :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: That's very kind of you to say. I think I've said everything substantial on the topic that I can. I tried to find evidence of scientific sources and came up with pretty much zilch, which of course doesn't rule out writing an article based on pop-science media interest (French Gizmodo or what-have-you), but I don't think I'm the best person to do that. So, if others want to try, I'll probably stay out of the way. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Rangeblock is warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You support a rangeblock for the IP, but you're not even sure I'm the same person than the previous ANI and you didn't even asked (anything "probable" is not relevant here). You do not want to consider XOR'easter's personal attacks, his violations of WP:OWN and civil, his record of total lack of useful contributions to enhance the contents (deleting full sections without consensus is not considered an improvement). Sad. --87.88.187.158 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no violation of NPA or OWN by XOR'easter, and they have been very civil given the circumstances. I see from their history of edits to the page and the talk page that they have been actively working to improve a very substandard page. IP, you should do well to remember that it is your actions that are being scrutinized here. Even if XOR'easter did something untowards, that doesn't absolve you of your actions. Work to defend your own actions, not attack XOR'easter. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please present diffs to back up all of these accusations. SQL^{Query me!} 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't edited Jean-Pierre Petit at all, only posted on the Talk page. Back in January, I reverted Bimetric gravity to an old version per consensus at AFD. And I later reverted the anon's edits to that page because the anon was trying to override the AFD consensus — they said so. (The addition was also WP:SYNTH-y POV-pushing.) More recently, there was some back and forth on that page which didn't look very consequential and which I didn't pay much attention to (if I'm trying to own anything, I'm doing a pretty bad job). Also, back in January, the anon wanted to add to the semi-protected page black hole, to which I objected. @WolfmanSF said, The whole proposal comes across as a ploy to generate views of some of the "secondary sources". (It seemed to me that promoting Petit was a primary goal of the addition. Their habit of editing their posts after being replied to makes it harder to tell, but here's the original.) @DVdm wrote, I agree that this thing is based on bad sources (wp:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE), and the valid sources are abused to create a new synthesis ("This debate is not closed since...") and thus amount to wp:original research — see wp:SYNTH. The whole thing then kind of petered out. The only edit I have made to black hole had nothing to do with this and was to streamline some awkward phrasing and remove a link to a web forum per WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinged – sorry, been kinda MIA all day. So, XOR's fine, especially given all the craziness that's going on. A couple folks, including at least one IP (it's awfully hard to keep track of who's who here), have certainly been filibustering with mostly useless refs, often misrepresenting them. I tried to step in and clean it up a little, but this isn't really my strong suit and I don't know how much more stomach I have for this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the debate pretty clear, if we concentrate on the last edit of the IP, deleted by CaptainEek 1 mn later : given all the provided sources for NOTABILITY, does Janus model deserves a dedicated article ? If you think no, you would be required to explain why in details, not with a pretty limited "unreliable and/or primary sources" like XOREaster wrote. According to WP:NOTABILITY, these are secondary sources with diverse level of reliability, from weak to strong, and it is enough to create a new article on this topic. This decision will resolve any conflict. --145.242.20.220 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly the same person (and top of the list of the IPs I noted already) making a transparent attempt to refer to himself in the third person. Can we close the sock drawer now? XOR'easter (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly yet another attempt to avoid an embarrassing question for you, XOREasster. The question asked is the most relevant posted in this thread. You may find whatever counter-fire to avoid at any cost the creation of an article you hate as a professional physicist (according to your WP EN user page, whichh makes you a probable suspect of COI), this question is still on the table, and it will be there until it is answered by anyone who cares about creating an encyclopedia. We have perfectly understood the game you are playing here,

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

. --145.242.20.220 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Being a physicist doesn't give me a "conflict of interest". It means I'm knowledgeable enough to evaluate writing about physics. (I haven't accused you of having a conflict of interest, since I know that people can become avid promoters of their fandom even without a financial stake. I am, however, starting to wonder if your jumping to COI accusations is a bit of projection on your part.) The absolute best "source" you have ever offered is a passing mention in the reply-to-viewer-comments spiel at the end of a YouTube video. That's not a foundation for an article. Strangely, you boast that the "sources" you have provided include the unreliable. This is, at least, convenient, for it saves the rest of us the trouble of evaluating your walls of text. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will add that I have (somewhat unwillingly) been following the Jean-Pierre Petit article - having become involved when I responded to an RFPP request by full-protecting the article for a few days. That talk page is a hot mess, with a dozen or more IPs chiming in, some of them evidently the same person with a floating IP, some of them quite possibly socks on both sides of the debate. And plenty of accusations and bad blood from the IPs on both sides. I have a list of possible suspects which I have shared with a checkuser, but I think it will be a day or two before they can get around to it. IMO User:XOR'easter and User:Deacon Vorbis are the two voices of reason and Wikipedia policy at that article, and I hope they stick around to improve it after we figure out, and possibly deal with, the tangle of IPs pushing one side or the other. I have considered semi-protecting the article and talk page, but I don't quite see the situation meeting the requirements for such a step. At least not just yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Now having seen the response above from 145.242.20.220, which was added while I was typing: this is another of the floating-IP combatants at that article talk page who has been aggressively pushing a particular POV. And a good illustration of the kind of problems that article has been having. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

XOREaster, being a physicist is not enough : do you work on cosmology, string theory, quantum loop gravity, MOND, or dark matter detection?

Why are you trying to avoid systematically to answer simple question : I provided 34 different sources proving NOTABILITY, and the only feeble answer from you is "a passing mention in the reply-to-viewer-comments spiel at the end of a YouTube video"... but where, which one? You're trying to dismiss the whole proofs with "wall of text" and bla-bla. We have all noticed that you have a strong problem with NOTABILITY. You still cannot answer what are reliable source for you :

You say the proposed sources are not enough. Please answer these questions :
1) where is written that the present article should be considered with different rules than others WP articles ?
2) to clarify Notability, give us a precise list of the minimum mandatory criteria (qualitatively and quantitatively) to add the proposed sentences in the article, according to yourself (for instance: the authors must received Nobel Price, one of them has to be named Time's magazine Man of the Year).
3) map each criteria with a WP rule (not a guideline)
If you fail to provide 3) in a few days, then this would mean your approach is arbitrary. Such approach, a.k.a censorship, has no place in WP. --80.215.195.0 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And no, you're lying, I never boast that the "sources" I have provided include the unreliable. You're misleading once again. Really, how can someone here support and foster your blatant censorship behaviour, instead of banning you for life? All your past "contributions" on cosmology (Black hole, bimetric gravity) was to promote deletion of Jean-Pierre Petit peer-reviewed papers exclusively and entirely under false pretexts. You could very well promote a new AfD for the article about Jean-Pierre Petit because you have decided, alone, that nothing related to him can be notable. No need to argue on the deep, because any mockery is enough. I'm so sad for you. --80.215.230.102 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed look like there has been a sustained, concerted effort by a group of socks or collaborating IPs to promote Petit and associated POVs across a group of articles; in my view, using some form of protection on the articles in question seems appropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ouch - I've just looked at the article and it's an utter horror - huge piles of fringey original research built on primary sources - could do with a severe hair cut. I'd support blocking the WP:PROFRINGE IPs (and/or semi-protecting the article) so that there's a chance to assert some sort of WP:PAG-based sanity over this content. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --JBL (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you say it is " fringey original research built on primary sources " without bringing any evidence?

May I remind you that fringe theories are acceptable on WP?

May I remind you that peer-reviewed articles are acceptable on WP as primary sources?

May I remind you, at least, that the question asked here is NOT about the quality of the current article, but on the proposed creation of a new article based on 34 (34!) provided secondary sources to proove NOTABILITY? This new article will help a lot to clarify the content on the current article. How can you dismiss all of the 34 provided secondary sources without discussing each of them?

Is censorship the new normal on WP EN ? If yes, please update the WP policy accordingly. If no, please answer my questions before doing anything else. --80.215.130.91 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Petits models are not widely accepted, are highly speculative, and are non-standard cosmological models. While they may warrant some coverage, the majority of the article being based on Petit's own works in pay to publish predatory journals is hardly a good foundation for an article. Beyond Petits works, the article has rather few reliable secondary sources. Fringe theories are acceptable for coverage, but must be covered in a manner which shows that they are fringe theories, and to not overstate their acceptance or notability. As written, the article grossly overstates the Janus model and the page has a great deal of puffery. This is not at all censorship, we are still covering the Janus model and Petit, but the coverage must be neutral and reliably sourced per WP:BLP. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

At least Captain Eek there is a first common basis : "Petits models are not widely accepted, ... and are non-standard cosmological models... they may warrant some coverage... Fringe theories are acceptable for coverage". But I'm sorry the question was more precise than that: "the question asked here is NOT about the quality of the current article, but on the proposed creation of a new article based on 34 (34!) provided secondary sources to proove NOTABILITY." Do you agree with this creation, yes or no? (The content will be discussed in the Talk page of this future article). If no, please explain precisely why.--145.242.20.219 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Content doesn't get discussed on ANI only conduct. You're asking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. The wall-of-text spam on that talk page is eye watering. --Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question has been given by a number of editors : No. Far from splitting off a new article, the current article should be drastically reduced.

You don't need to keep asking. It's been answered. ApLundell (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you say "it's been answered : No" and say "Content doesn't get discussed on ANI" and say this is not censorship? How can you justify to reject 34 secondary sources for NOTABILITY without a single word to discuss them and say this is not censorship?

How can you reject the question asked with "You're asking for the wrong thing in the wrong place" without explaining WHERE is the right place : am I talking here with administrators or what?

How can you simply call all relevant questions here supported with 34 secondary sources for NOTABILITY a "wall-of-text spam" without bending heavily towards censorship?

At least, be honest and show me the right page for launching a procedure against you for blatant censorship. --145.242.20.221 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no procedure because this is not censorship. Wikipedia is not a blog page for you to post whatever you wish.

This is not the right place because ANI is for behavioral issues, not content disputes. The place to discuss content disputes is the article's Talk page.

At least two admins have responded to this section, SQL and MelanieN. You never answered SQL's call to substantiate your accusations, and MelanieN has indicated your behavior is problematic. So I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that the 34 "secondary sources" to which the IP insistently refers include Petit's own publicity appearances, like promotions for his book OVNI et armes secrètes américaines (UFOs and Secret American Weapons). There is also this gem, which is as good as a confession of non-notability: For the very first time since decades in french science, a team of most prominent french experts on relativity and cosmology, including Thibault Damour, published a public paper dedicated to Janus model. A model that has been ignored for decades is not a notable model. (It also wasn't written by "a team". It's the sort of brief note that physicists write sometimes, when they get too many letters about the same perpetual motion machine and want to save time on replies.) This misrepresentation of sources, repetition of demands and general eagerness to waste the community's time has gone on for months, and has long since crossed the line from a content issue to a conduct one. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter at least you try to analyze the provided sources, thank you. But you're still misleading here, what a bad a constant behaviour:

1)Promotions of Petit's books were NOT PRODUCED by him, but by others, prominent journalists on french and Canadian national TV channels. According to the definition of secondary sources for NOTABILITY, they are valid secondary sources! At the opposite, no Janus videos on YouTube are included in the 34 provided sources because they are produced by him.

2)you say "A model that has been ignored for decades is not a notable model" : plain wrong. Instead you should have say A model that has been ignored for decades by Damour is not a notable model for Damour. The 34 provided sources proove Janus was NOTABLE for OTHERS than Damour. Whatever Damour might think, he does only participate to define what is NOTABLE from an academic point of view. But there are many others way to be NOTABLE, which you refuse to consider. JANUS is and was notable in others ways, as the 34 provided sources demonstrate clearly. How can you confuse these simple notions and be a physicist? (and you refuse to answer clearly to the question of your speciality: isn't that suspect of COI and a bad collaborative behaviour?)

3)you say the paper wasn't written by "a team" : plain wrong. It is signed by 1 author, but the last sentence says: "I thank Nathalie Deruelle, and Luc Blanchet, for their commentaries on the first version (2 january 2019) of this text". The final version took into account their commentaries and so we can say the paper was written by a team, even if Damour wrote the most part of it.

4)you say "It's the sort of brief note that physicists write sometimes, when they get too many letters about the same perpetual motion machine": please give us one single instance of such 7 pages (or more) paper written by a theoretical physicist (your domain as you claim) exclusively about the research of another person in the field, published only on the website of their own institution (not arxiv) in the last 20 years, anywhere in the world. If you succeed at least I would have learned something interesting from you. If you fail once again, you would have demonstrate you're a liar only interested in censorship at any cost.

Please don't forget: you have to make a rebuttal for each of the 34 provided sources for NOTABILITY in order to demonstrate Janus model is not notable. If you fail, Janus is then notable and deserve its own article. We will then move this discussion on the new Talk page to define content. I'm confident we will find a way to collaborate. You're a physicist, don't you? --89.85.254.67 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Giving someone a long list of nonsense and demanding that either they sort through it, or let you do what you want, is not civil behavior, nor is it a legitimate form of logical debate. ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree some admin action to protect the article and editors from disruption would be helpful here. Leviv ich 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I feel myself to be somewhat involved so I don't intend to take any admin action unless carrying out a decision by others. But I would really like a checkuser to evaluate the various players on that talk page. If someone is willing to do this I can give you a list, preferably by email, of the IDs and IPs involved and how they align, so that you don't have to pick your way through the talk page (what a nightmare). I suspect at least meatpuppetry if not outright sockpuppetry. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Reading the latest missive from 80.215.230.102 (apparently a floating IP; this is the fifth incarnation from a range that has been fulminating at the talk page) prompts me to wonder: at what point is this kind of behavior perfectly described by WP:Tendentious editing? Example: Please don't forget: you have to make a rebuttal for each of the 34 provided sources for NOTABILITY in order to demonstrate Janus model is not notable. If you fail, Janus is then notable and deserve its own article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I heartily support a rangeblock, per above's excruciating discussion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, other IPs posting similarly to this one include 80.215.230.39, 80.214.75.69, 80.214.125.23, and 80.215.195.129. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also 145.242.20.220, 80.214.73.185, 80.215.96.179, 80.215.97.25, 80.214.224.16, 194.206.71.161, 91.169.1.118, 142.242.20.220 and 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE (from the list here). These all geolocate to Paris or nearby. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the number of IP's being used, would it not be better to slap semi-prot on the article and talk pages for a while? --Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. --JBL (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest semi-protection for Jean-Pierre Petit and bimetric gravity, along with their Talk pages. Maybe for six months, maybe indefinitely — they've been trying this game intermittently since January. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Is it time for an admin to close this? Opinions seem to have crystallized. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromised account - GretLomborg ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GretLomborg (talk · contribs)

Been here quietly for a couple of years. Tonight they're putting AfDs and CSDs all over the place. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

My account hasn't been compromised by a vandal, and that's a pretty spurious allegation. I've been active in AfDs for quite some time, and the CSDs were all for pretty blatant copyvio articles that I confirmed with copyvio tool. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

To be a copyvio, the claimed "source" has to be older than the WP article, not newer.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if I missed that. Could you be a little nicer [104], please? I was acting in good faith, and I feel like you just went nuclear against me, by for instance making this (false) allegation and nominating my articles for deletion. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, Andy Dingley. Just chill. El_C 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• See 78.110.175.49 (talk · contribs) / 78.110.175.34 (talk · contribs)

Apologies to El_C, I was a little overheated in my comments last night.

Should the article be kept? The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world's first steam locomotive-hauled public railway. And this is an AfD on a list of those steam locomotives as it's "too old". What part of WP policy does that fall under?

The Hull and Barnsley is a little more obscure. Few people even know there was such a railway. Yet it does of course pass the letter of WP:N and (per many other similar articles) the project's typical and appropriate structure is to have separate articles listing the locos (partly because the locos, post-Grouping, often had wider careers around the rest of the network). A strange place for an editor with no interest in railways, no past interest in railways, and no recognition of the S&DR's historical place to pick just these two article to AfD.

Except of course that they've both had past trouble with an I B Wright (talk · contribs) sock (OK, possibly a Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) sock, because those two generally appeared in pairs and could be hard to tell apart). Trouble which was clearly targetted at [105] [106] at Biscuittin (talk · contribs). See the IP contrib logs.

And if you've seen some of the past issues with those two, you'll understand why I'm so angry at any hint of their return. Especially from an account created at the same times as the events above. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As to their CSD of Edward Borrows and Sons, then that would carry more weight if the WP article wasn't older than the supposed source. Borrows is an incredibly obscure topic in British railway history, I'd never heard of them. But Biscuittin had – it's another one of their created articles. Perhaps GretLomborg might explain how they'd alighted on these three articles in particular to seek the deletion of? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As this is now getting repeatedly CSDed, I've AfDed it instead to permit a proper discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Borrows and Sons Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and now a new one for this morning (I hadn't noticed this last night): Diesel engine problems

This was deleted as a copyvio (I can't check the text of this deleted article, but once again, the age of the supposed source sites isn't easy to trace back older than the WP article either.). It was then partially recreated as carbon buildup, which I AfD'ed on simple grounds of it being a lousy article. But who'd created the original? Biscuittin. User_talk:Roberttherambler#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Diesel_engine_problems (Roberttherambler was a later sock by Biscuittin)

So that's four deletions here by GretLomborg, on obscure articles, one of which is a complete outlier from the others, and their common factor is their creator. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Here's the timeline: I read the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diesel_engine_problems) for Diesel engine problems which was headed for delete, so I decided to salvage a topic from it that seemed notable per the other voters, but they still wanted to delete because the creating account was banned. Maybe someone could expand it later. Then I noticed that Diesel engine problems didn't read like a Wikipedia article, so I verified that suspicion using the copyvio tool and it came back as a high percentage to what looked like technical newsletter. I then checked some of the other articles that account created using the copyvio tool, since if he did one he may have done others, and found the other one (and tagged it so an admin could check it out). I also noticed to other aticles that stuck me strongly as WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the style of a "Exhaustive logs of software updates" akin to the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Java_EE_version_history. If I was off base, I expected feedback in the votes or to my talk page, not as a personal inquisition against me and being told to "fuck off" [107]. This accusation that my account has been compromised is false and baseless, and seems to be mostly motivated by anger (and maybe to bias the AfD's by creating the impression that my account is illegitimate, since it's getting mentioned all over in the passive voice). I think it should be closed. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP block evasion/LTA

Not sure exactly who this is or what they're trying to do, but 121.140.88.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly block evading from 121.140.250.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is cross-wiki blocked for vandalism/LTA. If it helps, 121.140.88.101/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a compatible range. (Not notifying IPs of discussion.) Home Lander (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I went back through 7-8 days worth of netblock's contributions, same pattern. I rangeblocked 121.140.88.101/16 (more properly should be 121.140/16) for 72 hours. I think regular patrolling of the date / history articles they frequent may show them coming back after that (they're persistent). May need reblocking for longer if so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, thanks. In doing a little searching, it could be related to Brookerbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seemingly has an obsession with date-related articles. I could be way off on that, however. Home Lander (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Single-purpose editing / Conflict of interest?

• 109.151.109.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP seems to be editing almost exclusively on behalf of a film critic Barry Norman. All of their edits except for one are adding his reviews into the Reception section of film articles. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Whereas this is likely correct, I do not see what could we do about it (and whether we should do anything at all).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way, as their edit count is small (albeit recent). That being said, persistent single-purpose COIs are usually blockable to avoid damaging the neutrality of articles (though in the case of IPs, escalating blocks are more appropriate if this continuously occurs over a short period of time). DarkKnight2149 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

They are all Youtube clips from an account called "VHS Vault", and look rather like they could be copyright violations- They are from old VHS tapes by the looks of it.Curdle (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This editor is going about things in slightly the wrong way by citing bare Youtube URLs rather than the original places where these comments were made, but there's nothing wrong with citing Barry Norman in general. He was one of the foremost film critics in the UK in the last decades of the 20th century. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly single-purpose editing. Please guide me to the WP in order that I can more fully comprehend why this would be a concern. My understanding is that single purpose accounts are only a problem if they push a POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof: WP:COI, most pertinently. The user edits almost exclusively on behalf of a single film critic (definite WP:Neutrality concern there), using unreliable sources from YouTube that go against WP:VIDEOREF. A user above also raised a copyright concern. DarkKnight2149 17:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That being said, I definitely agree that this is not the most dire situation ever brought to ANI. But nonetheless, something that administrators should know about (especially while the editor is just getting started, presumably). I'm not too invested whatever outcome is decided, and haven't been checking this thread often. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, agree that it does seem dire. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation at AfD on John Smelcer

I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD re: John Smelcer, a living person a who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed [108] the page as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and novelist who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that he claims has been written by a native American, himself. This may be a lie, but it is not a crime. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid against him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty damn clear cut to me, I have now asked the user in question to read our polices on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, this is an article that has already been deleted once. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've redacted the BLP violations, and revdel'd them too, although there are enough crumbs out there now that it would be pretty easy to reconstruct, and I'm not going to redact and revdel this ANI report nor redact other comments at the AFD. That was pretty unacceptable. I wonder if a topic ban from BLP is in order? At the very least I suppose I need to figure out how to issue discretionary sanctions discretionary sanction alerts, so if this happens again individual admins would have DS at our disposal. If I find out DB has already had a DS notice posted in the last year, I'm sorely tempted to issue a BLP topic ban myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Whilst a serious breach I am going to play devils advocate and point out they may not have been warned before. But it was serious enough for a warning to not be enough, I think a short block would (hopefully) send the right message.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've issued a {{DS/alert}}, perhaps that's enough for now. In Admin 101 they beat it into our heads we're not supposed to issue short blocks to send messages... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was hoping I left strong enough hints for editors to be motivated to fully research this topic. I didn't want to rehash the dirty laundry out on Wikipedia again, as in the previous AfD. The subject himself had become involved, and the whole thing was a trainwreck. Deleting the old article's talk page and the prior versions was a mercy. It looks like editors today are reading sources no earlier than around 2007; the ones easily turned up at Google. The issues date to the 1970s and 1980s, requiring digging in less easily accessible local Alaska and Washington newspaper archives. With Highbeam gone, finding those sources has become harder than it was in 2011.

  I won't participate in this topic any further. I'd suggest digging a little before reaching conclusions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Read our polices on BLP's, you do not get to call people names, at best you can call them the names RS have. You can never say anyone is a criminal unless they have been prosecuted (even if RS do). But I am glad you are going to disengage, but I really do advise you to take this all on board and not use the same language about others. If you do I am going to suspect you will get a TBAN on BLP's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For someone who has been around so long, this is a pretty amazing misunderstanding of WP:BLP. I'm particularly unimpressed by your saying that you should get to make really serious unsourced claims about a living person, and when called on it, complain that others need to do the research to follow up on your hints(?!) That's a ... really ... amazing thing to say in public. I'm grudgingly OK dropping this for now, as long as this is not a long term pattern of behavior, but @Dennis Bratland:, if you do something similar again, you'll be topic banned from BLPs for at least a month as an WP:AE action with little or no further discussion. And if others think a community-based topic ban is already justified, I specifically do not oppose that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

All editors interested in protecting BLPs should add John Smelcer to your watchlists. This person is both notable and highly controversial. Dennis Bratland, I truly hope that you now understand that you cannot state anywhere on Wikipedia that a person is a criminal unless that person has been convicted in a court of law. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This person is both notable...

Not based on his article he isn't. Did a whole bunch of actual evidence of notability get redacted or something? --Calton | Talk 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen328, "state anywhere on Wikipedia that a person is a criminal"? Did I state he was a criminal? Now this is just going overboard. I referred to the WP:PERP notability criteria because they relate both to accused and convicted criminals. Not to mention that there is an actual conviction in this story too, if one were to look, but I see that ain't happening.

  But why exactly the need to belabor this? Everyone keeps repeating the same assertions and utterly ignoring the reasons I gave. I get it: nobody will research this themselves. And I'm not willing to re-post the precise list of allegations and facts behind it. Because I'm as concerned with the spirit of BLP as the letter. We have an author whose books don't meet WP:AUTHOR and someone whose alleged and proven transgressions, while somewhat scandalous or salacious, are ultimately very local and minor in scope. The broader world didn't take much notice, because the actual impact was zero, other than on the life of the person himself. So now it's certain that someone who is essentially a low-profile individual will be immortalized and made more notorious by Wikipedia. All out of strict obedience to the BLP policy.

  So you won't trust that I know what I'm talking about, and you won't go research it yourself. Great. That puts us at an impasse. The bottom line is that I have been firmly warned that I'll be topic banned if I do anything of the sort again. Fine. If one wants to go on lecturing me, perhaps find a way to say it in a new way with new facts. Facts are out there if one cares to find them. Otherwise, it's wabbit season. I got it the first time so it doesn't need to be repeated. I understand what I've been told not to do and what will happen if I do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that mention a crime that the subject was accused of or convicted for, by all means, share them. Saying "do your own research" will get you nowhere. Nanophosis (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"do your own research" isn't precisely what I said, is it? I said I wasn't going to post the details of the earlier events behind all this, but that if you wanted to know what they are, you can find them with a little more work than a mere Google search. Because if you did that you might better understand what motivated me, even if you don't agree with my actions. If you're only going to skim what I say and respond with flip rejoinders based on a crude, oversimplified interpretation, where exactly do you think that will get you? It mostly wastes everyone's time as we have to keep going back and correcting misstatements about previous statements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nanophosis—you can't suggest by the use of quotation marks that you are quoting another editor when you are not. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You listed the deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime which says "This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Crime. " so if he did not commit a crime how is his article about crime? I think a Tban is in order now, the user is not listening (and I am being polite).Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I reckon a topic ban for Dennis Bratland is not needed. He says that he "understands what he has been told", and per WP:AGF, I see no reason not to believe him. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think their last reply here indicates they do not get it. I think what they have said is "fine I know I will get banned, you all wrong but I have no choice". OK lets AGF and I withdraw my request of for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We can drag on this debate if there is some purpose to that, but for now all I'll say is that you should try reading my words more closely. I didn't say "you are all wrong". Not even close. I didn't explicitly deny the accusations against me. I explained what my reasoning was, and suggested one might understand better by fully researching the bio topic here. Because the alternative is that I've completely lost my marbles and forgotten everything I've learned about BLP in 15 years. How plausible is that? If you don't care to explore the basis for my reasoning, fine. You have better things to do. But please refrain from hysterics and hyperbole. I've been officially warned, acknowledged receipt of the warning, and affirmed I'll steer clear of any further possible violations. What more do you want? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want him to stop making false accusations against me.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would get this Wiki Editor off my back. He has publicly libeled me with claims that I have engaged in DISRUPTIVE editing because I deleted an improper OR statement that was false and which was not found in the articles that were cited to support that statement. He also made the public accusation that I had done so out of a motive of REVENGE simply because I did not like him, that I have engaged in EDIT WARRING, and then also implied I might be a SOCK. He has posted on my own talk page twice, and I removed his comments twice. I do not want him putting anything on my talk page and I want him to cease making libelous accusations against my good name. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

[[]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aron_Manning

[[109]]

[[110]]

[[111]]

[[112]]

[[113]]

       "...the pilots were unable to move the trim wheels by hand, because the high aerodynamic forces on the elevator pushed the stabilizer in the opposite direction.[5]" (This is the statement that I removed from the article)

   I removed it because it was pure OR from the editor that put it there. There is no such statement in those cited sources. It is entirely appropriate to remove statements in the article that are not actually found in the sources cited to support such statements. OR opinion of some Wiki Editor (in this case, in the form of a false statement) is contrary to WP:OR rules. 

It was improper for Editor Aron Manning to restore such an OR statement, that was not only OR, but also false. Higher aerodynamic forces on the elevator CANNOT PUSH the HS in ANY direction. The HS can move ONLY when the jackscrew turns in one direction or another. That requires electric power to the jackscrew motor. High aerodynamic forces cannot cause the jackscrew to turn all by itself.

I then politely requested Editor Aron Manning to "Please revert your own improper revert." EditorASC (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC). He did not do so, but other editors did revert his reverts, without my personally requesting them to do so.

I am NOT seeking arbitration; nor do I want to negotiate anything with him. I simply don't want anymore conversation with Editor Aron Manning. I want him to leave me alone and to cease and desist from posting libelous statements against my good name. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of making "libelous statements" — we have a no legal threats policy which we enforce harshly. I don't see anything in those diffs that besmirches your good name. How can you possibly work to resolve this dispute if you don't interact? Who gets to edit the article if you two have, say, an interaction ban applied. El_C 23:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't immediately obvious what happened to the Reuters source cited (one possible match is now 404) but the sentence about aerodynamic forces is consistent with what I'd seen elsewhere, such as here: "As pilots would pull on the jet’s controls to raise the nose of the aircraft, the aerodynamic forces on the tail’s elevator (trying to raise the nose) would create an opposing force that effectively paralyzes the jackscrew mechanism that moves the stabilizer, explained Lemme, ultimately making it extremely difficult to crank the trim wheel by hand. The condition is amplified as speed — and air flow over the stabilizer — increases.". So EditorASC should also be careful about OR. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss article content. El_C 00:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I try to be sympathetic to everyone's complaints of ill treatment. Lots of people on Wikipedia are grumpy, cynical and not so nice. But, in my experience, editors are always talking smack about each other. It's part of internet culture. As long as it is not defamatory, it is best to brush it off and not take it so seriously. Or you decide you've had enough and leave (plenty of people do).

And how can anyone have a "good name" here when 99% of Wikipedia accounts are anonymous? Summary: Tell the editor not to post on your talk page ever and get on with editing. I know you didn't ask for this but forced apologies are meaningless and, at best, you can avoid each other. That's how most editors here get on with people they disagree with which is so common to almost be a cliche. Collaborative editing is not always harmonious. </soapbox> Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Liz and El C here. You are free to ask the editor to refrain from posting on your talk page, and they should respect that. (Barring reasonable exceptions like compulsory notices. And noting of course if you ask someone to stay away from your talk page, it also means you need to stay away from theirs and avoid stuff like talking about their conduct in places where they can't respond.) However there's no point demanding an apology or anything of that sort. You should also avoid using terms like "publicly libeled me" given our strong NLT policy.

Also while the editor should stay off your talk page, as long as you 2 are editing the same articles, you cannot expect no interaction. The editor can still revert your edits if their reverts are within our policy and guidelines. They can still discuss your edits in the context of improving the article on the article talk page (e.g. explaining problems they see, why they reverted, possible improvement). Noting though that all editors, even without such interaction concerns, should always avoid unnecessary references to an editor (whether direct or implied) and should keep editor conduct concerns out of article talk pages.

Further if you refuse to discuss improvements or concerns regarding article content on the article talk page, it's likely to be difficult to achieve consensus and so unless others share you view and express them on the talk page, it's likely WP:SILENCE etc will be mean consensus will be towards the other editor's POV. Note also even if an editor probably shouldn't have made whatever edits they made, if no one explains to them what's wrong with their edits because you're refusing to interact with them and no one else see's the problem, there's a fair chance a complaint to ANI will result in no action other than perhaps someone else talking to the editor.

In other words, if you want there to be no interaction at all, you will likely have to cease editing any articles they are also editing, but of course WP:hounding means they shouldn't be following you to articles or otherwise taking advantage of you voluntarily staying away from them.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've received an invitation to this discussion ;-) I'd like to make a case about the ongoing content dispute and questionable conduct. Please advise, how I should go further, whether I should present claims here, or in a new section? Thank you — Aron Manning (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Questionable conduct — right here. Content dispute — on the article talk page. El_C 05:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"So EditorASC should also be careful about OR. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)"

Show me where I ever put any OR statement into the article? I never did and I never will. Like Editor Aron Manning, you are failing to see the crucial difference between stalling or "paralysing" the jackscrew and forcing it to move in the OPPOSITE direction (which is what the false OR statement said and was the reason why I labeled it "OR" and removed it -- in addition to the fact that no such statement was made in any of the cited articles, which claimed to support that false statement). Those strong aerodynamic forces can stall the jackscrew, but they cannot force the jacksrew to turn in any direction. It takes electric power to the jackscrew motor to do that. I explained that almost three years ago, on the Flydubai Flight 981 Talk Page. Manning's problem is that he seems to be trying to present himself as an expert on how the systems and SOPs work during the conduct of an Airline flight, but he gets it wrong time and time again and then when anyone quite properly corrects his erroneous statements, he launches into personal attacks, charging deliberate disruptive editing, edit warring, acting out revenge, and he may be a sock. All of those scurrilous charges amount to false, personal attacks and I think I have a right to complain about such personal attacks. EditorASC (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to hear about the jackscrew anymore. Any accusations of misconduct (personal attacks, socking, etc.) need to be backed up by evidence in the form of diffs. Thank you. El_C 16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to El_C: I posted them above, but here they are again:

[[114]]

[[115]]

[[116]] In this one, at the bottom section ("2.3 Third message") [[117]] you will find all those false allegations in the form of insulting/pejorative phrases:

• -- "...end to WP:EDITWAR;" ​
• -- "...looks like WP:REVENGE aka;"
• -- "WP:Overzealous_deletion;"
• -- "Dislike_of_the_creator;"
• -- "To justify the revert I added in the comment this is WP:disruptive editing;"
• -- "One and a half hour later 2 anonymous IP addresses from the same btcentralplus.com network, that have never contributed to this article, reverted the 2 edits a 2nd time."
• -- "This is WP:BRR ("Do not edit war."), and possible WP:SOCK:"

Every one of those insults are FALSE. I did not engage in any "EDITWAR," nor were my normal and proper edits motivated by "WP:REVENGE," nor by any desire to engage in "WP:Overzealous_deletion," nor were they done because I did not like the "creator." I didn't know who put those statements in the article, when I deleted them. By his own admission, Manning accused me of "WP:disruptive editing," as a means of justifying his reverting of my deletions. If any "Edit War" began, it was when he reverted my legitimate deletes. Since I did not turn around and revert him back, I was not guilty of engaging in any "EDITWAR." Other Editors then went on to revert him, apparently because they agreed with my reasons for those deletions. I do not know them and I did not consult with them, but he used that as a basis to level his scurrilous charge that I was acting as a "WP:SOCK." EditorASC (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning, how do you answer to all this? (Briefly, please.) Because EditorASC, indeed, does not appear to have edit warred, nor is there evidence of revenge-motivated edits, or socking (the place for that latter claim ought to be limited to WP:SPI). El_C 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute: EditorASC

I'd like to show the recent deletions from the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 article, the discussion before, and the resulting edit war by WP:SPAs. The deletions were preceded by a heated argument (12:06, 10 May 2019 post, diff) that ended an off-topic discussion mingled with the review of the "Expert analysis" section (Discussion: Analysis section). There have been previous civil discussions with EditorASC, his opinion as life-long Boeing pilot is respected.

The section Expert analysis was already being discussed and reviewed in Discussion: Analysis section. Two sentences have been deleted from the article by EditorASC (talk · contribs) unexpectedly, without any preceding discussion (20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2).

I've started a content dispute (original) at 05:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC), then I reverted the deletes (diff 3, diff 4). I believe this was a disruptive revenge, and indicated this in the comments.

Edit war: SPAs

This was followed within 2 hours by re-revert (WP:DRR) of both from 2 previously uninvolved dynamic ip WP:SPAs in the same btcentralplus.com network (07:45, 11 May 2019 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs) diff 6).

I suspect sockpuppetry, maybe not personally by EditorASC. The discussion (2 weeks' stats) and editing (2 weeks' stats) of this section has been ongoing for weeks, around 5 registered editors contributed and participated in talk, with the occasional ip editor inserting flags or changing a few words. These re-reverts happened swiftly within 2 hours, in a very targeted manner.

Two hours later at 09:50, 11 May 2019‎ the whole "Expert analysis" section has become collateral damage, removed by another editor in bit of a WP:RUSH (diff 7), before entering the discussion at 09:58, 11 May 2019‎ (diff 8), without mentioning the section blanking.

Discussion with contributing editors in the content dispute seems to be coming to a consensus. Note: I've requested page semi-protection for a few weeks to stop SPAs, the page is now fully protected for 3 days (response).

Two messages to EditorASC's talk page to complain/resolve/negotiate about the dispute (First message, Second message) has been deleted, the Third message is on my own talk page. There was no answer.

Conduct dispute

This is a conduct dispute as well: it is very difficult to cooperate with EditorASC without yielding to his POV, in fact I and many other editors failed to do so. This has a strong influence on the atmosphere between editors in this and associated articles.

He did not contribute to the article in effect, but expressed his view as the "focus" the article should follow (diff), while discrediting other views as "hordes of media articles", with a strawman argument of an unrelated accident. Another discussion of his view and my trial to include a different view (diff, more readable at the end of section). This opinion was expressed in a discriminatory manner earlier (diff).

This weighs on editors with his activity in talk pages talk. Sadly, his expertise is not used to contribute in articles.

It seems to be a long-time pattern, there has been previous heated POV discussions on his talk page (1, 2), and suspected sockpuppetry, not investigated.

Per WP:NPOV my talks and article edits.

It has been very difficult to communicate with him, as he often misinterprets things, ignores the point, while focusing on minor details. His responses are often strawmans and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This would not be a problem, if it did not turn into uncivil communication. We need more WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, WP:LISTEN from him to positively cooperate. With this I wanted to highlight that despite his expertise, his actions negatively influence editorial work, continuously. If needed I will collect the diffs that illustrate my impression presented above. To address his last claims: imo Psychological projection.

I understand this is hard for EditorASC. I've tried to be factual in this report, non-offending. I'm sorry if it offends someone.
— Aron Manning (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, honestly, this is all a little vague. They may not be especially touchy-feely, but Where is the evidence of edit warring or revenge-edits by the user? "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? Where is a recent SPI report? You're making a lot of assumptions that I'm not really seeing matched by the evidence. El_C 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

EditorASC effectively did not contribute to the article (2 sentences: +600 byte, -4 KB) until he needed to delete two sentences, added 1-2 weeks ago, not recently, that was part of the "Expert analysis" section being reviewed and discussed (Discussion: Analysis section) in the thread where he posted off-topic, distracting, strawman arguments in great length about parts of the source that was never cited. It was too much and disrespectful, which I pointed out. In response he posted his WP:ANGER post. He has not made editing suggestions, nor mentioned he challenges the deleted content. Nobody wanted to answer, 9 hours later he deleted the 2 parts from the section. He basically was not editing the article before, this was a WP:REVENGE. His destructive action was so destabilizing, that in a few hours it ended in the non-consensual blanking of the whole section. This sequence of events is against the purpose of wikipedia.

His delete (diff 1) was a WP:BOLD action (although the Bold policy supports constructive actions, not destructive), that I reverted (diff 3), which then was re-reverted within 2 hours (diff 5), this is when WP:BRR starts: Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". If my purpose would be to prove by all means this is editwarring, then I would have reverted, and another ip would have done it again, thus destabilizing the article even more. This was not my purpose, I prefer the WP:1RR rule.

The whole ordeal seems to be caused by a misunderstanding. The reasons he mentioned in his last post here, suggest he interpreted my wording as I'm stating a physically impossible event. I've written the explanation to the content dispute thread.

" "[D]iscriminatory manner" in what way? "

Search "third world" (diff).

— Aron Manning (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

They are entitled to speculate that 3rd world standards may be more lax than in the developed world — that isn't discriminatory. I would appreciate sources for that, but as far as an article talk page comment, there's nothing wrong with that. Sorry, I might be a bit thick, but revenge for what? And edit warring where? El_C 00:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Ok, not discriminatory in this community.

2) Revenge for disagreeing. In the "Analysis section" discussion, he's very forceful. I think his image and his influence of the POV of the article seems to be very important. He's been POV-pushing in his talks (eg. diff 1, diff 2) and attacking reliable sources when he disagrees with it (diff 3). The editing atmosphere in that aviation bubble is steered very strongly towards the status quo, working for a neutral POV destabilizes his influence, this is part of the reason for the revenge.

3) The re-revert is by WP:SPASOCKs/WP:IPSOCKs: look at the contributions 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs).

4) The article is edited 1-5 times a day by only a few editors. There are very few, occasional ip editors on the article, not involved in discussions or disputes. The SPASOCKs are very up-to-date with 2 hour reaction time, and seem to be strongly motivated to get involved in the dispute, and to prove a point in the edit comment. (history)

5) I believe I explained the disruptive edit satisfactorily, as that has not been questioned. The revert comment makes it clear the deletes are treated as disruptive edits, and include the link to the appropriate talk page discussion. Reverting a revert when a discussion is clearly pointed to, is editwarring. Not by WP:3RR rule, but by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others".

6) The re-revert is also WP:VAND: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content". The removed content has been present for a few weeks, reviewed and edited for conformance with WP policies. This also applies to the original delete, suspected OR is not a reason for deleting content. Suspecting OR after a week of passing reviews is a sign of bad faith imo.

7) The reason for suspecting OR is that EditorASC misunderstood the sentence, as I explained before: [content dispute] (diff). Storm in a teapot.

8) The [content dispute] is coming to a consensus with the contributing editors. The "suspected OR" sentence will be reworded to avoid such misunderstanding, the "Speculation" section will be merged to another section. No deletes are necessary.

— Aron Manning (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. In what community would it be seen as discriminatory?

2. You fail to demonstrate revenge-edits, still.

3. Then file an WP:SPI about it.

4. What does that have to do with the user in question?

5. Still no diffs of edit warring or disruptive editing.

6. Re-revert by whom? That's not made clear.

7. Okay, so there may have been a misunderstanding — what does that have to do with misconduct?

8. Okay, I hope that all works out. El_C 04:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Not in this one. In every community. Question is off-topic.

2. He deleted content that I created or modified, after he became very angry with me. If that does not sound like revenge, then please describe how to demonstrate revenge-edit.

3. Will do so, I was not sure where to start... May I assume, you see now, the editor of those re-reverts is intentionally hiding behind (07:45, 11 May 2019 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs) diff 6)?

4. It points out that only an editor of the article or the talk page would have it on watchlist, and have an interest to interfere. This editor is likely the very angry EditorASC.

5. All diffs are in the original post, systematically listed: WP:DISRUPT by EditorASC. 20:52, 10 May 2019 diff 1, 21:17, 10 May 2019‎ diff 2. Let's leave WP:EW aside for a bit.

6. You are just making this up :-D WP:WAND WP:DISRUPT WP:SPASOCK Re-revert by obvious 86.187.162.57 (talk · contribs) 86.187.160.157 (talk · contribs) (07:45, 11 May 2019 diff 5, 08:18, 11 May 2019 diff 6).

7. It helps to understand a misunderstanding in an effort to untangle the tangled mystery of who understands what, without misunderstanding what was understood by whom in this mysterious misery.His misunderstandings turn into uncivil behavior, resulting in this dispute.

— Aron Manning (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with all of that. El_C 05:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into this dispute but from a brief skim agree with El C on two major points. First the revenge accusations seem largely unsupported. EditorASC seems to be an editor highly interested in the topic area based on previous edits to similar pages and heck they've edited the specific article or it's talk page before this dispute. I mean even their name suggests an interest in the area. Accusing them of editing in revenge basically because they edited an article in which their interest was fully expected is just dumb. I suggest it is dropped because it's also very likely a personal attack as a claim made without evidence. Likewise for the IP edits, while I can understand editors naturally being suspicious when IPs show up supporting the "other side" in a dispute, in an article with as much interest as this, 1 or 2 IP edits are never likely to be enough to demonstrate socking based on behavioural evidence barring exception circumstances, especially in an article with as high a profile as this one. CUs cannot connect IPs to accounts. So while it's understandable to personally have suspicions, you also need to accept you may be wrong and in any case lack the evidence so should limit or just avoid any claims and drop them ones they are disputed. Continuing to make claims of socking without sufficient evidence can also be construed as a personal attack. Ultimately it doesn't really matter much. You should be concentrating on coming to a consensus what's best for the article, not on what 1 or 2 IPs may have done. In the event it comes to an RfC or similar, the IP views are likely to be given minimal weighting when it comes to accessing consensus remembering that such things are not a vote. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. One thing I would say is the discussion raised as "discriminatory" was actually IMO a minor problem. It comes across as WP:Soapboxing and off-topic since it's largely the editors personal opinion on various things, rather than concrete suggestion on how to improve the article. Some off-topicness is sometimes tolerated on article talk pages, and the editor is far from the only one to do so on that talk page, but still such discussion should be limited especially when it's divisive or could be offensive. (The comment was fairly questionable anyway since whatever flaws may or may not exist with aviation regulation in South Korea, it's not considered a third world country nowadays whether by the original definition of third world, or the more modern one.) So while such commentary should be cut out, I don't think anyone is going to support a block based on a few offtopic comments especially since as I said they're not the only one. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:

1. "First the revenge accusations seem largely unsupported."

Is this how it comes down? Maybe I misinterpreted. Words read from a screen can be understood in many ways. No problem, not important to claim or prove it's revenge. It is how it felt, I'll let it go. Please investigate 2 aspects only: the disruptive deletions, which caused great setback in editing, and his talk page posts, which exhibit POV-pushing, offensive manner, strawman arguments, and gaslighting. Thank you.

2. "an editor highly interested in the topic area"

I'd like to note he contributed 2 sentences altogether to the article page. [see his edits]. He has no intention to improve it. I stand by this claim.

3. "drop them ones they are disputed."

Dropping claims of revenge, WP:WAND. I accept we have a different reading of WP policies. I'm new here, that's my source of guidelines. Practice and consensus might differ.

4. "Continuing to make claims of socking"

I never claimed "socking" by ASC, that was yet another misunderstanding by him. @El C: this is why it's important that this dispute started with his misunderstanding. Communication with him is a struggle because of his misunderstandings.

I reported possible SPASOCKs, in relation to this incident, without any kind of personal attacks. I'm not sure it was EditorASC. WP tooling should confirm or deny this.

5. "in any case lack the evidence"

Yes. I explained why. I hoped WP has its tools to compare user IPs to the ip range of the SPAs. I'm not 100% sure it is EditorASC behind those 2 ips. It can be some other editors too related to the article.

6. "even their name suggests an interest in the area"

Please elaborate, EditorASC means something?

7. "You should be concentrating on coming to a consensus what's best for the article, not on what 1 or 2 IPs may have done. In the event it comes to an RfC or similar, the IP views are likely to be given minimal weighting when it comes to accessing consensus remembering that such things are not a vote."

Thank you for the good advice.

8. I state again, a personal attack is not my intention. I'm asking for the resolution of disruptive editing, POV-pushing, offensive actions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron Manning (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: How do I start an SPI if the puppeteer is unknown? — Aron Manning (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't. 158.106.203.154 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning Go to WP:SPI, click on "How to Open an Investigation." Then, type the username (or IP) of the oldest of the accounts you think are linked into the field. You don't need to be able to say "X is the master, Y is the sock," just consider the oldest account to be the master. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: Provide the usernames of everyuser who has contributed to the page within the last week. This is known colloquially as carpet bombing here on Wikipedia. Also provide the IPs of the suspected puppets, as well as diffs purported to show the sockpuppetry. A CheckUser will perform his magic, and (hopefully) you will have been vindicated.

A note on verbosity: Admins don't like it. Try to be concise and to the point in AN/I discussions. You may omit vowels from your sentences, thy'r slss nywy. This is called wikispeak. Best regards, Guywan (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guywan: That's dreadful advice. You might want to take a look at the garbage Aron created in the list. The best advice he got was from the IP, who told him not to create an SPI without a master. As for the carpet bombing and wikispeak, you're not serious? The only thing useful you said was the concision, and that's hopeless for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, first time here...

List of editors in one week: SPI list — Aron Manning🍁 [➕] 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: I'm impressed. That's very good work. I'm sure Bbb23 would be honoured to take a look at that for you, and carry out whatever actions they deem necessary.

 Bbb23: 'm vry srs. 'ls, dnt bt th nwbs. Rgrds, Guywan (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

With a pie chart that looks like this, I'm not sure Guywan is really experienced enough to be giving advice on ANI. --Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbie's piechart. EEng 06:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Closure

After a few days of silence, this thread seems to have run its course. I've realized these evidences were not presented in the way it was expected. These weren't supposed to be taken as accusations of 3RR and SPI, or another wrongdoing that requires immediate punishment against OP, but as observations of negative actions partly by OP, partly by unknowns, that need to be looked at. To give a chance to wrap this up, I do not ask for any action or judgment against OP in this thread. WP:DRN might be more appropriate to humanely resolve the conduct issues presented, without jumping to harsh punishments. To finish with, I will briefly answer OP's claims:

EditorASC (contrib) complains about words taken out of context. My intention was to resolve a dispute, thus in line with wp:conductdispute, [ I messaged ] OP 3 times to ask for a resolution. The messages were deleted without answer, even in the [ content dispute thread ] he does not answer to my request to "wp:negotiate", but continues off-topic arguing. The messages contain links to the preceding heated post, and the edits that necessitated a dispute.

 Aron M🍁(➕)  04:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"but as observations of negative actions partly by OP, partly by unknowns..."

That pretty much sums up the problem here: namely that he is incapable of admitting he was wrong in the way he responded to my edits of the article. There was nothing "NEGATIVE" or improper about my edits. It was proper for me to remove a statement in the article that did NOT accurately reflect what was actually said in the citation that was used to support that statment.

IMHO, my edits did improve the clarity of the article. If he did not agree, then it would have been better to try and rewrite it so that it became consistent with the citation article -- while improving clarity -- and/or discussing how it could be improved even more, on the Talk Page. Instead, he did a wholesale revert which he then tried to justify with a pile of false insults as if what he wrote was somehow sancrosanct; as if he owned the article and no one else had any right to seek to correct or improve the article.

That other editors appeared to agree with my initial action, by reverting his improper reverts, without my consulting with them, seems to imply I did not act out of bounds of Wikipedia's rules on editing. I see no rational arguments offered by him in his piles of commentary above. Which is why I think it impossible to "NEGOTIATE" with him. EditorASC (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation. @EditorASC: Could you show the Talk Page post, where You started a discussion on how to improve the parts, before deleting those? Thank you.

— Aron M🍂(🛄📤)   00:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And now, I just found a scurrilous allegation by an Administrator on my Talk Page, which claims I made a post without logging in first. Turns out Editor Manning went ahead and filed a Sock Puppet report against me, even though he was advised not to do that.

Totally in BAD FAITH! He is just trying to vindicate and justify all the vicious allegations he has made against me, because I dared to edit his article. This is quite disgusting in my book. Payment for all the years I have spent in genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia articles?

I have asked that Adminstrator twice, on both his and my own Talk Pages to give me a link to the alleged post without signing in first, but I have not yet received any reply. I was not able to find any such post by searching my own IP number. EditorASC (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to tone it down, EditorASC. Arm yourself with some patience and conduct yourself with greater moderation. Hopefully, this all will be resolved soon. El_C 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I won't be able to answer questions for ca. 3 days, should any arise. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   08:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• EditorASC, firstly, I'm NOT an administrator. The message says "you may have recently made edits". If you didn't then please ignore the message. I pinged you on the SPI so you were aware. I'm sorry if making you aware has inflamed the situation between you and Aron Manning. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "pinged you" means. All I know is that I did NOT receive any notice of a Sock Puppet investigation. I only found out about it when I saw your scurrilous, false and disgusting comments on my talk page. By then, the investigation was closed and I thus was denied any opportunity to defend myself.

You KNEW that you had found NO EVIDENCE of any kind that I had failed to sign in before I posted. AND, you knew that if I had made such a mistake, the IP would be far, far different than those two IPs in Great Britain that apparently agreed with my view about Manning's OR post and his excessive, confusing additional information posts too. You KNEW I could not have been sock puppeting with those GREAT BRITAIN IP numbers, yet you went ahead and put that vile, scurrilous allegation on my talk page!!! That is NOT a valid investigation objective; it amounts to nothing more than a Kangaroo Court where you deliberately smear the alleged perp for reasons I cannot fathom. YOU have to KNOW that putting false information like that on my Talk Page will cause many to believe it is true simply because it is there. If you have any kind of decency left in your soul at all you will immediately remove your garbage and knowingly false statements from my Talk Page. EditorASC (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

YOU have to KNOW that putting false information like that on my Talk Page will cause many to believe it is true simply because it is there. No, those warnings/reminders are not a badge of shame. Also tone down your rhetoric before some sysop chooses to block you. ∯WBG^converse 12:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's exactly what I was forced to do. El_C 03:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. EEng 03:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment by editor of Lenoir–Rhyne University

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please have a word with the editor who most recently used 12.216.172.245? We are having a run-of-the-mill content dispute but he has sent me an off-Wikipedia e-mail threatening to "contact my superiors at [my workplace]" if I don't stop "vandalizing our Wikipedia page." He also includes his name and title in his latest edit summaries which also are also harassing and make clear claims of ownership over the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'll leave this mainly to someone else (because I'm just going out now), but I've rev-deleted the personally identifying edit summaries, as we have no idea whether this IP really is who they claim and it could be damaging to the named person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it matches up with the information in the e-mail that he sent to me (twice, actually, to two different accounts; neither e-mail was sent through Wikipedia so he actually looked up several of my e-mail addresses). And the e-mail appears to be genuine so I think this is a case of harassment and not impersonation. ElKevbo (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I was incorrect about this editor threatening to contact my employer; he did contact my employer. I overlooked the "cc:" line in his e-mail which includes two e-mail addresses of colleagues with whom I work. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this and warn this editor? ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Warned. All the best, Miniapolis 23:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks but I hope that someone has also warned this person about the e-mail that he sent to my employer accusing me of vandalizing his employer's article. If it's now acceptable for editors to send messages to other editors' employers, please let me know so I can update our harassment policy. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ElKevbo: That sucks. I'm not sure there's much admins can do about off-wiki emailing. If I were you, I'd forward the emails to ArbCom, who are set up to deal with more private info. I'm not sure what more they could do beyond blocking the IP address, but it's probably more than we can do. Especially since it looks like that IP is for a hotel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the expression of sympathy and the suggestion for additional action. I contacted ArbCom yesterday but haven't heard anything. The only administrative actions taken have been to (a) remove the harasser's personal information from his edit summaries (understandable as part of our policies against outing but still feels a lot like an action taken only to protect my harasser) and (b) to warn him against incivil comments in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, no one has said or done anything to at least tell this person - whose name and e-mail address we have! - that this behavior is unacceptable.

I work with great people and it's clear to them that this is just a crazy person so my career isn't threatened. But this is bullshit beyond the pale and I'm baffled that no one here seems to think it's even worth telling this person that this behavior is unacceptable. I know that we can't control what other people do, especially off-wiki, but we can control how we react and how or if we support one another. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• PSA: @ElKevbo: Email the Trust & Safety team (ca-at-wikimedia-dot-org) in cases of serious harassment (emergency, in case of dire emergencies) and legal-at-wikimedia-dot-org in case of legal threats made against your person. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Military action"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:40.131.26.178 just threatened to "hunt you down and take military action" against someone if their AFD is not "deleted". My apologies if this shouldn't have been brought here, but I wasn't sure what the protocol is in these cases. aboideau^talk 12:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Threatening to "hunt you down and take military action" is not appropriate. Trying to intimidate our editors is not good for Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: User:40.131.26.178 has now been blocked. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As threats go its pretty empty, but for the childlessness alone I agree with the block.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is just schoolchildren silliness. If there is any more silliness, I will be inclined to remove talk page access too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit when I read this my first thought was I would have responded "you and whose army".Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

More silliness[118] and talk page access has been removed (by administrator DoRD). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I am almost thinking nuke the account form orbit.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bijnorlion, shared ac, and possible UPE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bijnorlion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The userpage states that the username is of a local newspaper. Given the speed of user creating new articles, it is evident that the account is being shared. There are also very high chances of UPE. Feedback/advice of experienced users is requested. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing can also explain the speed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This should be reported at WP:UAA, not ANI. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate for UAA. Per WP:ORGNAME, it is not a violation of username policy unless the username unambiguously represents the name of a company, group or product, along with edits promoting said organization. I think this may be more appropriate for WP:COI/N or perhaps a WP:RFCN. NJA | talk 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry didn’t read this clear enough the first time. I thought the issue was about potential promotion or a COI. If the account is indeed that named for a local newspaper and may be of shared use by said newspaper, then that is against the username policy. If the name were “Jan at Bijnorlion” or “Fan of Bijnorlion" those would be OK from a username POV. It would not excuse concerns about editing such as COI, etc. Anyhow, I am deferring to another admin as I have stuff to do, but as a reminder if it’s not serious or a blatant violation where you feel comfortable doing an immediate block, then WP:RFCN is still appropriate. NJA | talk 20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I recognised the issue with their username, and left a message on their talkpage suggesting a change via WP:UNC. I've also asked them to read WP:NMUSIC, and go through one of the tutorial options to learn more about editing. They haven't edited since my talkpage post, and so it might be worth giving them a chance to review and improve their editing; I agree though that the rate at which they have been creating articles is disruptive - I expect NPP patrollers are spending more time reviewing each of their unreferenced and/or non-notable articles than they are spending writing them. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The articles are mostly single sentences with a bunch of grammar and style problems, about subjects of questionable notability like local politicians and non-English-language songs. It feels like these stubs are saying "Here's a youtube video or a couple of other sources. Someone else do the real work of putting it all together and writing a coherent article". It's one thing to post a skeleton with an attempt at outlining a skeleton of an article, but these seem to be over the line. Their limited English (e.g., here) would seem to be a WP:CIR problem that will keep them from being able to collaborate effectively. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• I had the doubt about English fluency as well. Thats why I was elaborative when I posted a notice to their talkpage regarding this ANI discussion. Later I saw they were editing after the notice was posted, so I added a comment on their talkpage in Hindi language. They edited even after that, but havent commented here. Maybe a 36 hour block is in order to get their attention. @Bijnorlion: Would you kindly comment here? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User A H Butt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A H Butt (talk · contribs)

User A H Butt is doing valuable work in the nobility area, but they are exhibiting some quirky and lame behaviour. For instance, they have been coding in infoboxes of members of the House of Lords like this: [[Life Peerage]] – instead of [[Life peer]]age – despite "peerage" not being a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and despite "Life Peerage" leads to a redirect, and that the latter variant is preferred per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Style (see the "apple" example).

I have pointed this out to them a couple of times in their talkpage, but there is never any answer, and they have continued this coding. But not only that, they have gone back and changed the article to their preferred version – often as the only change. Even when I reverted such a change, they have changed back again, though not using the revert function – apparently to avoid detection.

Example of their behaviour: Christopher Addison, 1st Viscount Addison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some diffs:

• my revert after having notified them twice
• his change back avoiding the undo function

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've also been having an issue with this user on Norman Fowler, Baron Fowler since February. He's (/she's) been continually changing "Lord Speaker" (the proper title) to "Lord Speaker of the House of Lords" in the infobox, despite me reverting him, asking him repeatedly to take it to the talk page, and leaving him a note. Although this is a very trivial matter, he doesn't respond, so the usual WP:CYCLE can't get started. He also seems to be attempting to avoid detection by not using "Undo" and and signing out. --Inops (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  That means they are systematically WP:GAMING. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

none too sure about this, its all pretty minor issues over style. But it is getting to be disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alwaba Tom II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Apparently not here to contribute. I CSD’d his user page, after which he came complaining to my TP, made a request for personal contact (“biggest fan”) on the TP of Ella Mai, asked a spammer for help and is now demanding I leave him alone. More than enough to suspect a WP:CIR issue, apart from the WP:NOTHERE stuff, since they seem to have no clue what Wikipedia is, even after explaining it. Kleuske (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff aside, why did you CSD his user page?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

U5, misusing Wikipedia as a free webhost, soapbox. Kleuske (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That tells me the policy, not what they did wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that the page was deleted, so presumably a good tag. -- Leviv ich 17:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but not if it was really serious, and likely to be a sign of disruption. This (I assume) is the concern here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t recall what exactly was on that page, some call for action, this or that (“poor self esteem” or some such) does not exist. Ask a mod. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It was just about resisting teen peer pressure. Innocent enough. El_C 18:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This was the content of the deleted page:

Do you believe in Peer pressure?well i believe that there is no such thing as peer pressure..every teenager knows whats right or wrong i think its because most of our teenagers just want to fit in and thats not helping them cause at the end of the day they're the ones that face the consequences and i would rather suggest that you sit your teen down and talk to him/her about wanting to fit in and not doing wrong things

I agree with El_C above: "Innocent enough". I don't see why this needed to be deleted. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I presumed and made a pres out of u and me. (Or just me.) – Leviv ich 19:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Still a chance they will get their act together. El_C 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to say this seems to have escalated to ANI, after a couple of (at worst) silly posts and a CSD of a user page. By the standards of what I have seen (even recently) this really is nothing to see here. Mentoring is what is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are going to do the mentoring? Kleuske (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would not consider myself a knowledgeable enough Wikipedian to do it. What I do not see at this time is any real sigh this users is trying to be disruptive, immature maybe. But I have never considered that a crime, and only actionable when it dose not cease after it becomes obvious they are not going to grow up. I would also say that you not only bit, you chewed the head of a Newbie. I rteally do not get why you are so angered by this user. It s not as if they launched into PA's and disruptive edits from the off.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact what I see is a user being asked to be left alone, and (almost in effect) being ANI'd for the temerity of the request. Apart from one post, and the user page (which hardly sounds like a major threat to our integrity) all they did was to ask for help (maybe form the wrong place, but then I did not see any offers from elsewhere) and a request (more then once) to be left alone by a user. This needs taking to ANI? frankly I find this beyond Bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So you consider yourself not knowledgeable enough to mentor, but do consider yourself knowledgeable enough to comment on ANI. That’s a weird combination. Also, posting on my TP several times is not really a “leave me alone” kind of action. I did leave them alone, they did not leave me alone. Also please point out where I “chewed their head off”, in the sprit of WP:ASPERSIONS. Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really, as I can judge if I find behavior suspicious or symptomatic of a possible wider issue without knowing the intricacies of our polices. "chewed their head off" was a rhetorical reference to WP:NEWBIES and how you went way beyond just not biting them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Please point out the suspicious or symptomatic behavior indicative of wider issues you see. Telling me what’s in the policies does not answer my question and all you are doing now is casting aspersions. Kleuske (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I was answering your point about why I feel I can comment at ANI and yet am not able to mentor. I am going to close (yes close) that I think you need to be told not to bite newbies (or maybe even good fish slapping).Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@El_C: I see that possibility, but they need a good talking to, and I’m not the one to do it. Kleuske (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dein Wort in Gottes Ohr. Let’s hope that works. Kleuske (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes let's. One might also hope for a little less biteyness. Paul August ☎ 19:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing WP:DE by User:Cynistrategus at Murder of Hae Min Lee

User:Cynistrategus has 97 mainspace edits. All are to Thiruvendran Vignarajah and Murder of Hae Min Lee. Vignarajah is the former state's attorney who defended this conviction before multiple courts. The user edits the murder article from a pro-prosecution standpoint and has repeatedly used non-RS and violated WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The user is continually reverting to a particular version of the article. At first, it was "sourced" to police reports and other documents that do not remotely meet WP:RS or WP:BLPSOURCE. After I complained, the user re-reverted to the same version, this time sourced to various WP:RS which did not contain all of the information in the user's favored version. After I complained again, the user has added one additional source which he says does contain the information, which would make it WP:SYNTH as best. My thread at WP:COIN does not appear to have drawn attention from anyone other than me and User:Cynistrategus. I have asked at several related articles for more watchers, with no apparent impact. Would an admin please take a look at this situation.[119][120][121][122][123][124]Adoring nanny (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that several of the above diffs amount to a near-rewrite of the entire article. The user's version puts a WP:Undue emphasis on portions of the police investigation and, prior to the filing of this complaint, repeatedly removed portions that were uncomfortable for the prosecution, such as the 2:36pm phone call and the tapping. A user who is new to the case and wants to understand why this is important would have to read the before-and-after versions to make sense of it, I'm afraid, and possibly listen to the podcasts, or at least portions of them, as well. Part of the problem here is that the best sources are podcasts, and listening to them takes time, so it's hard for someone who hasn't listened to see what is WP:DUE and what is not.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Cam Howe

1subwoofer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was edit warring trying to insert non-RS material citing his organization's website at Patterson Lakes, Victoria. This resulted in a posting by duffbeerforme at WP:COIN#Cam_Howe. 1subwoofer has a history of creating autobiographical articles even after they'd been AfD'd and generating linkspam (further detail at the WP:COIN post). 1subwoofer declared the issue "resolved" and blanked[125] the whole WP:COIN entry. Not sure if a block or TBAN is the right approach, but something's needed here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@1subwoofer: do you intend to edit anything on Wikipedia besides topics relating to Cameron Howe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Like you, I am here to contribute to Wikipedia as whole. I was making a change to an article on a suburb. Duff said that there weren't enough references. It was ONLY then that I added a reference to that site, as it supported the paragraph noting the date the community group was established. What transpired next is that Duff repeatedly engaged in malicious changes to revert the paragraph. It's no low level group either, this community group is regularly featured in state media. I actually removed this single reference, reverting back to the original to finally appease Duff and this should resolve the matter. It's disappointing that someone has been vindictive, focussing on a single line in an article when the majority of the article is not referenced. I have been here for almost a decade, contributing to many other areas, thank you 1subwoofer (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mass reverts of User:Cptmrmcmillan by IP users, hostile behavior

51.7.229.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

46.208.236.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cptmrmcmillan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The former IP mass-reverted a number of Cptmrmcmillan's airport article edits, characterizing them as "vandalism" (see Special:Contributions/51.7.229.224) and left a rather unpleasant note at User_talk:Cptmrmcmillan#WP:CIR. I suspect the latter IP is the same editor based on similar edits and tone of comments. Cptmrmcmillan has demonstrated some WP:OWN tendencies with the airport articles but I'm inclined to say that the IP users are the problem in this case. creffett (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone can probably make a coherent argument and discussion about Cptmrmcmillan's edit style and content, but they're constructive. The IPs weren't; I've blocked both for 48 hours. They really need to explain as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting one-way IBAN for user:M-J

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting a one-way IBAN for User:M-J, as they currently abuse their writing access for harassing me on English Wikipedia. I've told them to stop harassing me on my talk page, and to stop abusing the Special:Thanks function, (they thanked me twice in a disruptive manner), yet they continue and even tell me that I "lie". This must stop. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

two thanks, wow. [126] are you abusing special:thanks too? --ɱ 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There is continued harassment at user talk:Johannes Maximilian by user:M-J to pursue a conflict from German Wikipedia. Please stop this user. --Icodense (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm discuss about a enwiki edit from Johannes, not about a german wiki conflict. Don't lie. --ɱ 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

M-J is now edit-warring on my talk page. Please stop this editor. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Icodense99 is edit-warring on Johannes talk page. Please stop this editor. --ɱ 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I just deleted foolhardy harassment. --Icodense (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not your disc and it's not harassment to correct a wrong statement --ɱ 10:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Whilst not a policy as such if a user asked you to stay of their talk page you should, continuing to post there (or reinstate deleted comments) is harassment, I however always have disliked one way Ibans, in this case more so as I am not wholly sure this is all one sided.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is one-sided. Neither have I contacted M-J before, nor have I had any conflicts with them in the past. They decided to show up and harass me for no good reason, telling me how embarassing my edits are, that they are looking forward to see other editors vote against me (in German), that I "lie", and they even keep saying that I "lie". It must stop. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something but this [[127]] is not really harassment (which has to be ongoing and long term, this appears to be the first post on your talk page), a user is allowed to ask for another to be blocked. Hence why I thought there was more to this. Now when they continued, then it became harassment, but you made the accusation after (as far as I can tell) their first interaction with you here. So can you see why I thought (and think) there is a history here we are not aware of?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This has spilled over from DE-Wikipedia...and got a bit spiteful and personal here too. M-J, Johannes Maximilian I advise you to just go out of your way to avoid any sort of interaction with each other, be it directly, by e-mail, via edit-summary or any other sort of interaction you might come up with. Otherwise, this back and forth on- and inter-wikipedia sniping will not end well for both of you. Lectonar (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I never intended to get anywhere near this editor, they started attacking me for no reason, posting a message how embarassing my edits are. This is harassment at its best. I want them to leave me alone. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Then how about a two way IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

M-J has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring in the meantime. And, to Johannes Maximilian: it always takes at least two to party like that. And: you have been given rather good advice over at DE-Wikipedia, in the thread about Atomiccocktail...so...see above. Lectonar (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for a two-way IBAN. I have never contacted this editor before, I never planned contacting this editor before, and I do not plan interacting with this editor in the future. I want them to leave me alone. They simply showed up on my talk page and told me that they consider my edits embarassing, and that they are looking forward to see other editors be against me (Special:Diff/897466852). This statement is disruptive already. There has not been any conflict on German Wikipedia before. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I don't edit on German Wikipedia anymore. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to have spilt over from WP:ANI#User:Atomiccocktail / Einfach machen Hamburg, considering M-J‘s original edit to Johannes’s talk page. So long as M-J now stays away from Johannes, which as M-J rarely edits here ought to be doable, there’s nothing more to be done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want M-J to leave me alone, and as long as they accept that and as long as they don't attack me anymore, it's all good. You can go ahead and close this request. But could an admin please tell M-J that they ought to leave me alone? I'd really appreciate that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Info: M-J was one-way IBANned on German Wikipedia de:Special:Diff/188691079 --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

German Wiki is German Wiki, they have different standards. Now have they continued to harass you after they were asked (here) not to?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Just adding.... it isn't what we would consider a ban here....M-J is only advised to avoid contact, to be blocked for 6 hours if not complying. I will try and have an eye on the situation here. Lectonar (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, apparently, M-J leaves me alone now, so this can be (and ought to be!) closed. I believe that there are no actions required anymore. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspicious user paying someone to write an article for their company

User:Lekaralius has sent me a message on my talk page and requested me to get his freelance job of writing an article for an aviation company and said that he has all the secondary sources ready and just wants a qualified user and an aviation lover to "be able to submit it successfully". I suspect him for sockpuppetery since he had only one mainspace edit on en wikipedia as shown in Xtools but he is familiar with the Wikipedia policies. I also suspect him to be a company bribing me to write an article. I think that this account should be deleted and its IP Address should be permanently blocked. Here is the message copied from my talk page: "Article about aviations services companies Because You write on aviation topics, I thought maybe it would be interesting for you to have cooperation writing articles about international aviation services companies. I have prepared texts and all needed secondary resources. Now I need Wikipedia experienced editor to review the article and successfully post it.

Could You help me with this freelance work or maybe you have someone to suggest?

Thank You in advance for Your help. I am looking forward to Your answer."

For more details please visit my talk page and message me. PS he also messaged the same message to several other users. WikiAviator (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

They do seem to have posted the same message on a number of pages. I am not sure form the wording if they are offering to pay you, or is only they will get paid. I also do not think (looking at it) they they may mean exactly what they say, its standard of English seems low. I think what is needed is just a warning, and maybe an admin to verify exactly what they meant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Lekaralius, how much are you paying for this? If it's over $500, I'll do it before Gilliam snatches it up. But you better have all the text and sources ready; I have a reputation to defend. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• This seems a bit too on the nose. Perhaps User:Lekaralius is an account created to troll for attention. bd2412 T 16:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

False music certifications

Hello. Ahasan0028 (contrib) voluntarily introduces false music certifications in the articles The Works (Queen album), Hot Space and Made in Heaven. The British Phonographic Institute website here confirms my claims, it's a search engine so you must type the name of the album but this quick operation is enough to confirm that I'm right. What can I do against this kind of sneaky vandalism because this contributor does not want to listen to reason and tries to reverse the roles ? Cheers. Olyvar (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If its so easy you could have linked to it yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Linked what ? Olyvar (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

These certificates that prove your right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a search engine, so there's no direct link, you have to type each time the name of the album to check that (for example, if you type "hot space" here, you'll see that the highest certification is "Gold", and not "Platinum" like this user claims). Olyvar (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Lets do a test. [[128]]...

Yes you can link to one album or song.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

search engine pages are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know this functionality, thank you. So here is the proof that i'm right with direct links for Hot Space and The Works. Olyvar (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

For the UK yes, but I suggest you use this link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I added direct links to the reference on the 2 articles. I hope he won't insist anymore. Olyvar (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You should have notified them of this ANI, I have now done so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with your procedures. I contribute mainly on the French version and it's my first problem here.

By the way, this user just revert me again without any discussion or adding a source. It's tiring. Olyvar (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is time for a block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can also confirm the false information that Ahasan0028 has been adding comes across as vandalism. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have given this relatively new editor a 31 hour block. In addition to the edit warring on album certifications, they made two really bad edits to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which is a Featured article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism by User:BabbaQ, leading to misuse of tools by User:Materialscientist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear administrators,

Over 15 years or so I have made probably hundreds of thousands of edits to Wikipedia. I should not need to assure you that every single one has been beneficial to the project. Tens of thousands of articles are better because of my efforts. And yet, once in a while, for no reason at all, people start behaving incredibly unpleasantly towards me. Most recently, a few weeks ago, User:BabbaQ falsely accused me of vandalism in a spurious report at WP:AIV: [129]

I see only two possibilities here. One, they made a mistake, somehow. Two, the claim was deliberately malicious. What other possibilities are there? I asked them why they'd made the false accusation: [130]. Their response confirmed malice: [131] Next, my simple requests for an explanation of their actions - which, without doubt, I deserve - led to accusations of harassment from uninvolved passers-by. Shortly afterwards, an administrator blocked me. They prevented me from even editing my own talk page.

A week later, the block expired. I returned to edits I'd made which User:BabbaQ had pointlessly reverted. This time, a different problem arose: I encountered User:Materialscientist, who undid my edits for no reason. See for example Gosport Ferry, where I had removed incorrect bold face [132], User:BabbaQ had pointlessly undone my edit [133], and now User:Materialscientist began to do the same. Their editing revealed a flagrant disregard for the rules:

• They reverted my edit four times in 45 minutes. The WP:3RR says that no user may revert more than three times within a 24 hour period.
• They used the rollback tool to undo my edits,[134] violating the terms under which it may be used
• They protected the articles they were reverting to "win" their edit war.[[135],[136]

I reported their 3RR violation. It was extremely clear-cut; there could be no doubt that they violated the 3RR. They gave one single response on the report, saying "Unexplained removals, edit warring against 2 editors using 2 IPs (intentionally or not)."[137] Obviously, that does not justify breaking the 3RR. The exemptions to the rule are listed at WP:3RRNO, and nothing resembling "unexplained removals" can be found within them. My edits were not, in any case, unexplained.

Several other editors expressed their concern at the situation (User:Amakuru, User:Serial Number 54129, User:MSGJ), but following their initial inadequate response, User:Materialscientist simply stonewalled, in violation of WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed." Despite their clear breaking of the rules and subsequent stonewalling, they received no sanctions. Instead, an administrator blocked me once again. Meanwhile, User:BabbaQ who made the original false accusation of vandalism repeatedly sought to close down the discussions, no doubt seeking to avoid scrutiny of their own actions.[138][139][140]

So, there you have a truly ugly situation: a malicious user made a false accusation of vandalism against me, and an administrator reverted my edits for no reason, broke the 3RR, misused their administrative tools, and refused to answer questions about their conduct. Despite only ever making good edits, I've been blocked twice. I think that productive edits yielding the extraordinary attacks and administrative misconduct that I've described is a situation that should trouble every one of you deeply. Does it? 51.7.23.47 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The IP also violated 3RR, which they should know to watch for if they have hundreds of thousands (really? wow!) of edits under their belt. But yeah, something about this whole exchange doesn't sit well with me. The edits do not constitute vandalism, but they were treated as if they were (which, of course, they'd be no problem if that was the case). El_C 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) "My edits were not, in any case, unexplained." They were not? There is no edit summary beyond the undo statement on your edits, no entry into the talk page. So howso were they explained? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(EC) With respect to my edit-warring, 51.7.229.160 refers to this edit, which was obviously not constructive (unexplained removal of note and wreckage of archived links). When repeated without explanation, such edits do constitute disruptive editing, and 3RR does not apply to reverting them and protecting the target article if necessary. The other questioned edit was less problematic, yet again, without explanation it removed bolding, which is required by WP:MOS because of incoming redirects. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the rollbacks don't look ideal, but I'd be interested to hear from @Bbb23: who blocked the IP as a checkuserblock [141], so we probably need to hear from them or another CU. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

From QEDK, above: Bbb23 is taking some much needed time away. —Rutebega (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is a recent discussion that looks similar to this one. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is WP:LTA/BKFIP. Blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jorm closing discussions and leaving derisive comments on talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a request to review a close at Talk:Gab_(social_network) to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed the close with User:Jorm on his Talk Page but he left only a derisive comment, "Cool story bro". I don't believe the editor provided adequate reasons for closing and that the discussion was ended prematurely. I opened the discussion to examine the use of the word "extremist" in the article, a word which I claim is a slur. I provided adequate justifications including linking to WP:WORDS which lists "extremist" as a contentious word to support my argument. The editor summarized the closure, stating that referring to the word extremist as a slur is "patently ridiculuous." On his talk page I pointed out that the Wikipedia article on extremism refers to it as a prejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"White supremacists" are "extremists". That's about all I have to say on the matter.--Jorm (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. 2001:4898:80E8:0:361A:8E7E:12DE:C60 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bless your heart. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering white supremacist positions are generally far outside of the political and social mainstream, characterising white supremacy as extremism and supremacists as extremists is correct. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was not about whether white supramecists are or are not extremists. The discussion was about whether it was appropriate to use a prejorative in an encyclopedia article.2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

For you and your ilk, it is. Go away now please. 2001:4898:80E8:0:361A:8E7E:12DE:C60 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that User:Jorm has show a pattern of similar behavior. Here are five examples of Jorm resulting to dersive language when confronted about his edits on his user talk page:

• Derisive Comment.
• Derisive Comment.
• Derisive Comment.
• Derisive Comment.
• 2 Derisive Comments.

I can provide more examples if needed. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You aren't going to get the result you want. Wikipedia is not the website for you. 2001:4898:80E8:0:361A:8E7E:12DE:C60 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I find Jorm's closure here to be sufficient, and I find this complaint to border on vexatious. --Jayron32 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly no administrator, but I'd like everyone to imagine, for just a moment, how much better Wikipedia would be if every invitation to rancor were replied to with a simple "Cool story, bro." Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be if that was the intent but it often comes across as point-ily dismissive. I can understand the anon's irritation, regardless of the validity of their argument. I've suffered the same and it isn't helpful. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

However, "Cool story, bro" is certainly less rude than simply blanking comments from one's talk, which is done by everybody and their aunt. As for Jorm's two closes at Talk:Gab (social network) today, they're both fine. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

There is an IP editor who has left several comments here attacking me. I can only guess who it is. I have taken the liberty of removing one of those comments. Personal attacks have no place in a civil discussion. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okeeffemarc

The page Next Conservative Party leadership election was subject to significant disruptive editing by sockpuppets of Torygreen84 for a period of about six months (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84/Archive). This was primarily about pushing the user's counter-consensus view that the article should include a long list of potential candidates, which would grow each time to In response to this, the protection level of the page was raised to extended-confirmed. Two days after this, Okeeffemarc edited the page for the first time, pushing the same perspective as the banned socks (compare this sock edit to Okeeffemarc's first edit). Bondegezou pointed out to Okeeffemarc that what appeared like a majority view in favour of including a long list on the Talk page was in fact driven by sock accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election&diff=897012121&oldid=896966130&diffmode=source) and that the material Okeefemarc had added included material from the banned sock ([142]). Okeeffemarc denied both counts ([143]) and ignored evidence provided by Bondegezou ([144]).

Discussion between Bondegezou and me agreed that a more limited list not based on material added by Torygreen84 would be appropriate at this point. Okeeffemarc continued to ignore the sockpuppetry that had been pointed out to them ([145]), so I tried to raise this myself with them ([146]). After this point, Okeeffemarc deleted prose from the article and restored their version of the list ([147]), which Bondegezou and I edited to reflect sources and be more up-to-date ([148]) with detailed edit summaries. Okeefemarc restored their preferred version and continued editing that one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Next_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election&diff=897582170&oldid=897579760 and subsequent edits), ignoring all edit summary reasoning and change that had been made. For one example, Okeeffemarc considered George Freeman as a candidate to have "publicly expressed interest" in the leadership of the Conservative Party, ignoring a citation I added titled "George Freeman rules out Conservative leadership" and mentioned in my summary ([149]). There is a similar case for every other change the user ignored.

Okeeffemarc then copy-and-paste moved the page to 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election without discussion ([150], [151]), which User:Mélencron reverted ([152], [153]). Okeeffemarc restored continued to develop the 2019... version of the page. I restored Mélencron's version and explained in my edit summary You can't move a page by copying and pasting. Start a move discussion on the Next... article ([154]). The user continues to edit 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election and has most recently written on Talk:Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election to complain about the lack of a collegiate attitude, bad faith from Bondegezou and me, and a block of text about various content complaints they have.

I don't know if Okeeffemarc is a sockpuppet of Torygreen84, though the timing of their entrance, the material they have added and their continuing conduct has made me wonder. I'm making this report here rather than at WP:SPI because this user's editing is disruptive regardless of potential sockpuppetry. Please let me know if this is the wrong place to raise my concerns. Ralbegen (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really invested in this, but I'd just like to request a procedural revert of the most recent copy-paste move here. Mélencron (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have deleted 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election with a rationale of WP:CSD#A10 as a copy-paste copy of Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. I presume that the latter needs to be moved to the former name now, which any editor can do. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. I concur with Ralbegen's description. I don't know if there is any relationship between Okeeffemarc and Torygreen84, but Okeeffemarc is edit-warring and pushing to include material that contains errors and which, best I can tell, originated from Torygreen84. That said, Okeeffemarc and previously Torygreen84 have some sensible and valuable things to say about the article, and there has been a debate with valid points on different sides about what form it should take. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the page, Black Kite. I have been emailed by Okeeffemarc, who explained that the disruptive behaviour will no longer continue. I've invited them to share what they told me by email in this discussion, but in any case I am satisfied that unless further disruption takes place, no action is needed against Okeeffemarc, and I'm happy for this case to be closed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite for fixing this. Wow, what a mess! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Arif soul, communication is required

User:Arif soul has made over 5000 main space edits since June 2018. Tha majority of these seem to relate to Indonesian football teams and their players. In that time he has made zero edits to talk space .

He has a talk page full of issues from Articles for Creation relating to referencing BLPs, and from image licensing concerns.

In the last ten days:

• Added another image with dubious claims to holding the copyright - File:QischilGM.jpg - image has been on id-wiki since 2013 (per google image search) by a different user.
• Never added a reference to football BLPs, even when going to the trouble to research detailed infobox data such as Rafael Gomes de Oliveira [155] and Ramiro Fergonzi [156], leaving out-dated references in place.
• Never updates the infobox timestamp when updating appearances for players. [157], [158], [159] and so on.
• Has blanked a page with no explanation [160] and cut-paste moved the same page User talk:Arif soul#May 2019

I feel, regrettably, a short block, to at least get the user to communicate, may be a way forward. This is an area where en-wiki needs contributors, but not at the cost of BLP issues and image copyright. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I have deleted File:QischilGM.jpg as it was copied from here. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Renelibrary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Renelibrary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This account appears to exist to promote the Rene Gomez Photography Studio. This editor uploads images to their Commons account with the watermark "© Rene Gomez" or "©renegomezphotography.com", and then adds the photos to various English Wikipedia articles. The uploaded images are of historic buildings in Texas, while Rene Gomez Photography Studio does commercial photography. The editor was cautioned January 1, 2019 here by User:Danazar regarding their obligations per WP:WATERMARK, but their promotional editing continues. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am very sorry. Dumb mistake on my part. I will remove the watermarks from further pics. (Redacted) I apologize for the trouble. Thank you. Renelibrary

I disagree that the account is only for promotional purposes. Renelibrary has been participating in many of the Commons photo challenges for years, close to a decade. That's why Commons has those contests. In the process, he has contributed hundreds, if not thousands, of quality images on Texas properties, many of them NRHP and Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks. His contributions have been invaluable to Wikipedia, in particular WikiProject Texas. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:TROUT for the OP. Renelibrary's Commons contribs [161] show over 2,000 photos uploaded over the past decade. (Wow, thanks, Rene!) What Magnolia characterizes as a "caution" in January was actually a polite "hey, you forgot to take off the watermark" message from Danazar, and Rene's contribs show that they fixed the problem. Unfortunately, based on my spot check, uploads since March have the watermark again. I'm sure that Rene will fix those as well. I do not think that Magnolia's level 3 warning was called-for–just a polite reminder would have been fine, rather than an escalation. The warning was posted at 15:09 today. After the warning, Rene uploaded two pictures to Commons without watermarks. [162] [163] For Magnolia to then file this ANI report–less than a half hour after the level 3 warning, and when Rene had complied with the warning–strikes me as trout-worthy. – Levivich 17:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I don't get the reason for filing this ANI, especially after the warning given to Renelibrary. I also agree with you that there should not have been a warning given, let alone a level 3 warning. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI - We have some pretty great images on Commons, generally speaking, some uploaded by professional photographers. Has anyone see Commons: Category:Allan Warren. That one even has the photographer's infobox and official website link on it. No problem there. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that professional photographers donating images to Commons is something we very, very, very much want to encourage, not discourage. – Levivich 20:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This editor was cautioned last January to stop posting the website for their company on the front of their photos; they didn't get it and continued. I've made 9,804 edits to the Commons and taken 3rd place in two photo contests; that doesn't give me the right to advertize on the front of my photos. No doubt we could get many great photos if we allowed companies to post an ad on the front; I'd prefer to keep the project non-commercial. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(You wrote "on the front" three times... does that somehow make it worse? As opposed to "on the back" of a digital image?) I don't know what software Renelibrary is using, but a lot of software will just put these watermarks on all photos automatically when they're imported or exported. I can see how easy it would be for someone to forget to take it off for the photos they upload. It can also easily be cropped off, as the friendly reminder in January pointed out (which you keep calling a "caution", although that word is inappropriate to describe a message that says, essentially, "I can crop those off for you but it'd be better if you could re-upload them without the mark"). WP:AGF is important, and it means if someone forgets to take off their watermark, you assume good faith–you assume that it was a mistake (people even sometimes make the same mistake twice)–and leave them a polite reminder, rather than a level-3 warning followed by an ANI post 30 minutes later. What really blows my mind is that they uploaded photos without watermarks after your level 3 warning, and you still filed at ANI. An over-the-top, ABF reaction. – Levivich 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright Template is preventing me from saving an hour-long edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! I noticed some unsourced edits happening on Celia Fisher, so I added the major edit template to the page a couple hours ago and have been working on overhauling it. When I went to publish the changes (at least an hour of work), I get an HTTP error. Going back around to the front of the page, I see the prior editor's unsourced additions caused the copyright trigger just a few minutes ago. Would you mind removing the template so I can save all the edits I've made to the page? I'd hate to lose them (and I know there won't be a copyright issue with my changes). Thank you!
Orville1974 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Orville1974: I don't think it's the copyright template itself preventing you from saving the changes, it's the fact that there's now an Edit conflict. So anything we do won't help. The way edit conflicts are handled seems to be wonky lately, so the safest thing to do is save the text of the edit you're trying to make in a text editor, cancel your edit, and re-do it, copy-pasting your text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Orville1974 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've managed to copy over all my edits. Whenever an admin gets a chance, please swing by the page to clear the copyright notice Celia Fisher. Thank you, again!
Orville1974 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse of admin privileges by User:Liz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Liz did not notify page creator of her proposed deletion, ignored the talk page explanation contesting the speedy deletion, and then — in what has the appearance of WP:COI in that the same person acted as both judge and jury — deleted her own nomination. (See Deletion log and Page history.) Useddenim (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Useddenim: There is no notification requirement for speedy deletions(or proposed deletions, which are different). Users are expected to monitor the pages they are interested in knowing about. I'm not sure about any rule for carrying out one's own speedy deletion suggestion, but if you feel the deletion was incorrect, you can go to Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The page has been recreated, but the category is still empty (despite the statement on the talk page that it is not empty).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Something is fishy here, the template {{Jakarta color}} is clearly tagged with this category but it is not populating the category. Investigating. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing untoward about an administrator deleting an empty category after a week, even if they're the one who tagged it. There's no value judgement in that, it's purely maintenance. I would note that even now Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates appears as empty, despite Template:Jakarta color being categorized in that category. I've seen that behavior with template documentation before and it feels like a bug. Maybe this has been reported before. I'll decline the speedy on those grounds, but you should consider apologizing to Liz. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is hardly "abuse of admin privileges". The category appeared to be empty despite your insistence that it is not, and empty categories get deleted. Please don't recreate deleted pages because you disagree with the method of deletion; the proper process of challenging a deletion starts with discussing with the deleting administrator. Did you attempt to discuss this with Liz before posting here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As both Ivanvector and Mackensen noted, there is a member of the category – which was clearly stated on the talk page – that is not populating the page. To ignore a valid deletion contestion is at the very least lazy editing. There's no evidence either that Liz made any attempt to discuss this with me before deleting.

@Ymblanter: I didn't say that the category wasn't empty, I said there was a page that was a member of it. Please do not twist my words. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ten times out of ten, if a category appears to be empty and it was tagged for deletion for that reason, it's going to be deleted. I probably would have done the same thing, without looking at the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Then what's the point of contesting a deletion? Useddenim (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Since WP:CSD advises admins to check the talk page before deletion, that argument is pretty weak. However, I note that Useddenim has not contacted Liz about that deletion on her talk page before starting this discussion. That probably would have cleared up the mistake without having this discussion at all. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Useddenim: you should withdraw this. The category was populated improperly and appeared to be empty when Liz deleted it. It still appeared to be empty when you recreated it, so Liz tagged it as empty again for someone else to look at. She did not "delete her own nomination": administrators are empowered to delete pages without nomination or discussion under certain circumstances, of which empty categories is one. There was no misconduct here. Mistakes were made, and have now been corrected. Remember that assume good faith is a policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the problem. WHat exactly was the fix so that I can take care of it myself if it happens again. Also, WP:AGF works both ways; when an experienced editor creates a new cat within an existing hierarchy it's likely for a legitimate reason. Useddenim (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The category was listed on the documentation page, but not on the template itself. Here it was added — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If admins delete something that shouldn't have and especially if there was an underlying problem when they did, 9 out of 10 times they will revert themselves. As everyone here has already said, it's as simple as talking to the deleting admin. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry to just be visiting this complaint now but I've reduced my hours on Wikipedia to nights. If you have any complaints about my actions (deletion, blocks, whatever), just come and talk to me. I don't bite and I'm usually pretty accommodating as long as your request doesn't go against Wikipedia's rules and policies. I'm not rigid about my decisions. As for categories, I'm not sure what is up with Twinkle as I have the "Notify creator" box checked but it seems to rarely follow through with that with CSD C1s (although it does for other CSD options). I will have to inquire about that.

But, you see, the thing about empty categories is that as long as it hasn't been deleted through CFD, categories can be easily recreated if they are found to be useful and fit into Wikipedia's categorization system. So, create some color templates and Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates (or some version of that category) can be utilized. Thanks for everyone who chimed in while I was off-line. I'm sorry to post this after the case has been closed but I thought Useddenim might want to hear from me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates has been recreated by Mackensen and is now no longer empty! Everyone okay, now? Okay, great. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

YoshiFan160

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

YoshiFan160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Normally an editor making various vandal edits to a page would draw various levels of warnings, but this account made 10 dummy edits, then successive page blanking edits to Hermione Granger and Rubeus Hagrid. Then the real clincher, they then went and page blanked Wikipedia:Protection policy and most tellingly Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. A good faith account with less than 25 edits would certainly not know about the Protection policy much know where to find a LTA page. Obvious sock is obvious. --Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless his MO has drastically changed this looks more like a bad Joe job to me. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup, re-tagged. There are several vandals who regularly do grawp stuff, while JA has moved on to other things. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Without explaining too much some of those targets are ones he wouldn't have hit to begin with. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I should have been a bit more explicit in my post. I wasn't really implying that YoshiFan160 was JA. Merely pointing out that an editor with barely 30 edits knew to find the protection policy and a LTA page. These are very specific parts of WP that newbies generally won't have any knowledge of. Even if they weren't a sock, most of their editing is vandalism. --Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of sourced content

There's been a weird series of interactions with Qwirkle (talk · contribs) on Yuri Aleksandrovich Panteleyev, currently on the main page - history here. He first removed the word raglan with the somewhat hostile but rather meaningless edit summary "WTF!". I'd orginally made an error in writing the article, using raglan for collar, rather than the coat as is mentioned in the article. Not knowing if he didn't understand the word 'raglan', or was reasonably objecting to the mistake of raglan collar, I restored raglan this time in its proper place as the type of coat. He reverted, saying yes, some of those have raglan sleeves, yup. But there is no such thing, in english, as a “raglan collar”.. Assuming he'd not checked the revert and thought the 'raglan' had just been reinserted into its previous place, I reverted, pointing out that this wasn't about a raglan collar any more, but the coat. He reverted again claiming Yes, that was precisely my intent, that is not, despite the occasional zoolanderoid magazine, a common English term. When I asked on his talkpage if he was saying that there isn't such a thing as a raglan coat, he replied "Pretty much". Google returns 119,000 hits for "Raglan Coat" - rather too many to pass off as an "occasional zoolanderoid magazine", and whether it was or it wasn't, it is in the Russian source of the article that that's what it is. I'm not sure if he has some objection to the term, doesn't like being reverted, or what. But he is removing sourced content on the grounds that its not a term in use in English, when the evidence suggests that's nonsense. Spokoyni (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Russian material is, not surprisingly, in Russian, and uses an English loanword in a manner which English itself generally does not. There are many forms of coat with raglan sleeves, ranging from windbreakers to trenchcoats. It has no particular meaning aside from a sleeve design, and a search-engine dredge will rapidly confirm that for anyone with any doubts. (The dominant image that comes up on the Russian word appears to be a lady’s sweater, oddly enough. I’m sure the Admiral looked fetching in his.)

The objection, in short, is not to properly sourced material, but to a calque translation, which is to say, the work of a wikipedian, not a reliable source. Qwirkle (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Raglan in English, Реглан in Russian. Whether he had been wearing a Chesterfield coat, Duster or Ulster coat, if that was what it says in the source, that's what it should say in the article. Certainly Реглан to Raglan is just a part of Wikipedia:Translation. As to English not using Raglan in this way, there are plenty of dictionary results happy to define a Raglan, as well as all those google hits. Wiktionary for example has Raglan (n.) "An overcoat with sleeves of this type." The Russian wiktionary as an identical definition for Реглан. If it will help matters I'd be happy to drop the word 'coat' for just 'Raglan', but "Raglan" is more specific than just coat, and there's no justification on removing it, and certainly not because you think its a "occasional zoolanderoid magazine"-term. To deny sources in other languages from wikipedia because they rely on translations by wikipedia editors and thus can't be accepted as reliable is an astounding suggestion to make. Spokoyni (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Spokoyni, this is a garden variety content dispute and you should be aware that neither ANI nor adminstrators in general adjudicate content disputes. Work it out on the article talk page, and if that is not successful, please use the procedures described at Dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. When words are borrowed from other languages, they often do not exactly preserve the original language’s meaning, and the two words can further separate with time. Sometimes meanings freeze in one language but not the other, sometimes both drift, but in different directions. No one who does not realize this is competent to translate. Qwirkle (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My go-to dictionary, Chambers Dictionary (13th Edition) defines raglan as "noun: 1. An overcoat with sleeve in one piece with the shoulder; 2. Any garment made in this style, esp knitted. adjective: 1. (of a sleeve) in one piece with the shoulder 2. (of a garment) having sleeves of this kind." This suggests that raglan on its own refers to a coat or other garment rather than to its sleeve, and if used as a qualifier can refer to either the sleeve itself or the entire garment. So it looks to me as though Spokoyni is perfectly right, and that Qwirkle has no legitimate argument, and should certainly not be repeatedly reverting. RolandR (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you also believe that loanwords in other languages, borrowed two centuries back, and used in the context of WWII, must share meanings exactly today. WP:CIR suggests you should not do any translations, then. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Two editors, at least, have provided evidence from reliable sources that something is; you have not provided any evidence that something isn't, instead choosing to make vague references to general tendencies and insult others. You might be aiming WP:CIR in the wrong direction. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, @Calton:. The question at hand is not the current most likely meaning of an English word. The sort of Google-dredge Spokoyni did, or a simple consultation of an English dictionary as did RolandR might occasionally help with that, although even in English that is very tricky with military clothing, whose names tend toward the avant-garde and the archaic. Nope, we are looking for the meaning of a Russian word, and so far nothing has been provided by them but handwaves to Google, and a risible claim that two words with the same spelling, give or take Latin vs. Cyrillic, must be the same, and the same over many years of time. By comparison, look at this around the 5th page of the pdf, page 170 in the original. Qwirkle (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle has tried to use every excuse imaginable to prevent the term 'Raglan' from being used in the article. From stating that the term doesn't exist in English, to that translations can't be allowed because they are done by wikipedians, and now that Реглан cannot be translated into English at all on the theoretical, WP:OR, and wholly incorrect claim that Raglan might possibly not be the same as Реглан. This despite the fact that English and Russian dictionaries ([164], [165], [166]) define them as the same, and the source used in this article dates from 2010. And I'm not sure who is doing the handwaving with a statement that translations are apparently "very tricky with military clothing, whose names tend toward the avant-garde and the archaic". That is simply more WP:OR, as well as nonsense. This is disruptive editing on the part of Qwirkle. Despite having been given numerous examples showing the meaning of this Russian word by users, they are choosing to ignore that, and to remove sourced content. I would argue that Qwirkle's repeated edits to remove the term should be reverted, and that reversion enforced. Spokoyni (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That ship has already sailed; the question now at hand is whether your obvious competency issues warrant a boomerang. You have a scholarly source claiming that the original sense of Реглан in Russian is “military dress uniform”, which, in Soviet service, often used astrakan collars for higher ranks, yet you still seem to be insisting he was wearing a Savile Row overcoat into battle. Good luck with that. Qwirkle (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Spokoyni and Qwirkle, I explained to you yesterday (in every time zone) that this is a garden variety content dispute which is inappropriate to discuss at this noticeboard. Was I insufficiently clear? Why are you continuing to debate the trivial content dispute in the wrong place? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The matter of claiming to “source” something in another language by a cursory glance, in English, at a search engine (or a dictionary) is a competence issue. Someone who can not see the potential problems with that has no business translating things...which appears to be almost everything this particular wikiteur does. Now, I agree that this particular instance is minor, but it is quite likely the tip of the iceberg, given that the filer seems to genuinely believe he can “translate” based on a word’s appearance and etymology. There are whole books written on the false friend problem, and even a wiki article or three. Yes, there is an issue relevant to ANI here, even if the particular manifestation is small. So use a little, tiny boomerang... Qwirkle (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that ANI is not the place to be arguing about this, but I also agree that Qwirkle is right about the substance of the dispute. Reyk _YO! 06:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

HelpMeStopSpam

HelpMeStopSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is an SPA claiming to be with VICE who has left a couple of bizarre messages on User talk:HelpUsStopSpam's talk page (including a request to interview them). I'm not sure what to do about it - definitely looks like WP:NOTHERE, but I don't know if they've violated any specific policies yet. creffett (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Have they only made a couple of edits? But, yeah—both usernames suggest WP:RGW even if they mean well with it. ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is VICE?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's a magazine or online publication of some kind. Reyk _YO! 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This all looks a bit stale, why raise it now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, 10 hours is stale?? Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I was looking at the talk page discussion as is, the ones you are referring to were removed, diff would have been nice. Yes these edits look like the user is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, didn't think about that. For other editors' reference, diff of the talk page commentary is at [167], and VICE refers to Vice Media. I agree, HelpUsStopSpam is here to WP:RGW and probably should be looked at closer, but HelpMeStopSpam is just WP:NOTHERE, I'm just not sure what the correct approach is to deal with it so I raised it here. creffett (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well as its an SPA, that clear has an agenda (and this a history) relating to digging up dirt I think a block, indef of coarse. Normally I would not go for the block straight away, but there is history here, and I doubt this is a new user.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Since he (HMSS) explicitly claims to be editing for vice there are conflict of interest and UPE issues. We are contacting suggests shared account issues. But... having not got the interview he was after, I guess we've probably seen the last of him. Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to see if either of them HMSS would be willing to explain just what they're doing here? I can get if you're asking for an interview with someone, but I would imagine this should have been done far more discreetly and would be targeted to a specific known editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks creffett for already bringing this here - I would have done this myself now.

The whole "vice" thing is likely just fake. The "bizarre" requests already indicate that he is torn between trying to insult/attack me and trying to dox. Obviously, anyone looking into Wikipedia spam would be interviewing about the big cases such as Orangemoody and Wiki-PR, and I have no knowledge of these beyond what is written in their Wikipedia articles.

Most likely, -wrong suspicion removed to protect the innocent- HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So based on this, he should be blocked for harassment and/or being a sock? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It clearly is a SPA to harass me. I cannot prove it is a sock, a checkuser may or may not. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you blocked User:Tsma73. What do you think of this? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 is taking some much needed time away, Drmies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• HelpMeStopSpam is on the same IP address as Wikitopcoder and Hencoder. Could be retaliation for this edit, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Then my suspicion above was wrong. I do not see any connection between these two and aforementioned accounts. There is a third account spamming "open genus" to Wikipedia: Algo open. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Something came up and I couldn't comment earlier, but I've blocked all three accounts. As NinjaRobotPirate said, they're all three on the same IP address. Given that the messages on the userpages of the older two accounts (I am a PhD candidate at Harvard University... and I am a PhD candidate at ITMO University, Russia...) are at odds with each other, that the IP address is nowhere near either of those institutions, and that all three accounts are technically indistinguishable, they're NOTHERE at best. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DoRD. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Another account, User:StopBiased, popped up yesterday pulling similar crap on HUSS's talk page (only other edit was, for some reason, posting a nooby question on my Talk page), and has been added to those being blocked. So this isn't over, keep eyes open. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Airline7375 on Thomas Cook Group articles

This issue has languished at WP:COI/N for several weeks without action (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Thomas_Cook_Group) so I am bringing it to wider attention here. User:Airline7375 is a single purpose account with regards to Thomas Cook Group and its many related articles. Some of their edits are adding unsourced promotional material [168] and some are unsourced updates of company structure and airline fleets. They refuse to engage on their talk page and have continued to edit even after direct questions about their conflict of interest or WP:PAID status. I believe they are an undeclared paid editor based on their edits. shoy (reactions) 15:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User A H Butt (again)

A H Butt (talk · contribs) The ink has not dried on the previous report, and this user still ignores the input from the community, and the warning given by DrKay.

Diffs:

• Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell
• Margaret Thatcher

A short block may be necessary to catch their attention. User is notified again. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to block. A short block is unlikely to be successful as they will just wait it out. (They have never posted on a talk page since creating their account in February.) So it will be indefinite until they respond to concerns on their talk page. Is everyone okay with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I would support such a block, on the understanding that it would force the user to engage with the previously-expressed concerns. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, until they resolve to concerns on their talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Lame legal threat from an obvious sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.138.110.223 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of KaranSharma0445 that's objecting to some of their edits being reverted. Several of their edit summaries get into the personal attack territory (complaining about my english when using text shortcuts?!?). They've just left this post [169] on their talk page that crosses the line though. Please review and block if appropriate. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP, but only for 2 weeks as it's a dynamic IP from a very big ISP (which I use myself, and I know my IP changes regularly). You may be better off asking for semi-protection for any articles that are regularly being disrupted. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done some, and will probably be more aggressive. Ponyo gets a lot of their socks normally and they normally don't get this aggressive when challenged, must be feeling frustrated. Ravensfire (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I love the smell of angry socks in the morning Nosebagbear (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ZebraDX3.1 WP:NOTHERE

• ZebraDX3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has used talk pages as a forum multiple times in the last few weeks. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted.

• Special:Diff/895089160 - "Btw 4 days to day till my b day"
• Special:Diff/896983801 - "Holy Crap What a dream match! You guys ready for Undertaker and Goldberg to clash! Who will be Next or Who will Rest In Peace!"
• Special:Diff/897038949 - "In the beginning it should say 'Goldberg vs The Undertaker is a dream match for some fans..' btw who do you think will win."

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:ZebraDX3.1, you need to shit or get off the pot. We're here to edit, not to chat about rassling or birthdays. This is not a gift-giving community anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessarily harsh response. (Whether or not this contributor is a young person.) – Levivich 18:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Warn. Behavior is not malicious, or fit for ANI. @ZebraDX3.1: this isn't really what Wikipedia is for. Would you actually like to contribute to our articles in a way that meets our policies and guidelines? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Honestly if this continues they need to be blocked, the majority of their edits are forum-like talk page posts. The few to mainspace are unsourced for the most part. Probably needs to be warned once more though, only has one warning at the moment. StaticVapor message me! 05:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:ZebraDX3.1 Hello and I want to apologize for what ever I did is there anything I can do to get of this I just started editing and I did not know so please is there anything I can do to get off of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZebraDX3.1 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZebraDX3.1: Do not worry, just do not post anything on talk pages not related to changes to a Wikipedia article and make sure you cite sources when you make changes. StaticVapor message me! 05:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposing an IBAN

Hi. I want to propose an IBAN between me and User:Toa Nidhiki05. They are harassing and accusing me of violationg WP:CIVIL (and they are not aware of that they violated it), when I finally tried to stop replying to them, they began to attend other pages that I'm editing, reverting my edits or taking sides against me with Phillis Minaj, who is a new editor and called me/my edit summaries snarky and obnoxious. I'm really tired of this nonsense, and I would like to have an interaction ban with them. They have also been blocked from editing 4 times already. Sebastian James what's the T? 18:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Would you be fine with a voluntary enforceable two-way IBAN? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, I would not at the moment. He seems to be proposing this primarily to remove me from conflicts he is involved in rather than out of some actual problem. I am seriously concerned with his lack of civility and his false and ridiculous attack on me. This is the crux of my issue with him at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user requesting this, Sebastian James, randomly insulted me in an edit summary yesterday (having never interacted with him before) as well as in an edit summary when I cautioned him against incivility. I expressed my bewilderment with this on the talk page, where he accused me of being a know-it-all and then informed me he never wanted me to talk to him again; this is not surprising given his talk page is entirely blank, primarily it seems due to a history of cautions and warnings from other editors, and unsurprisingly he’s previously been warned against incivility by AN/I in the past. I’ve since gone to other pages where he has had belligerent behavior and commented or reverted, which the user has taken as a personal attack and harassment against himself. It’s worth noting that, on pages like Life is Strange 2 and My Days of Mercy, most other editors have not taken his stance; he’s also currently edit warring on My Days of Mercy, where another editor and myself have both reverted him.

As for my blocks, anyone can look at them and see the vast majority were in 2010 and 2011. For reference, I was 16 or 17 then, and those are nearly a decade ago. I did lose my cool a few months ago, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything here. I try to avoid these circumstances in general, but I don’t believe I’ve ever had any instance of harassment or incivility leveled against me, at least not that I can remember.

It seems to me the more adequate solution is to encourage Sebastian James to be more open to input from other users, to be civil in his remarks rather than insulting, to express less ownership of pages, and to not treat interactions on his talk page as a uniform negative. I know it’s his right to blank his talk page, but it’s incredibly confusing, and other editors have expressed a similar concern. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering that Sebastian has mentioned me too, I'd like to point out that it seems that even after bringing this up here he continues to make uncivil comments i.e. calling other users toxic on Talk:My Days of Mercy; previous to this he has a long history of poor interaction with other editors as can be found in the history of his talk page. Sebastian has also been warned to be more careful in being civil towards other editors at ANI before.

Not to mention he's causing problems on Talk:Life is Strange 2 where he clearly accepts that edits are acceptable but seems to want to argue and make changes to ensure he 'doesn't lose'. The combative nature of his editing doesn't seem to be in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, rather that he's looking to score points. PhillisMinaj 19:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Your latest block was this March and now you have reverted the ANI notification because it was "frivolous". Your edit on My Days of Mercy is incorrect, as I have explained before in the edit summary and more detailed in the talk page, and then you stated WP:BRD which clearly contradicts what you wrote. That "other editor (not editors, you should stop saying other editors when you and the new editor are the only ones that allege an insult from me) have expressed a similar concern" created their account today and is acting like you. I'm not sure why a failed attempt to report me with one warning about civility has to do with anything here too if we accept your comments. I think that this editor is toxic and is not eligible for collaboration, if he doesn't want IBAN then I suggest another block.

I am not accepting your edits for now because of the source you presented, do not accuse me again for ensure he 'doesn't lose'. You are not even accepting that you have been warned for violating 3RR on the day you created this account, which might be WP:SOCK, now I'm "scoring points"? Sebastian James what's the T? 19:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a serious allegation. I am most definitely not a sockpuppet, and haven't edited Wikipedia for many years but decided to have another go today. If you want to allege that I was engaged in an edit war then you need to understand that it takes two to tango, and the consensus on the article's talk page very much agrees with my edits; the same talk page you were unwilling to involve yourself in the discussion on, rather stating that your edit summarys were good enough discourse. A quick peruse through your history shows that these same issues seem to crop up with many users about your uncivility. PhillisMinaj 19:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I just wrote that you might be sockpuppet since the day you created your article you get your first and other warnings and involved in disputes more than one, and "I am most definitely not a sockpuppet" is not enough. The consensus haven't been reached yet, how can it "agrees with your edits"? My talk page history consists three-revert rule, not using edit summary and unconstructive editing warnings, which most of them were not even true/correct. None of them says uncivility, why are you even continuing to change what we already able to see? Sebastian James what's the T? 19:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

First and other warnings? Other than the edit war that you started with me I'm not sure what you're talking about? If that's not good enough I suggest you start an official investigation into whether I'm a sockpuppet of Toa or not rather than just making wild accusations. All the other contributors on that talk page, and the WP:VG/S state that the source is reliable, you're the only editor with the issue. PhillisMinaj 19:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m just going to respond to what I think is directed at me:

1) I reverted your notification from my talk page, yes. I clearly find this report to be frivolous, and I am not required to keep it on my page. This is entirely permitted under the rules.

2) I am not sure why you are calling me toxic. My editing history here is clearly one of collaboration. I have done substantial work in promoting good and featured articles, which require a substantial deal of collaboration with other editors. It’s one of the parts of editing I like most.

3) What exactly do you want me blocked for? I haven’t done anything wrong or violated any policies. You keep pointing to a block I had in March and yes, I will admit, I lost my cool there. I can’t explain it, but I’m more than happy to accept I was in the wrong.

4) I have no clue who Phillis Minaj is. I clearly agree with him that there are some issues with your editing, but I don’t have any connection with this user. You’re more than welcome to start an investigation and run checkuser if you want, but I think it’s a bit paranoid to think users who disagree with you must all be socks. Toa Nidhiki05 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I am the only one for now, Kleuske didn't write "the complaint is that the article is based on a Spotify account, which generally isn’t a reliable source. Edit warring over maintenance templates isn’t the way to go."

Both of you, at least, assume or write what I didn't, such as "it’s a bit paranoid to think users who disagree with you must all be socks." Did I write anything like that? You revert edits without an instant explanation, then you make a big deal out of them on the talk pages and then you accuse me falsely... You are the one who keeps showing my ANI issue a year ago which was a failed attempt to report and that editor and I both had a warning. It is not a problem for me, neither is my talk page history, which you keep saying that I got warnings because of my uncivility. Please at least read edit summaries of the warnings. If you did, we wouldn't even be here. And I suggested a block because I really think that you and Phillis are gonna keep confronting and reverting my edits with bizarre explanations. That's all for me today. Sebastian James what's the T? 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked both Sebastian James and Phillis Minaj for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Life Is Strange 2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

67.61.34.163

67.61.34.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Since April 26, the IP has been constantly editing the lead section of 1824 United States presidential election. But, with most their edits largely being unsourced and unexplained, and going against the MoS (specifically MOS:LEADLENGTH and WP:DETAIL), I tried to restore the April 17 version twice. They suggest that the new introduction of a page that already had insufficient inline citations is fine, even though it's not. They were warned by another user on May 6 for making unconstructive edits to the same page. Of all of their contributions, only three of them have explanations, two of which are about the reverts. With that said, I am given the impression that the IP has been making disruptive edits. --Wow (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you have already made a post at Talk:1824 United States presidential election which is the correct way to seek consensus on this routine content dispute. What sort of action by adminstrators are you asking for? Are you asking for a block of the other editor? If so, please explain why, with diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'll just continue the discussion on the other talk page and seek consensus. --Wow (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: So yesterday, I reverted the IP for the third time and told them to review WP:BRD and seek WP:CONSENSUS first before implementing their revised lead. Despite bringing up the issues on that talk page, they now have technically reverted for the third time and insist that I have to gain consensus to undo their edits. None of the lead sections of any other U.S. presidential election are formatted in the same way as the IP's. They did suggest that I trim down the lead instead of simply reverting, but I am wary of doing that as most of the page could be unsourced. Otherwise, isn't this a violation of MOS:VAR and a case of WP:NOTHERE? --Wow (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, speaking as an ordinary editor and not in my role as an adminstrator, I agree with you that the current lead of this article is excessively long and contains way too much detail. You would be entirely justifiable, in my opinion, to trim the lead down to four concise informative paragraphs. Speaking as an administrator, though, this is not a matter for this noticeboard which does not adjudicate content disputes. Please do not continue to debate the matter here. Discuss it at the article talk page or use other forms of dispute resolution appropriate for content disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User acts to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This user Ahmedo Semsurî acts to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Some of his COI edits:

• One of his statements says: „Kurdish and Kurmanji are not the same. One is a language, the other is a dialect.“[170]
• and his other statement says: „Kurmanji means Kurdish in Kurdish“.[171]
• another statement from him says: „Kurmanji is a synonym for Kurdish.“[172]
• Other COI edits from him says: „This page is about Kurmanji Kurds not Kurds in general“[173]
• and also: „Most of what this page has is already mentioned in Kurds.“[174]
• another COI edit from him claims: „Hüseyin Aygün is a politician not an author“[175]

but the Wikipedia page of Hüseyin Aygün says clearly: „Aygün is the writer of a number of books, mainly on the Dersim massacre, including the titles Dersim 1938 ve Zorlu İskan ("Dersim 1938 and the Forced Resettlement"), 0.0.1938 Resmiyet ve Hakikat ("0.0.1938 Formality and Reality"), Dersim 1938 ve Hacı Hıdır Ataç’ın Defteri ("Dersim 1938 and the Notebook of Hacı Hıdır Ataç"), Fişlemenin Kısa Tarihi ("The Brief History of Tagging") and his book in Zazaki language, Eve tarixe ho teri Amaene.“ I also searched Google Books and quickly saw that Hüseyin Aygün is also an author.[176] 62.26.157.20 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." What you are talking about is a content dispute. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA98:3A2A:1A94:EB53 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

According to his Wikipedia page he is Kurdish. So he has a personal connection to these articles that deal with Kurdish matters. This is also a relationship according to COI who says: „...and other relationships“. 62.26.157.20 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)By that logic, I couldn't edit any page on Wikipedia dealing with something made in the United States. Now, if the subject were (for example) an author of a book about Kurdistan or the Kurdish people, then that could be a COI if he were citing himself. But this is just a content dispute, or at worst POV-pushing. Recommend engaging the user on his talk page and closing this. (Oh, and for future reference, there's a page specifically for COI discussions - WP:COIN) creffett (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If the IP account (who I suspect to be the same user who got blocked for sockpuppetry, racism and vandalism) believes that the Zaza literature page is worth saving, then go ahead and add reliable information. Most of the oeuvres you mentioned by Hüseyin Aygün are in Turkish, while "Eve Tarixe Ho Teri Amaene" is a history book. If you look at Kurdish literature or French literature, there's a clear focus on fiction. (Iranicaonline clearly states that is almost non-existing in Zaza[177]). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is fourth of fifth time since late March that this user involves me on this noticeboard. And everytime I told him to use the talkpage, instead of pushing for his POV. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Various admins have also involved themselves and reverted his changes, but he doesn't get it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My replies

–One of his statements says: „Kurdish and Kurmanji are not the same. One is a language, the other is a dialect.“[54]

• Kurdish is a language constituted of three dialects, whereas Kurmanji is the largest of these. Now, this is not disputed by anyone except you.

–'and his other statement says: „Kurmanji means Kurdish in Kurdish“.[55]

• As a Kurdish speaker, I can tell you this (and I've given you many academic sources). The word Kurmanji means Kurdish. So not only are they synonyms, but the largest Kurdish dialect is called... Kurdish(!)

–another statement from him says: „Kurmanji is a synonym for Kurdish.“[56]

• Kurmanji is a Kurdish dialect and Kurmanji means Kurdish.

–Other COI edits from him says: „This page is about Kurmanji Kurds not Kurds in general“[57]

• What you added was irrelevant. The Kurmanjis article is about Kurmanjis not all Kurds.

–and also: „Most of what this page has is already mentioned in Kurds.“[58]

• No reason to have one scarce article that doesn't have any unique information. That's why I merged the Kurmanjis (since reverted) to Kurds

–another COI edit from him claims: „Hüseyin Aygün is a politician not an author“[59]

• He doesn't write fiction (if you can find any, you can add him to the Zaza literature.)

--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't really need to reply anymore. The onus is on the ip editor to post something, and since this is very clearly not a COI issue, it'll probably be closed as "this is a content dispute." 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA98:3A2A:1A94:EB53 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî:, I think you're in the clear on this one, you don't need to defend every single accusation. At this point, its fairly clear that a user is just being disruptive and repeatedly reporting you because they aren't getting their way. Again, I see no COI here, and actually think its good that a Kurdish editor is writing about Kurdish topics. Its clearly an undercovered area on WP that needs clear and interested heads. Keep your head up, and dont let the troublesome IPs drag you into the mud. And for the reporting IP, perhaps a warning about being disruptive. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed Afd by his own

Alexxeos (article creater) closed Afd as speedy keep by his own! check it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sai_Ye_Htet_Kaung&oldid=898016618 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai Ye Htet Kaung. Praxidicae already warning on Alexxeos's talk page. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is not acceptable. They are an inexperienced editor, however. Perhaps something got lost in translation? El_C 03:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep i closed it. Sorry if i did something wrong. He want to delete with wp:musicbio and it is not wp:musicbio.Thanks. Alexxeos (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it does appear to fall under musicbio. I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise. El_C 03:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This subject is clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Article creater removed Afd template again...again...! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring over the removal of the tag was definitely a lapse in judgment. El_C 04:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It was caterogized under BLP as living person.I know Music is not notability but as a living person.Sorry For My English.Thanks Alexxeos (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not so. El_C 04:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well it is well sourced and cite and WP: with Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR) if it's not still even approve as living person it's ok and I am not wasting my time here for argument.Sorry for Take your time .Thanks. Alexxeos (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think someone should probably enquire as to whether Alexxeos is familiar with WP:COI policy. His user page (which consists in its entirety of 'We Are the Waste', the name of the subject of the AFD's band) might well lead one to suspect that he isn't. 86.133.149.185 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've left them a note about that too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Alexxeos 24 hours for persistently removing AfD templates for articles which are still under discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I note an almost perfect model of a SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Not sure it was related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/楊過007 or not. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alg01

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alg01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This editor is having a crystal-clear agenda: removing Morocco from any history-related article. He's not here to build an encyclopedia, and these are some examples of his disruptive behavior:

• Removing Morocco/Moroccan from history related articles and spamming pages with edit summaries like, "removed/replaced Morocco" : [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186].
• Adding poorly translated text to articles without changing the smallest thing: [187], [188].

The problem here is not just his behavior and edits. It's this pov pushing pattern that was used by other editors like: Bokpasa. They're having the same behavior and the same anti-moroccan agenda. In 2018, I encountered one of his socks, Lucas-Recio. And I'm having a deja-vu -TheseusHeLl (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear , {TheseusHeLl}

I dont know how to respond to these so i'll just edit this real quick and hope someone reads the following :

1/ I replaced "Morocco" with the actual name of the region at that time , it's not a crime that's called being accurate. Morocco is only a recent political entity.

2/ Dynasties that are ethnically not "Moroccan " should not be nationalised by Moroccans , ex: the Marinids. It's only normal to revert your nationalisation of said dynasties.

3/ If I make grammatical mistakes, point them out and correct them rather than crying about it on this board.

4/ I left you a message on you talk page , you never replied so I assumed you had no arguments.

5/ If accurately describing history makes me "anti-Moroccan" then so be it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alg01 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not entitled to your opinion. The pov that "this country did not exist at the time " is undoubtly wrong. The majority of academic works are against your pov. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what he said to me in Doug Weller's talk page, "Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis.". I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And Irnonically , the only authors that seem to support your claims where born in the last 100 years and have an interesting colonial relationship with Morocco.... -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute not a behavior one. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:594:F6CB:1963:ABAC (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. He's clearly here to edit in a nationalistic way. This text summarizes his agenda, "Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis. I don't need to put "Algerian " infront of the Zirids or any Algerian dynasty ...because they originate within my country. Can you say the same ? Nope. Without biased historians , what is Morocco's history do tell me?" -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I just submitted an SPI request here Rockstonetalk to me! 18:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paid editing in Sandra Piesik

I recently nominated an article Dr Sandra Piesik for CSD, it was created by an account named User:Sandraizabela5, apparently that is the name of the person in the article as well. Now, I observed on the article's talk page another user User:Damiandp talking very formally about how wikipedia is a wonderful platform and that they belong to the "Sandra Piesik Wiki team" and "Sandra Piesik Admin Team". Although the person is question has hints of notability(fellow of "Royal Geographical Society with IBG", a page tagged as promotional). I suspect a case of UPE and possible sockpuppetry, as the user damian requested unblocking of the sandra piesik account, which might have happened earlier.

Also found [189] Daiyusha (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The page had been repeatedly created and deleted before at Sandra Piesik, which I then salted. It had been deleted as a copyright violation, and the user had said "I will rewrite the content of the entry to version complies with the regulations". Instead, they posted another copyvio at Dr Sandra Piesik, which I deleted as well. I recommend an indef block for both users for repeated copyright violations + self-promotion (the user claims to be "Sandra Piesik Admin Team"). Fram (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is a NOTHERE case, and probably an indef block is in order, but they did not edit since the last warning, and were not notified of this discussion (which I am going to do now). I am inclined to wait for their next edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Admin,
Thank you for your comments. Text will be re-written as suggested.
It may take some time please bear with us.
Best wishes. Sandraizabela5 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You said this on 9 May and again on 14 May. But you are still violating copyright. What is going to change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The talk page of the now deleted Dr Sandra Piesik page has some interesting comments by the damien user, who contested the deletion of the page. Those who can access it, please have a look. Daiyusha (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Damiandp and have provided unblock conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

108.252.133.42

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 108.252.133.42 has repeatedly added incorrect information with lack of sources to pages, check the IP's edit history for proof. Who supports this address being banned? --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No-one; they haven't edited under that IP for two days. ——SerialNumber54129 11:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 But they are still not IP banned and may just be busy right now, so with the history they do deserve a ban I believe. Understand now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite. In the meantime, this was a wholly unnecessary warning, since the IP hadn't edited that article for three days. Incidentally, as it says at the top of your editing window on this page, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page; you did not do so. I did, but in your name, so as not to be thougt to be condoning the ANI-fest. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 13:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Their IP number may change (or have changed) in the intervening time, so they're unlikely to get blocked unless they resume. It would be a good idea to review their contributions. They changed dates and removed text with no explanation in the two articles I checked. I reverted those but I'm about to log off, so someone else can finish the washing-up. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Sorry, this is my first report so I wasn't too familiar with how to conduct one. --Kyle Peake (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack

Personal attack by User:Ahmedo Semsurî calls me a troll.[190] (and the word "satisfy" is offensive too) When I told there is nothing about his claim in this source on page 30: [191] You can treat each other with respect rather than giving other users a name. 83.110.196.147 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's not appropriate. I've had a word with them. El_C 00:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Calling people trolls isn't within wikipedia guidelines, but its so subtle i think a warning is the most that can happen here. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh, what? It's a personal attack. I warned them about it. End of story (hopefully). El_C 03:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole

I am raising a concern of WP:HOUNDING against User:Slugger O'Toole. On 9 May they directly reverted two edits I had made to the article on Brian Sims despite not previously being active on this article and this to change protest to prayer, and reciting to prayer. Only a few weeks earlier on 18 April I had raised concerns with them about hounding when they followed me to the article on the Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) to revert and change my edits here is just one of these). I have previously raised these concerns with administrators to flag how in October 2018 this editor (when called BrianCUA) reverted my edits to Reinhard Marx and admitted that they had never visited that page before admission on their talk page. It is my belief that this editor is passionately supportive of issues pertaining to the Roman Catholic church, and that they do not like edits which are critical of the Catholic church, its members of organisations - even if the material supports this reading. They are particularly defensive when the matter of homosexuality or gay rights conflicts with official Church teaching or actions. I feel I am constantly being inhibited from editing - I am trying to improve articles in good faith and accept instances of where things can be improved or errors corrected. But I am being chased around and being made to feel like I have to justify every edit I make until this editor is content with the outcome from their point of view. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is almost silly. If you read the conversation we had in August 2018 about Reinhard Marx, I clearly explained why I was there, and Contaldo responded: "That's great. No offence taken." Now, eight months later, he is using it as evidence that I am hounding him? As for the Lavender Hill Mob article, he linked to it in an article in which we are both very active. That's how I came across it. I wasn't monitoring his edit history and then chasing him around, trying to inhibit his editing. If you look at his edit history, in fact, you will see many, many articles in which he is active and I am not. When Contaldo adds relevant content that is reliably sourced, he gets no push back from me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reinhard Marx and the Lavender Hill Mob are examples that show this is a repeat and sustained pattern. Would you like to explain why you visited the article on Brian Sims and changed my edits specifically? And I would ask that you don't dismiss my concerns as "silly". Your intention is simply to intimidate and WP:HOUND. Administrators I ask you to check the article on Brian Sims and consider whether it is acceptable for this editor to come and remove my wording after never having been at that article before. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Regarding Reinhard Marx, you yourself said "I'm sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me and your edit changes seem a sensible one." 2) I have already explained how I came to the Lavender Hill Mob. 3) Yes, please check out the Sims article, and particularly the talk page, where I engaged in a civil and rational discussion and came to a consensus with another editor before moving the prose to the main page. Sims was in the news recently, which is how I presume you got there. 4) Your last 100 edits include Damares Alves, True Cross, Macarius of Jerusalem, Helena (empress), List of sexually active popes, Donatello, and Frederick the Great, all of which relate to Catholicism and/or homosexuality. I have not been active on any of them. That's a pretty weak pattern. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't come to this board to have a debate with you (another example of your hounding style); I have come to make a complaint and have asked administrators to look into that. With regards to Marx it was clear to me that you were hounding but I decided to overlook it in attempt to reduce conflict (my comments were an ironic warning and should be read that way). You can say what you like about discussion on the Sims talk page but I think your argument that "it was in the news" is disingenuous and dishonest. You specifically targeted my edits because you didn't like them - that was your main motivation for visiting the page. This is hounding; this is not acceptable. There is a persistent pattern. And thanks for pointing out that you've had a good look at my recent editing history! I've made my complaint and I don't intend to justify it further to you. If people have concerns then it doesn't help to harass them and intimidate them in the hope they will simply shrink away.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators may also want to look at the edit warring noticeboard where Slugger is trying to intimidate again and risks abusing the process. Four editors have expressed a view contrary to Slugger on inclusion of material on the Lavender Hill Mob; despite this Slugger decided to report me for edit-warring as a way to silence me even though the overwhelming consensus is against them on this point. Are these sort of behaviours really the ones we want to see on Wikipedia? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)) Contaldo80 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

When I reported Congtaldo for edit warring, the dispute was just between two people. Now that a consensus has emerged, I have abided by it. I would also suggest that the consensus emerged because I put out a RfC. I am not trying to silence anyone. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You may suggest that but it has no bearing in reality. That consensus was there before your RfC. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you may wish to check the timestamps. I asked for the RFC at 10:49 am on May 14, 2019. After I hit save, I saw your comment and responded a minute later. At that point you Contaldo and I were the only people who had commented. I don't think I would call that a consensus. A few new people came after that, I presume that as a result of the RFC, and then a consensus was made clear. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally you removed the material again on 15 May at 15:00 well after your RfC had revealed a consensus against removing the material. As shown here Contaldo80 (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You have asked this question twice. I will answer it once below. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's not easy to prove hounding from a limited set of diffs. The explanation for how they got to Sims might well be correct. But at the same time, did Slugger O'Toole really use the Daily Caller as a source in a BLP? And I am familiar with their supposed "civil and rational discussion" on talk pages from a minor dispute at Talk:Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group), where the talk page presents an editor who doesn't really care much about consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did use it. And then, if you read the talk page, you will see that I apologized for using it as I didn't know it was a prohibited source. Once that fact was pointed out to me, I didn't use it again. You will also see from that same dif that I explicitly told the editor who reverted me that I wanted to work with him to develop a consensus and then did exactly that. We worked out compromise language on talk and now the article is stable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• HOUNDING allegation notwithstanding but I noticed the name come up and I have a slightly different concern that his username may be a WP:UPOL violation as it seems to imply association with the Slugger O'Toole newsblog. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That issue was addressed previously. A fictional character was the inspiration for both my name and that of the blog. Nice catch, though. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies @Slugger O'Toole:. I had missed that one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for an apology. I miss far more than that (as has been alluded to above!). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right to raise concerns The C of E. Slugger O'Toole previously operated under the username of BrianCUA - but changed it after it was pointed out that this implied association with the Catholic University of America. As you will see there is a pattern of far from ideal behaviours. Frankly I'd like to see some sort of topic ban in relation to articles on Catholicism.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone raised a concern about my username. Upon reflection, I determined that the concern had merit. I then took steps to rectify the situation. I'm not sure how this is poor behavior, much less demonstrative of a pattern of the same. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the articles leading to the current WP:HOUND concern, but I concur with the need for greater attention to be paid to Slugger's tendentious editing on Catholicism-related topics. I have previously noted his tendency to edit against explicit consensus in this topic area and make false claims about the views expressed by other users, with the aim of pushing a non-neutral point of view. Contaldo posted on my talk page about this issue, but it's not what brought me here; I watchlist ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page for Talk:The Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) is a classic example of this frankly. Slugger ignored the consensus established by 6 separate editors concerning the mention of the death of Marty Robinson by AIDS (the individual was active in his opposition to the teachings of the Catholic church regarding the non-use of condoms); and continued to remove the material despite editors agreeing it should stay. User:Drmies quite rightly called him out. They then went to the trouble of creating a new article on Marty Robinson so that they could remove the AIDS-related fact from the earlier article - and making a very poor job of creating a new article at the same time and creating more work for editors such as User:Yngvadottir to fix. Highly disruptive and issues around neutral editing. I accept the point that it's difficult to demonstrate HOUNDING and not coincidental editing of a page on an item in the news - but the fact is that one of the immediate things Slugger did on the Brian Sims page was to specifically revert my edits in relation to Catholic religious practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have stated multiple times on that page that I respect the consensus. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet you removed material after such a consensus had been indicated and was in place. So why did you do that? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times on that article's talk page, it was at the suggestion of another user. He believed, as I did, that once "someone can write an article on him... it would more logically belong there." Drmies, who is to the best of my knowledge the only administrator involved in that discussion, then instructed me to "write the article." So, I created a new article and placed that information there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmies - can I check that you "instructed [Slugger] to write the article" on Marty Robinson? This wasn't quite my understanding of the debate but perhaps I've misunderstood. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "instruct" anyone to write the article; anyone can see what comment of Slugger's prompted my "then write the article". And every one who looks at my entire comment can see what I thought of the editor's work, and of their efforts to try and erase this person from the article. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This was my understanding too. They also misrepresented what user:Hughesdarren said on the same page. Personally I don't think this is acceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I do feel that my comments were cherry picked and misrepresented by Slugger and have left a comment on the article talk page. I have also found the user to be problematic on the Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) article, particularly ignoring the consensus of the group. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Further to the discussion around Brian Sims I want to draw attention to the issue on the administrator's noticeboard raised by User:JesseRafe [here] raising concerns about users (including Slugger O'Toole) "adding undue weight, using non-NPOV language" and "using weasel words or otherwise "gamey" tricks of the language to make the BLP subject of the article sound condemned in Wikipedia's voice". Especially the edit on 9 May which directly over-turned my edits of "recite" to replace with perceived stronger Roman Catholic terminology and material that created a more negative image of a gay man challenging the teaching of the Catholic Church - [here]. The editors seem to have eventually reached some sort of accommodation but this is another example of Slugger's questionable behaviours across a range of articles and impacting on a broad range of other editors.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of the ANI notice linked to above, and would again direct people to read the conversation JesseRafe and I had on talk where he pointed out a few policies of which I was unaware. I then apologized, thanked him for bringing them to my attention, and then promised not to run afoul of them again. Jesse also said "Thank you for your calm response. I may have over-reacted because..." of some very valid reasons. We then worked out a consensus version on talk and moved it to the main. This is, I believe, exactly how the process is supposed to work. Like with the discussion about my username above, I don't believe this is a "questionable behavior," despite Contaldo's best efforts to cast aspersions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Misusing of the sock puppetry template

Hello dear community, I do not know if I'm right here regarding the following problem. The user Ahmedo Semsurî misuses the template for sock puppetry and reports each IP address in the same article in which he is also involved. I do not know what relationship he has with Jahmalm, but this is clearly going too far. Wikipedia is a place for all people even if they do not have an account and edit as an IP. I also find his behavior a bit paranoid. He makes the appearance as if the articles belong to him and no other IP is allowed to work there. Maybe (Personal attack removed). 81.37.160.164 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but stop pushing for your POV like your edit here[192]. Don't Cherrypick and don't remove academically sourced information just because it doesn't fit you.

This issue has already been discussed on the talk page Talk:Kurmanji but also on this noticeboard yesterday, where I've responded to your edit. [193] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That's no reason to report every IP and accuse them of sock behavior and misuse the sock puppetry template. 81.37.160.164 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Why does it bother you that I use a legitimate template when I have my concerns? Concentrate on how you can add reliable information on Wikipedia instead of focusing on removing information you disagree with for whatever reasons. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's see. Two IPs edit Kurmanji in the same month, both with edits to other topics, both making similar edits—and similar edits to the alleged master account. I certainly think the sockpuppetry template was applied in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You use this template for every IP that works in an article that you are involved in. This is misusing and suspicious. 81.37.160.164 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I add the template to every IP that uses the same arguments and references as Jahmalm, removes the same type of info as Jahmalm and always end up with personal attacks like that Jahmalm account did. He also liked using this noticeboard. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you have misused the template too many times and reported and accused many innocent IP‘s like me. This must come to an end and the template should only be used in the clear case. I've done just one edit and you have reported me right away and accused me of something I'm not. 81.37.160.164 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ahmedo Semsurî. Generally, tagging user pages as sockpuppets is left to Checkusers, SPI clerks and admins who patrol SPI. Please do not tag IP accounts you are suspicious of. It's better to file a report at SPI or discuss individual cases with any of our friendly checkusers. You might have your suspicions and be acting in good faith but it is better to consult a CUer or file a formal SPI complaint than act on your hunches. If you have good evidence, it is likely that a CUer will agree with you and if you don't, it's not fair for the IPs who are often dynamic and may be used by any number of people. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. He accuses me of sock puppetry, although as an IP I only made a single edit in an article which he is also involved. In this comment ([194]) he accuses me of being something I am not. Then he reported me here ([195]). And last but not least, he even goes so far as to request for semi-protection ([196]) so that IPs can no longer work in "his" article. Currently the article is protected and he succeeded with his strategic behavior. These tactics are absolutely unfair and so Wikipedia should not work. 81.37.160.164 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I encourage you to make a user and thereby bypass the protection. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

For this reason you report me right away and accuse me of being something I am not and you are misusing the template. 81.37.160.164 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahmedo Semsurî, please don't place tags on IP addresses, particularly not a tag that places the IP in the "confirmed sockpuppet" category. IP addresses should only be tagged if they are static and have been abused over a significant period of time. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Hjuhbj ssb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re-reporting - may have been deleted by accident (Why?)

I reported his unconstructive edits to WP:AIV, but they dismissed my report. He claims his edits are not vandalism. Now he's redirected his own talk page to a WP article. [197] [198] I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I moved his talk page back to the proper place. What's wrong with his edits? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at these: [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] Putting completely wrong info into articles and templates. And he claims it's not vandalism. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The edits relating to KITV ([207][208][209]) definitely constituted insertion of inaccurate information. Whether it was malicious or not, I don't know, but KITV only has four digital stations ([210]). Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked; multiple spot checks of the stations in question showed the Canal Once Niños affiliation was false. So all they're posting are both false information *and* spam - blocked SOAblock but false info, not here for editing Wikipedia, disruption... take your choice. They're indeffed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2a01:cb0c:cd:d800:fcda:360:83fc:88c3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Worrying BLP violations and calls to kill someone [[211]][[212]][[213]]. This by the way is all they have done [[214]]Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done, short term block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I upped that to the /64 and one month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Democratic Alliance (India)

On National Democratic Alliance (India) this anonymous editor keeps posting foreign content which breaks links. I tried to stop them, and user:David Biddulph has tried to stop them. I initially reported them to WP:AIV, but I retracted the report because I was not sure this user's conduct constitutes obvious vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

then what does it constitute?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If you mean this [[215]] its definitely a case of not here. I am not going to list all the violations, but there are a few.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Zzuuzz already blocked the IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And I protected the article for 3 days since they were not the only IP not editing constructively--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The election results are tomorrow, all Indian election-related articles will face an issue for another week or two. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That should keep the DS admins busy Nosebagbear (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Probable compromised admin account

• Nv8200pa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Related: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Weird_new_user_account / User_talk:Nv8200pa#Unblocking_webhost_ranges

Appears to be compromised - and has been blocked as such based on CU by TonyBallioni. SQL^{Query me!} 20:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'll copy my comment from VPT: I ran a check after unrevdeling the log entries. There were several oddities in the edits that to me suggested the likelihood of account compromise. The account moved from editing on a static IP with one operating system for all previous edits within the CU period to a proxy with an entirely different device for the log entries in question. I have blocked locally, notified ArbCom, and requested a steward lock the account. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Both accounts have been locked, see [216] and [217] --DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like we got a extra season special. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Nv8200pa is also an Admin on Commons. Do you block that also? — Maile (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Maile66: The account was globally locked --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Also note, they are not a commons admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  OK. Don't know where I got that idea, but I guess it was enhanced memory. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• To update folks here - we (the Trust and Safety team) are looking into this now. I believe the situation involving Nv8200pa should now be resolved. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note Arbcom's request for deysop was processed, see also their notice here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Level_1_desysop_of_Nv8200pa. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Update: The account has been unlocked, and unblocked. SQL^{Query me!} 02:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

RainbowSilver2ndBackup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Almost every time I find China, North Korea involvement in wars I find this user adding them. See his edits in Axis of Resistance I asked him in the talk page talk:Axis of Resistance and I didnt want to revert him. Now in his talk page he says I am trying to censor infomations about Houthis. I reject this baseless allegation. See his edits in Operation Scorched Earth notice that the sources are talking about the current war not the 2008 war and yet I am the one who is censoring. I am censoring unsourced infomations. Creating a category called Houthi family then adding it to parent category called "crime families". Similarily adding unsourced pov here [218]. I have tried to make him stop adding unsourced information but he doesnt reply. Like in talk:Axis of Resistance he never self-reverted himself. He added china, Russia and Qatar as part of the Axis of Resistance. What should I do with this?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Another thing is how he categories Persian people according to him are modern nomads. in the main article as well [219] he did that to Arab people category and Tajik people and others.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well first, in the future please follow the instructions that appear when you add a new thread here. You are required to notify the people about whom a thread is discussing. I've done that for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have notified him before you did but not in a new section--SharabSalam (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • LOL first of all I dont have a twitter, secondly if I have a twitter account thats none of your business-SharabSalam (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added these reports made by the UN regarding North Korean aid to the Houthis and if you tell me that this is unsourced, read it it again. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding multiple redacted comments: casting aspersions is not something that we tolerate around here, RainbowSilver2ndBackup. El_C 23:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• • RainbowSilver2ndBackup You do realise that's completely different war?. That's a war between Houthis and the government in 2008/2009. The sources are about the current war. After seeing your way of adding unsourced contents to articles such as Axis of resistance and others I have some doubts that you didn't know that.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

    • I am not trying be rude, the reason why I edit these is because the Yemeni war is a huge war that is going on. Everyone knows about it and what's going on. Wikipedia is a place about accepts both sides (as long as they dont post anything that is link to terrorist sides). I dont want Wikipedia to be a battleground between pro-Houthi editors and pro-government editors (that acutally happened during Venezuela crisis). Our goal on Wikipedia is to dispute and edit and argue about it. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Our goal is to publish what reliable mainstream sources report, nothing more nothing less. El_C 23:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• • I think whole situation involving me and Salam is more of a dispute than an incident and it needs to end with negotiations because war is a very controversial topic. What I believe is that we can have both parties agree with each other. I dont want any violence towards each other espacally me and him. Is there is any suggestions for me and SS? From now on, I will never ever edit anything that relates to the situation in Syria and Yemeni. It seems that I am not ready yet. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Violence? What violence? I see you adding unsourced contents without edit summaries, many times, you probably know how many times I have removed your edits from articles. I don't want you to get banned or something. I want you to stop doing that. Today I saw that edit in Operation Scorched Earth and it wasn't reverted for more than a week or a month. Then I went to see who added it? I was like "Omg it was the same person who keeps adding unsourced contents" I then realised I need to warn you in the talk page for 3 unsourced edits just to give you an opportunity to read Wikipedia rules and to stop this. Then you said I am trying to censor things. I said "okay this person doesn't want to follow the rules" I came here hoping another person will help me to make you stop adding these unsourced contents.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, if you would please cite specific diffs that you find problematic. It would help.
• I did find this long series of edits that added information that was not sourced, linking other nations into this without foundation. This was reverted, and thankfully not restored. RainbowSilver2ndBackup, if this is typical of what SharabSalam is referring to, this isn't appropriate. You need to find reliable, secondary sources to support such things. Please also see Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is important that material is sourced, most especially on an article such as this one, given that it is subject to discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • APOLOGY: Over the past months, I was editing the articles relating to the Yemeni Civil War and the War on Terror because I was interested in current events that is happening around the world and I thought about editing these articles. During these months, I acutally stumbled upon a UN report in which North Korea had funded the Houthis and I decided that I am adding this. I've seen this report on other news sites too. I didn't realize that my edit has going to gain naegative backlash. So I ended up added these biased sources to the articles. After, I edit I've started a huge amount of controversy because the there is not a lot proof in the source I added. One user by the name of SharabSalam had noticed this and I wasn't aware of his explanation of edits until now and this is when I realised now that I am basically adding biased edits. I should have done more unbiased research on these conflicts and with that, I'm sorry and I messed up. I would to say I'm sorry to everyone who I offended and the people that were disappointed in me and of course, SharabSalam. I know people made mistakes and the only thing I have to do it's to stop editing and stop adding biased and unsourced edits to the articles relating to the war on Terror and the Yemeni Civil War and just move on something else. I want to say I messed up and anything like this will never happened again. This has to be one of the worst moments I have ever done as a contributor and I regret adding these edits to these articles and my actions towards others. I want to admit that there are news sites out there that made biased statements and my goal here is to edit without any bias. I really hope this dispute between me and Salam would end peacefully and I hope we will move on to something else that is not very controversial in nature. If I want to add something to an article that is controversial, I would have to use the talk page from now on to discuss it. Thanks. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

    RainbowSilver2ndBackup, No need to apology. Please, I am not asking you to stop editing in that area (war on terror and Yemeni civil war) I am asking you to only put sourced contents especially in that area. I don't have anything against you or something. I am just trying to make Wikipedia more neutral and sourced.I think the problem has been solved since you have realized that you need to be neutral and to only add sourced contents. No need to use talk pages before editing WP:BRD, have a nice day.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

    • Deal. I think I will have to read the source very carefully next time otherwise because I dont want to politicized this site. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anne Knish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

There's something really strange going on here; it might be socking, it might not, I really don't know. After I raised some concerns (a couple others have as well; see their talk page) about this user leaving disruptive edit summaries (using many different languages/summaries that sounded like weird stream-of-consciousness personal musings, rather than describing the minor, but often constructive edit actually being made), they've finally responded by making strange accusations about another user (or maybe this is the same person, who knows). They seem to have indicated that they're now abandoning the (fairly recently created) account. But it sounds like they're just going to make another one to continue avoiding scrutiny. Everything about this feels oddly familiar, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe someone else here will have a better idea of what the hell's going on, or if an eye should be kept on this.

Sorry if this is all a bit vague, but the claim in that final talk page message just weirded me out enough that I thought that maybe some more experienced eyes might be able to sort this out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Vesuvius Dogg (talk · contribs) (the editor referenced in the diff you linked) definitely looks like the same editor based on edit summaries. I agree that this looks oddly familiar in some other way, but I can't put my finger on it either. I'll keep my eyes open too. Given that both are (supposedly) inactive, not sure if it's worth opening an SPI, and I don't think they've been disruptive enough for a CU. creffett (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While their edit summaries are quite unusual, I spot-checked a few edits and they seemed okay. I'm just guessing but I think this editor has now abandoned this account and will create a new account should they be moved to edit again. I think those interested could keep an eye on Anne Knish in case they don't follow through with their words that they were leaving. But while this editor's edits might strike one as odd, I can't see where they have violated any policy except for their unhelpful summaries. Another admin might choose to levy a block but I don't think it is necessary at this point as they are saying they are abandoning this account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

More weirdness: Vesuvius Dogg (talk · contribs) latest edit: 2019-04-21 04:18; Anne Knish (talk · contribs) first edit: 2019-04-22 17:31 . Somebody lost a password? Shenme (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so they've admitted to using serial userids as technique. Going forward, how boring will it be for them if we explicitly notice their use of several different languages in summaries, in aggregate, and sometimes within a single edit summary. Shenme (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Is no one else concerned about this part "because destroying people, and families, and every record of them, as if to make it look like they never existed, is very high on the agenda of those Jews who learned quite well the lessons of the Holocaust"? I'm still confused whether the editor is accusing other people of being Jews who learned the lessons of the Holocaust and so destroy people, families etc; or they're saying they're a Jew who learned the lessons of the holocaust and so destroy people families etc. But either way I'm not sure it's appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am actually tempted to block this account indef and, if they are interested in continuing editing Wikipedia (which they explicitly said they are not) to let them convince an unblocking administrator that they really understand our policies and are here to build an encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused about who is attacking whom here, but I've rev-deleted part of the apparent PA linked above and have issued a warning. No complaints if anyone wants to take further action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's readily apparent from the userpages that Anne Knish and Vesuvius Dogg are the same person. There is also some personal information on an old version of the Vesuvius Dogg userpage that leads off-wiki and then back on-wiki to an old account which is also clearly the same person: Sandover. Not sure what's going on, either, but there are clearly multiple accounts at play. Grandpallama (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, unless one or more of the accounts has attracted sanctions (i.e. one account might be evading another's problems), I don't see any problem here, since the problem with sockpuppetry is generally when someone uses multiple accounts concurrently in order to look like several people, and that won't happen if you stop editing with one before you start with another. Seems to me that if sanctions are warranted, it will only be because of recent actions by the Anne Knish username. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Going through the old Sandover edits, I didn't see anything that would have suggested the later accounts were a result of trying to avoid sanctions. Just increasing...incoherence. Grandpallama (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it’s very clear it’s one and the same person, but @Ymblanter: might be a bit overzealous in his banishment of [[Anne Knish|Ms. Knish}} — if not true to Plato’s conviction that poets have no place the Ideal City, and deserve banishment — given that “she” has already made explicit that ”her” editing under the “Anne Knish” moniker is done. What would be necessary, of course, is to erase all record of her edits and edit summaries on Wikipedia over this past month, lest that record survive — posthumously — the demise of the individual behind them, who names himself on Vesuvius Dogg’s User Page. Might it really be possible that the NSO Group, using the Pegasus spyware that has so distinguished Israel in recent years in the extended definition of who constitutes an enemy of the Jewish State that it would be discovered on the phone of an AMERICAN who has never been involved in BDS movement in any manner, but who has been a real thorn in the side of Holocaust looted art profiteers closely allied to the Likud government, so closely thst they would share information, target an individual and his Jewish family which — in point of fact — is entirely Jewish in my maternal line and which, in point of fact, has had to hide its Jewish identity for the last 120 years in the Ibited States specifically for fear of persecution by Jews hemselves? Why would someone — anyonee — feel so threatened by the siscovery of this surveillance, they would want a record somewhere online just to pointiut that they existed, that their family existed? Maybe I AM hitting you too hard over the head with the obvious stick, but there are plenty of people in the US and Israel (and elsewhere) who don’t particularly like that I am still alive to type this... Poor Jamal Khashoggi had his fingers chopped off while still alive, presumably because he used them to write. But I don’t like Nazis.... and I don’t like Jews who did deals, and who do deals, behind the scenes with Nazis, nor that they are in power anywhere in government officialdom.... But that will be something for Israel to decide for itself. They’ve followed me for a kong time, and I am what I am. Anne Knish (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is procedure to change user name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please provide me the link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerobulbs (talk • contribs) .

WP:CHU. El_C 11:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi this user User:2405:205:438A:5E:0:0:106F:40AC has done edit warring again when I reverted a block sock edit on Ridhi Dogra which was a blocked user User talk:2405:205:4402:C3ED:0:0:A5F:38A4. These two users are deffenatly the same and is smartly doing the edit war at another IP address. Please look into it. Divya Sharma (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note If there are any Checkusers reading this, I'd recommend someone look into whether or not DivyaSharma3210S is a sock of KaranSharma0445. This brand-new user ostensibly shouldn't be complaining about continued edit-warring. Also, a different sock operator, Dimpletisha, was often in conflict with KaranSharma0445, such that some users including myself had a tough time distinguishing between the two. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb I am not Karan Sharma you actually believe the sock user. I havent done anything wrong and havent even disrupted wiki. So why are you giving me these accusations for. I've explained myself. If you are saying I shouldn't of complained about edit warring fine I made a mistake and wont do it again.Divya Sharma (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry i logged out of myself without realising.

Thanks for the hint, Cyphoidbomb, I wasn't sure who the master was earlier. This new sock is now blocked. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to seek a range block that covers user:163.150.167.239, user:163.150.167.229, user:163.150.167.244. CLCStudent (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm helpless with range blocks, but I've semi'd Pond for a day, seems like that would solve the same problem, no? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(comment below moved from AN, where this same request was posted --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC))

It's a school. I see Floquenbeam has protected the article in question. The range of those IPs is 163.150.167.224/27 if they move on, but I don't see a need for a range block. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(end moved comment)

Both WP:AN and this page are appropriate pages to request rangeblocks, and WP:AIV is not, since it's meant for really simple cases, and rangeblocks aren't simple. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with you but I've seen a lot of admins suggest AIV as well, but since you are one too, I'll remove my suggestion. And no, rangeblocks are done at a lot of places, (SPI and AIV, for example) I just assumed those would be better since there is no conduct dispute involved (which is basically what ANI is for). --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You’re right people do request them at AIV, but that’s not always appropriate unless it’s fairly simple e.g. a range that was blocked previously with little need for no more than a cursory consideration before considering a block. When it’s not straight forward, which range blocks typically aren’t, AIV is inappropriate as it’s not meant to be a forum to allow for discussion, whereas this forum allows for discussion. NJA | talk 11:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this forum does and yet this thread didn't have much, did it? Different administrators like it different, my "AIV is thataway" was just a recommendation, primarily because AIV is pretty fast and if admins who can do rangeblocks were online at the time, it would not necessitate opening this thread and us having this conversation. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• News item with puzzling surgical impications: "Arnold Schwarzenegger attached to the back in South Africa". EEng 03:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Done 163.150.167.224/27 (talk · contribs) blocked for 4 days. NJA | talk 11:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User creation log

• For background: See thread above, WP:VPT#Weird new user account
• I think it's a good time to ask if there is any good reason for a user creation log to be revdeled, which cannot be handled with suppression? And the reason I'm asking is because after a revdel, the account is virtually invisible for all non-admins patrolling Special:Log/newusers. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think there can be, especially when you consider that the oversight policy has a high bar. And it's not exactly rare even with oversighters. They should probably always be blocked first though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So, how do you think we can prevent things like this? This account was only found because of Danny testing SQL, which was just pure luck. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, Special:Log/rights is one of the more interesting pages to browse. I haven't looked into this, but maybe we could filter it? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, my point is, if everything is revdeled, the chances of finding out is almost negligible, there basically has to be an admin monitoring Special:Log/delete to find fishy revdels. Disabling revdels on account creations and/or somehow implementing software thresholds on suspicious permissions grants is probably the only way to tackle that, even Special:Log/rights cannot be monitored by non-admins when it's revdeled. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Revdel'd logs are rare. If you see it in your favourite log then there is an easy way of finding at least who has been revdeleting. Go to Special:Log and enter Special:Log/newusers or Special:Log/rights (etc) as the target. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not about having a favourite log and it's not about finding out who is revdeleting. It is impossible to draw conclusions from seeing the revdel logs alone, the Special:Log/delete log where Nv8200pa revdeled the user creation log is completely innocuous and any editor looking at it would not know anything, the only way is, as Danny says, fetch a database table of new accounts with advanced permissions and check which of them are suspect, which I guess is what we have to do from now on. My suggestion was to simply make one particular log open to all on-wiki to ensure transparency and prevent situations like this. To reiterate, revdel is a blackbox that no one can get into, and even being able to see who is revdeling is pointless, since you cannot make an inference without any premise. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately an unredacted new user log will also tell you nothing. The rights log with a revdeletion will tell you a lot, and the logs of revdeleted logs tell you a whole lot more. I haven't looked closely, but I doubt any of these in the history of Wikipedia are useful. Also, folks should run for RfA. But getting back to the point, I can think of a filter which could detect when these types of account get used. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the Quarry approach exists still, so it's not like there's no way out. Just trying to invite discussion on what we can do about it. And as for folks should run for RfA, I concur. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: I've created Quarry:query/36217, which lists users that have a permission labeled "uncommon" in Template:Requests for permissions. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Can you set up one of your bots to update a page in your namespace with this list, using the {{user}} template on each entry? If not, we can just occassionally run the query. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: You can go through the user table by registration. See Quarry:query/36357 for the 100 entry segment that contains the creation of the relevant account (even when the log entry is hidden, the account registration is still there). Quarry:query/36358 shows the most recent 100. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So, it's basically still public, just terribly less accessible, and the obvious loss of information. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK, regarding the original is any good reason for a user creation log to be revdeled query, yes on occasion; we don't want User:QEDK's home phone number is 555 1234 or the like being visible in any form. ‑ Iridescent 21:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would also fall under supression criteria (assumed OUTing) afaik, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• For the most part, logs don't need redacting. But there are some cases where an vandalistic name might get created and depending on the situation redacting may be useful. Note, I "upgraded" this discussion to a L2 heading since it seems to be about this topic in general, not this specific incident - also this probably belong at a better venue than ANI if it will beyond this incident. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Well, it's more of an implication from, and causation of, the thread above that I thought I needed to put forward. I don't mind, no. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Mostly that- this will likely extend well beyond the incident management above. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  As noted already you can still see new accounts elsewhere. There’s no need to try to break a feature particularly where the fact someone revdel’ed the creation log sent up red flags. Not that it’s wrong to do so, but it’s abnormal, particularly when you’re “hiding" something you allegedly created. As such it was always likely to get noticed and no need to be concerned about patrolling by non-admins. The revdel ability has its utility for disruptive names. One can always ask an admin about a revdel as well. NJA | talk 01:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to suppression logs but most rev-deleted usernames I've seen are either a) vulgar words about sex or sexual body parts or b) usernames insulting to specific Wikipedia editors or admins. I guess I'm wondering, qedk, what is it that you want to see or know that is hidden to you now? Because rev-deletion and suppression are not going to go away and there will always be some information hidden from both editors and admins. If you are concerned about oversight of the oversighters, there was an ArbCom audit committee one could register queries with but as far as I know that has been disbanded. If you have objections, I'd guess you could send ArbCom an email message regarding a specific complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: No, this is not what the thread is about. I guess this is why I made this thread as a sub-thread of the above discussion actually but for posterity, the reason why I am asking is because once rev-deled, it is impossible for a majority of non-admins to pick up the trail, and that is what happened, it was a stroke of luck that Danny ran a query which revealed this extremely suspect account and brought it to VPT. So, let's go over the issues once more: a) it's not visible on-wiki, which reduces the chance to catch it. b) it's only detected in data queries. c) if and when queried, the person has to make a guess about a suspect account. d) the person has to make the call to post it to a public forum, which they might not always want to do. What are the number of variables here? I'm not complaining about rev-deling in general, just how rev-deling the user creation log is a sure-shot path into anonymity. I'm not talking about oversight of the oversighters either, in fact, I'm saying there isn't a lot that is not covered by supression criteria, and we can stop revision deletion in the user creation log since supression already exists. @NJA: Except, it was just proved to you that it is broken. And as for As such it was always likely to get noticed, it took almost 18 hours before it was noticed. And even then, this was by fluke. So, if you are making a point, it's not happening. One can ask an admin about a revdel and most likely they won't tell you (see SQL's reply). Tony took a risk by unilaterally reverting the redaction because they must have thought something was up, but what are the chances that every admin will? You say it's not broken but this thread is because it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Foodeatergangxyz

Original heading "Foodeatergangxyz edit warring and personal attacks" changed 20:19, 23 May 2019 by Foodeatergangxyz. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for coming here. But User:Foodeatergangxyz has been repeatedly edit-warring on the Tom Fitton page to remove a statement for which the consensus appears to be that it should stay on the page. The user has been blocked once for this, but started again after the block ended. Furthermore, the user made a personal attack against User:Snooganssnoogans in an edit summary on the Dave Rubin page. Here is the contributions link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Foodeatergangxyz Diamond Blizzard talk 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diamond Blizzard. You appear to be measuring consensus by the individual contribution of Snooganssnoogans. I have looked through the history. Would not doubt for a second that you are Snooganssnoogans on an alt account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodeatergangxyz (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I love it when accounts with 19 edits and clear familiarity with other editors start slinging around accusations of sockpuppetry. Well, not "love it" in the sense of "enjoy it", but "love it" in the sense of "find a certain amount of wry humor in it". Projection much? Disruptive editor blocked indef for restarting the exact same thing that got him blocked for 24 hours; he can explain how things will be different from inside an unblock request. Reviewing admin should consider the remote teeny tiny possibility this is a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed badly sourced information from the Dave Rubin article per WP:BLP. It seems to have been added by 2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:28A3:FD0A:C482:5E33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm taking this page off my watchlist again. Ping me if there's anything that concerns me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Blatant promotion of IMPACT Centre of Competence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I observed a user - User:Imsempere, who seems to be a one person User:Imsempere/sandbox, admitting to be an executive at IMPACT. This user has created a wikiproject page for IMPACT, a wikiproject template for the WP, the actual IMPACT article, all by herself. So what do you suggest we do about this user and her articles. Daiyusha (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that took a while (there were a lot of redirects!). El_C 10:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C what about the IMPACT page, it was created by an editor who admits to being an executive at IMPACT. Daiyusha (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:131.161.7.128

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting a temporary block for this IP, who left a personal attack on my talk page (which I reverted) over a non-constructive edit on The Raid 2 article. I already explained that his edits are unsourced and unencyclopedic to be included in the article. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’d like to report a possible bot account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fourgalaxy as seen from it’s edit history it is spamming the same things as it were a bot. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is a bot, but I blocked them as vandalism-only account.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok understood, it looked like a bot to me. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mahid Ul Ibad (talk · contribs · count)

This user is still removing content and [220], they've been warned before - FlightTime (open channel) 20:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Ping warning Admin. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And again. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by AGK for 12 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Disruption at Skid Row (Irish band)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

188.141.87.103 edited the Skid Row (Irish band) article on 10 May 2019, with patently false information about a little-known 1960s–early 70s band reforming with new personnel in 2019. On the same day, 82.141.199.81 added further (false) information here. Also on the same day 82.141.199.81 created a draft article with a grandiose tour schedule showing them playing the biggest venues in Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland, with Van Morrison supporting. The content was removed by 188.141.87.103 ten hours later. After I reverted the content at Skid Row, 82.141.199.81 re-added it. When I reverted again, there was a lull until 188.141.87.103 re-added it again today. Looking at their contributions, both have a strong interest in darts, both have created a large number of draft pages, and they have edited the same draft page on many occasions, possibly more draft pages than mainspace pages. Scolaire (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for a month, given that the IPs are dynamic. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:808crabby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As seen from their contributions, the above user only creates strangely titled pages in the Book: namespace, usually shortly after creating the same page in their userspace (which prevents Userfication of the Book:). Previous activity required Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Strangely titled books discussion and PRODs. After several talkpage requests that received no response, user took a hiatus of that activity which has unfortunately recently ended, thus requiring more MfDs/PRODS. Given this evidence of WP:NOTHERE, I request the User be indef. blocked from page creations and from page moves. User has been talkpage notified of this discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, your request cannot be granted — we can block editors outright, but nobody has the ability to block only certain types of edits. Perhaps you're asking that 808crabby be banned from this kind of thing, i.e. officially told "you may not do this, on pain of being blocked"? If so, please make the relevant request at WP:AN. If you're not sure how to do this, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

PS, maybe you're asking that someone outright block the user indefinitely. If so, clarification would help. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and yes, given that all of the user's contributions have been problematic, I am requesting an outright indef. block. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not for long, Nyttend: Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Partial blocks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, thank you; I've done the outright indef. block. If you'd said "please stop this user", I would have been inclined to indef-block, but since you suggested a specific action, I wanted to make sure I understood you — you're involved and I'm not, so if you'd thought a lesser sanction sufficient, it wouldn't have been helpful for me to impose the indef. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, that's perfect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing on Gurbaksh Chahal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article on Gurbaksh Chahal has long been the target of POV-pushers who wish to either minimize or completely remove mention of Chahal's history of domestic abuse. I am one of several editors who have successfully combated this anti-reality campaign. The issue has reared its ugly head once again, this time at the behest of a POV-pusher who calls himself Iammuktisubedi. See this request to whitewash negative content. This "editor" has admitted to gaming the system by making gibberish user page edits to reach autoconfirmed status. Iammuktisubedi also has direct personal access to Chahal, probably because Iammuktisubedi is a paid shill. That may seem harsh, but consider the history of this article.

For starters, a quick glance at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal reveals that these whitewashing efforts have been a long-term problem. Please also see the edit summaries found on this page, many of which cannot be reproduced as diffs because of revision deletion. There are other gems from that IP, including talk page abuse and this empty threat to report me. Actually, just check out User talk:96.8.1.144. The only person defending them was Jkmarold55, who has since been indeffed for socking. Funny how that works.

Also, consider the abuses of Sumanrani07 (talk · contribs), who should be blocked.

• Editsum: No violation, you are just trying to start another edit warring and trolling this page.
• Accuses me of vandalism
• Accuses me of vandalism and implies that I am not a Wikipedia editor.
• Calls someone else a troll
• Wants to avoid an edit war. While actively causing an edit war.
• Still pushing a POV as recently as 5 March 2019.

This article has previously appeared once at ANEW, and four times at ANI: [221], [222], [223], and [224].

One common theme I've noticed in my interactions with these POV-pushers is that they all love to overuse the term 'trolling'. This new POV-pusher seems slightly less incompetent (if he isn't the same person), but he wasn't clever enough to avoid using similar language [225]. Iammuktisubedi is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Iammuktisubedi is here to further Chahal's paid agenda. This long-term whitewashing campaign must be met with firm and swift resistance. Chahal is a domestic abuser. This is covered in detail in the body of the article and receives only one sentence of coverage in the lead. We have not overemphasized the criminal aspects of Chahal's life and if Chahal and his paid lackeys want to erase coverage of his sordid past, they can go do it on a different website. Will somebody please get rid of this SPA? Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've pulled their EC status as it's pretty clear they gamed the system to get it. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Good call. El_C 18:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good call. And it's been a constant loophole that the 500 edits that an account needs to become extended-confirmed (as well as the 30 days, obviously) can just be a large number of pointless edits to userspace. Perhaps it's time to look at something like "500 article space or article talk edits", because it's far more likely that someone trying to game it would be picked up. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If anyone was actually paying attention to them it would have been blatantly obvious they were gaming it. EC gaming is a lot more obvious than autocon-gaming. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This user's also been constantly trying to rally support at #wikipedia-en-help, where he has been repeatedly told, in no uncertain terms, that we're both not getting involved and not taking his side. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Miserlou and Civility/Personal Attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A couple hours ago, I prodded new article XQEMU from User:Miserlou because it does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Miserlou removed the prod tag (which is fine, that's absolutely the user's right) with a borderline uncivil edit summary, then also removed the "old prod" tag on the Talk page with the edit summary "Do not try to drive-by delete pages that I'm working on. Deletionists are parasites." Immediately afterwards, Miserlou added the text "I really cannot stress this enough, if you are a person who goes around trying to drive-by delete articles that other people have written on topics that you know nothing about, you are a bad person and should rethink what you do with your life. I literally hate you." to their User page and then insinuated that I'm a "user who has no idea what they're talking about". I didn't engage with the personal attacks, but did send the article to AfD as still not meeting GNG. In reponse, Miserlou has called me a "serial hostile deletionist" on the AfD page and then left this passive aggressive note on my Talk page.

I see that Miserlou has been warned one/two/three/four/five/six/seven times for incivility. Could anyone step in and get through to them? Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this user specifically, although I am talking about their type. I'm talking about all of the users who do nothing but waste the time of the people who actually write articles. I've been writing articles on Wikipedia for 15 years and the delitionism worse now than it's ever been. It is nearly impossible to start an article now because it will be immediately jumped upon by a deletionist. I can't stand it any more. I've had to go through this same process with every new article I have started in the past few years - and I've always been in the right - but it's a ridiculous and insulting hassle every time. I'm sick of it. Where's the good faith? I'm not promoting anything. It's not even a for-profit project, and I'm not personally connected to it. I'm writing about it because it's significant, and I know it's significant because I _actually know what I'm talking about_, I'm not just policing arbitrary pages.

Wikipedia is dying because people with domain-specific experience who actually create and make positive contributions to articles are stalked, harassed and policed by non-experts who use policies as weapons. If we let them wield all the power, there will be nothing but endless back and forth edit wars and policy shouting left.

What recourse do positively-contributing users have left? I can't write my opinion on my own talk page? I can't encourage a user to change their behavior? (If you look at their talk page, it's literally hundreds and hundreds of users say "Hey - why did you delete my article?" - imagine how many new users got scared off and never came back). I literally don't see any other option for recourse - sit back and take it. The situation seems to be: experts write pages, then a mob of non-experts try to destroy it and attack them if they complain about the process. What a mess.

I also strongly resent your usage of digging up random accusations of uncivility from my user page from 13 years ago to call me uncivil, not to mention this nomination itself. I think this is pure harassment.

Miserlou (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit suggests Miserlou is hoppin' mad because an article they created has been nominated for deletion by "policy-obsessed parasites" who are "ignorant of the subject material", while they are "an expert in the field" with "domain expertise". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of harassment and stalking by negative users that I'm talking about. They've been commenting on my page. If you look at this user's contributions, you'll see that they're almost entirely negative (deletions, reverts, rule enforcement on user pages, etc). I would never try to delete any of your edits about small towns in Louisiana, because I am not an expert. So why are you trying to delete mine and waste my time? Do you have any expertise in low level software emulation? Probably not! It's a very small community about an obscure technical topic! However, it's notable, and there are articles for dozens of similar projects of similar notability! Maybe give the article - which I was actively writing - a little room to breathe before trying to destroy it!

I'm going to step away from the keyboard for a bit now, I'm so tired of the toxic power users of this community. (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Miserlou, just looking through your contributions, they're full of edit summaries attacking other editors. You say you're making positive contributions, but a part of that is working in a civil manner with other editors, and understanding that Wikipedia is a collaborative project on which you do not own your contributions. They can and will be edited by others. It is of course alright to disagree with someone, but there's a major difference between telling someone "I think you're wrong" (which is fine) and "I think you're stupid" (which is certainly not). In the case of the article in question (XQEMU), the concerns by Woodroar are at least reasonable; the sourcing is very thin and many do not appear to be reliable. If you can address those concerns, please by all means do, but you cannot continue to attack others because they made edits you do not agree with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I came here today to write a small page about a significant software project. Now I've got a whole mob of trolls and busybodies trying to destroy my contributions and besmirch my name. I haven't insulted anybody. Saying that somebody is ignorant about subject matter is not the same as calling somebody stupid. I know I don't own my contributions. I try to create content, not vandalize it procedure. Miserlou (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Can anybody look at Miserlou's user page and tell me why they shouldn't be warned or blocked for PAs? Valeince (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to personally attack anybody. I want to write articles. I can't use my own page for my own opinions? What other recourse is there?

Miserlou (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No, and I suggest very strongly you adjust your attitude, this is not going to a place you wish it to go.Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Now I've got a whole mob of trolls and busybodies trying to destroy my contributions and besmirch my name. I haven't insulted anybody." You can't be seriously stating you haven't been insulting anybody in the same breath of insulting people. Valeince (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I firmly believe that behavior of those whose destructive contributions vastly outweigh their constructive ones are no different than trolls or vandals of any other kind. I've asked with no answer multiple times - what other recourse is there? How can important and novel technical articles that don't have references in popular media ever be created when there is a vast army of people who appear to make little or no positive contributions other than monitoring the list of new articles for things to demolish? Gah. Miserlou (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:n and wp:rs. If your sources are not being allowed take it to wp:rsn and try to convince people they are reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Miserlou, what's funny is that I noticed your article only when you added it to List of video game emulators. That article is on my watchlist because I'm interested in retro gaming and emulators and have been for more than 20 years. I remember when MAME, Snes9x, and ZSNES were in their early public releases, back when N64 and PlayStation emulation was mostly a joke. ("Hey, this one plays a few homebrew games, plus it gets to the load screen of an actual commercial game!") In other circumstances we'd probably get along. But you ask what happens when important things don't get coverage in popular media? That answer is nothing. We don't cover it. It's unfortunate but the alternative is editors butting heads on subjects they all claim to be experts on. Oh, and thousands of articles on cold fusion and perpetual motion machines and vaccine injuries, all written by experts. It would be a nightmare because I don't know you and you don't know me. Hell, everything I wrote above could be a lie. I could even be a dog! But because our goal is to write based on the core content policies—WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR—who we are doesn't matter, only the sources do. That may mean no article on XQEMU, which is too bad. I get the frustration, like nine-tenths of my record collection would never pass our notability requirements. But I'm fine with it, given the absolute schlock we'd have on a whatever-goes, dystopia Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked Miserlou for 31 hours because of the continued incivility and personal attacks here. Referring to other editors as trolls and vandals is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  For the record: busybody is OK? EEng 01:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malaysian IP with strange contribs

2001:D08:DB:CEC0:F883:2D25:DC24:A157/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google) (a Malaysian IP range appearing to represent a single editor) is making odd-looking contribs that appear to be in a Malay-related language, targeting the talk pages of Singapore IPs. Some type examples from just the past month:

• Special:Diff/898065244
• Special:Diff/897866232
• Special:Diff/898288519
• Special:Diff/897823308
• Special:Diff/897002848
• Special:Diff/894883359
• Special:Diff/893353535
• Special:Diff/897762899
• Special:Diff/892761507
• The history of User talk:101.127.100.69 and others shows them reverting similar looking (to a non-Malay-speaker) edits by other IPs.
• At least one of the IPs was blocked here (is there a way of using a wildcard for the block log query? Things like "2001:d08:db::0/48" and "2001:d08:db:*" don't work.)
• At least one of their posts to a talk page had to be revdel'd: Special:Diff/893353938

Can someone familiar with the language(s) and Malaysia/Singapore have a look? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of these are fairly Bahasa Rojak or in some cases even not Malay at all but really just Manglish style Cantonese (or something) and I'm having trouble understanding them. But while I can't understand the end part, this one [226] is a threat of violence even if a silly one. This part "Eh! Karangan awak, jaga eh, jangan main-main eh, nanti saya akan belasah awak eh!" mean something like "Eh! Your essay, watch out, don't play around eh, I will hit you/beat you up eh!" And beyond their weird crusade against IPv6 users, despite using IPv6 themselves, there's also a bunch of insults like cibai [227]. Of the above edits only [228] looked like it could okay (the corrections may not be spot on, but it may have been in good faith). Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Being a Cantonese speaker myself, I can tell you that it's not Cantonese. Some of the words are Hokkien. Google translate has a hard time because it's picking up words in other languages. In this diff, it's picking up Kotiak as being Maori for "circumcised". I even got one translation marked as being Slovak. --Blackmane (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In this diff, phooi means to fart in Hokkien and "ah Chao cibai lu" is a mix of Malaysian Cantonese and Malay classic Hokkien insult. Depending on the tone, "Chao" can mean, by itself, "super" or "stinky". But in this context, "ah Chao cibai lu" means "stinky vagina" or more colloquially "you fucker". --Blackmane (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, the text at the top of User contributions says you need to use capitals for ipv6 ranges/prefixes, and "2001:D08:DB*" worked when I tried it: link. I think you need the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches" gadget in preferences activated too - apologies if that's too obvious to mention... -- Begoon 06:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks for the analysis. The Google Malay translation was "kill", which is what pushed me to question it here. Some of the stuff looked like they could be spamming some kind of advertising. The grammar and spelling examples were to demonstrate just that – they seem to have limited English ability, but they reverted corrections that others made anyway, which is a different kind of behavior. All in all, they seem to be fairly confused about what we do here and how to interact with other editors.

@Begoon: Thanks, but my question relates to the block log, not the contribs (which annoyingly requires upper case for a wildcard * suffix to work, but accepts lower case for the /nn CIDR searches). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my error... And yes, that is annoying. -- Begoon 09:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Today, it's resumption of this slow-mo edit-war, adding an uncited claim at How Are You? (TV series), causing Tide rolls to protect the article. Have we had enough yet? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that trying to communicate with them is futile. They used three different addresses in the range in just 17 minutes today, and seem to ignore edit summaries. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Heavy rule breaking

Hello dear Administrators, I decided and also was a little bit forced to create an account because someone accuses me of being a sock puppet and violates a rule relating his last block.

This is my IP: User:14.202.143.218 I have reverted two edits from the User:Ahmedo Semsurî because I thought that quotes are fine then I decided to report him for Editwarring because I thought he started an Editwar. Then User:El C told me that there is no violation but it counts as an Editwar. The User:Ahmedo Semsurî started to accuses me of being a sock puppet when he wrote: „I think I get it now; using various IP's to make it look like I'm edit warring with everyone.“ Then the User:El C calls me a single-purpose account. I would be glad if he also participate in this discussion. It all seems to be a bit of a mess right now. As you can see in this noticeboard, Ahmedo Semsurî was in clashes with various IP adresses. Now when I saw his contributions, he had previously always tagging IP adresses with the sock puppertry-template (which is usually only in the power of Checkusers, SPI Clerks and Administrators) and calling them names and accuses them of being sock puppets.

Because the Editwar counts and as I saw his Block log. He was previously blocked for Editwarring. And then I find this: „user agrees to stop edit warring“ [229] Since he started an Editwar again, he violated this rule and he also attacking other IP adresses and giving them names and tagging them for sock puppetry, he also violated a rule.

I am sure he will try again to connect me with a sock puppet or he will claim that I belong to the other IP adresses. LMB500 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide diffs so we can see who said what and where. At these time these are (in essence) unsubstantiated allegations.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You can read everything here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ahmedo_Semsurî_reported_by_User:14.202.143.218_(Result:_No_vioaltion) LMB500 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And what I am seeing is a possible boomerang. This (for example) [[230]] is not (despite what you say) vandalism. Note that it usually requires 4 (not 3) reverts for an edit war violation to take place, so whilst (technically) it was edit warring it was of a sufficiently low level for an admin to say "no violation" which they did. Also I note you fetch up out of nowhere to make this revert [[231]. Not only to an article you have never edited before, but this is your first ever edit here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the fifth time this month, I've been reported to ANI by single-purpose accounts (IPs). Check User_talk:Ahmedo_Semsurî#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion. To be honest, I have no idea what the problem is now. I did get a warning for calling an IP "a troll"[232][233] by 'El C' and didn't interact with that IP anymore (but I stand by my words on me having a feeling it's the same person behind all of these IP's). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I find it odd too. It may not be a duck, but I think it is at least a seagull.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

behave exactly this way: he combines all ip addresses and tagging them and gives them a name. apparently he knows everyone personally and has the gift to attack everyone.LMB500 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@LMB500: You're only making things worse for yourself by continuing to comment. The fact that you seem to know well how he behaves towards IP users, despite your user account and your listed IP having only a couple interactions with him, strongly suggests that you've been more than one of those IP users. You're pretty much asking for a WP:BOOMERANG at this point. creffett (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that he is right, it does seem a hell of a lot of SP IP's have fetched up out of nowhere to edit articles he is editing. Now it may well be coincidence, but when some of them also show some knowledge of our procedures (far more then a knew users should know) I start to think they may have a point. Now I would advise him to lay of IP's, but I would advise you to drop this. You (I think) do not have a very strong case, certainly one no stronger then his claim you maybe a sock. An admin (at the SPI) told you there was no violation, you have now continued this here, continuing the drama is not a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think Ahmedo Semsurî should even have been warned about using "troll", and he undersold his victimhood: just look at his user talk page!

• 62.26.157.20 "ANI" 14:36, 20 May 2019
• 81.37.160.164 "ANI notice" 21:23, 20 May 2019
• 83.110.196.147 "‎Ani-discussion" 20:19, 21 May 2019
• 14.202.143.218 "Notice" 09:15, 22 May 2019
• "ani" LBM500 13:10, 22 May 2019

if that's not targeted harassment from obviously the same user (or users following a specific MO in concert), I don't know what is. 5 accounts within 47 hours saying the same thing sure sounds like an SP or MP and is objectively trolling and harassing Ahmedo Semsuri. JesseRafe (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess its settled then. [234] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you were subjected to this kind of bullying. If someone wrote that against other ethnic groups, it would have been WP:RD3'd immediately and the user blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 18:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Because I'm not that familiar with the history, I don't really have that much of anything to add at this time beyond what I wrote at the AN3 report linked above where I encountered this dispute. But I will say, at the very least, that I'm glad the IP finally registereda username and that I now look forward to their productive contributions, hopefully, away from pages frequented by Ahmedo Semsurî. El_C 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just received the message "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." I've strengthened my password as precaution, but this is getting annoying. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I get these messages on a regular basis and I assume other Wikipedia editors or admins do, too. It's annoying but if you have a solid, unique password, I don't think you need to worry. If you are getting these email messages, it's because they were unsuccessful guessing your password so that's a failure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Still worrying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a quicker way to remove vandalism than the one by one method? All the edits by Special:Contributions/103.214.139.229 should be reverted. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an LTA aka Ezidi Vandal. I blocked the IP and will be rolling everything back.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is LMB not blocked for being a sock? 2001:4898:80E8:A:7D5F:4EB5:FABA:37B2 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to ask this but since I can't find any info, I'll try here: Is it possible to remove the ability to log in with user name (opposed to mail)? I've had 21 hack attempts just now. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not possible. Do not worry, I had last year on one day 700 breakin attempts. This is annoying but as soon as you have strong password this is nothing to worry about.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This IP has also reverted dozens of articles Special:Contributions/177.30.85.190 --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I will apply for all these articles to be semi-protected like Ain Sifni. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have in my sandbox (permalink) many of the disruptive IPv4 addresses adding "Ezidkhan settlement" to articles. It's mostly to determine whether an edit filter is necessary. Maybe there are older IPs adding that information, I don't know. The Special:Contributions/2A02:8108:4DC0:27FC:B099:4157:DB37:4218/50 is very often used by the vandal. If this is considered serious by so many editors, there should be a range block on the IPv6 address though Ymblanter declined my request here. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not decline the request, I just said I am not comfortable applying range blocks--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to insert mistakes and BLP violations on Lee J. Carter

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but I fixed some serious problems on Lee J. Carter and now User:JesseRafe is edit-warring to put them back.

He won't discuss his changes, he won't address the specific issues I brought up, and he keeps threatening to have me blocked. This is a biography, but he's inserting claims that his own citations don't support, and he's padding these citations with duplicates!

He's just a vandal and a bully. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw some of the edits go by on recent changes and was concerned. I'll take a look. UninvitedCompany 22:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

While there are routine editorial issues of balance and undue weight, I do not see any BLP violations. I do not believe that any administrator intervention is warranted at this time. UninvitedCompany 22:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is part of the public record, so BLP has not been violated that I am able to observe. To what extent it belongs in the article is subject to consensus. I'd also caution the IP from using terms like "vandal and a bully" and aim instead at good faith. El_C 23:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:Lee J. Carter the IP is at least correct in that none of the sources used support the "centrist Democrats" part about the "red-baiting" incident. DoubleCross (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the reduplicated source. It looks like that specific term was introduced almost a year ago, after the meat of the section was written and sourced. Looking at the history now, the IP and user FNAS were editing in what seems like tandem, and that user was previously making other edits to reduce the appearance of the critiques of Carter's leftism, for instance changing "red-baiting" to "mocked". I began reverting the edits (IP's and FNAS's) together, because they were always made sequentially and FNAS had been reverted by myself and other editors on this page previously for pushing a POV. Looking at the history, FNAS who has a history of warnings and blocks about pushing a POV on Marxism articles has stopped editing the page, but IP continued. But you are correct, it seems that "centrist" was added without cite and as it only started being removed (and called a "slur"!) this spring and in conjunction with other weaselly actions, I presumed to restore it to status quo ante. It's hardly a slur, definitely not a BLP concern, and objectively speaking, accurately describes what a moderate is. I don't think it needs to be sourced, as it's a plain description, but whatever. JesseRafe (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and remove that unsupported term. I'd do it, but every time I do, Jesse edit-wars to put it back and then accuses me of edit-warring. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: As the editor reported here, please take a look at this IP's behavior and how I've frequently asked them to respect BRD (May 2nd, 6th, and 10th) to zero avail. They're edit-warring, albeit not 3RR, and when they mention "BLP" they're not doing so for the sake of the subject of the article, Carter, but for the subject of accusation of red-baiting (a term the IP is trying to neuter), the other delegate Keam. I think they have a COI with that delegate given they're an SPA to make the Carter article reflect less poorly on Keam. They're also gaslighting and trolling on the article talk page, and I wouldn't mind not being accused of threatening users (I never have, the IP has done so to me TWICE) or vandalizing or bullying. I rarely start proceedings against IPs unless they're an active and obvious vandal because I don't see the point, but since he or she is here, I request that their behavior be looked at, such as on the article talk page. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after another user made changes to the article, Jesse went back to edit-warring. He's also made some uncivil comments, violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and probably some other policies I haven't heard of. The problem here isn't content, it's this particular editor's behavior. He acts like he owns the article and is the final arbiter, regardless of policy or consensus. This is highly disruptive, so I'd like an administrator to ask him to stop. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

User Hyde1979

• Hyde1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistant BLP violations (many age-related [235][236]), including a long-running edit war [237][238][239][240], despite many warnings, with no attempt to discuss beyond an occasional edit summary, that are sometimes misleading [241][242][243][244].--Ronz (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Hyde1979's latest round of edit-warring at Tawana Brawley rape allegations have been partially retained. Could you comment on the problems at that article? --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please block him, the edit-warring continues [245] --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries, such as Fixed typo or Fixed grammar, Hyde1979 has been changing the article to remove the word "false" and "falsely" from descriptions of Brawley's allegations. The editor made a few reasonable changes that have been retained, such as pointing out that only one of the two possible middle names shown in the first sentence was supported by sources (the second was her mother's name, and likely the result of a bad internet search), and adding more specificity to the article's short description. I asked them, both in edit summaries and on their talk page, to explain the rationale behind their changes on the article's talk page, but I don't believe the editor has made any edits outside mainspace. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User 82.132.213.222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will like to report user: 82.132.213.222 for disruptive editing and attempting to remove valid sources.

Evidence of these disruptions are: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leska&diff=898833468&oldid=898832328

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leska&diff=898828734&oldid=898824839

These sources support what is mentioned in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talk • contribs)

You haven't notified me of this ANI report at my talk page, as very clearly stated above. I have not breached the letter or spirit of any Wikipedia guidelines, and you have refused to discuss this content dispute at the talk page. You are also in breach of WP:3RR. 82.132.213.222 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You were warned. You are disrupting sources based on 'th' and 'd' phonetic interchanges within the source provided, which is beyond ridiculous. --Anti political shills (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you warned me after I pointed it out here that you hadn't. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. You think your sources are valid and that they support what you've written. I think that's WP:Synthesis, and added maintenance tags to flag that up. This isn't "disrupting your sources", but you don't like it, so you repeatedly removed the maintenance tags I added, and told me at the talk page that there was nothing to discuss. Now you've tried to ram through your preferred edit with a lame ANI report. Good luck with that. 82.132.213.222 (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• El_C (and other admins): Anti political shills seems to be block evading via 120.21.21.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

--Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a good sign. Reverted and blocked. El_C 07:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. Per his talk page, he has been doing this for quite a while, via other accounts and IPs, and had been warned about it: [246]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked on the original account increased to 72 hours, next evasion will likely be met with an indef. El_C 07:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on closer examination of the talk page, I just went with an indef. Re-closing this, but feel free to re-open if further block evasions arise. El_C 07:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP hopper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This, a day after this, and so soon after this. Coincidence, much. Cassianto^Talk 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cassianto: What administrative action are you seeking?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You're the admin, go figure. The fact you've had to ask suggests to me that you either haven't read the diff, or that calling someone an "autist" is acceptable. Cassianto^Talk 16:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The IPs are already blocked. Short of requesting a checkuser, there's nothing to do here. I don't think a checkuser would be accepted, as there is little connective behavior to go on here. The request to unprotect your userpage, vs. vandalism on pages other than that is not sufficient. A checkuser would likely be deemed a fishing expedition. Continue to monitor of course, and see if anything quacks. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, you could start by blocking today's IP. Or maybe the pair of you think it's acceptable to make derogatory remarks to someone about autism? Cassianto^Talk 16:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Don't knock yourselves out, someone has already blocked them. Seeing as there is a history of this 82... IP, trolling my every move, what can be done to range block them? Cassianto^Talk 16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly, advise (given the original title of this thread) that you tone it down a bit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Or what? What word would you use to describe someone who goes about using a learning difficulty in a derogatory manner? Cassianto^Talk 16:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Or you might end up with a boomerang. If you are seen to be antagonistic and combative then you will be seen as a problem. I am warning you that your attitude is going to cause you problems. You no m re get to call other users names then they get to call you names. Please read wp:civility, it applies to all of us. As to what word I would use, I would not I would have just said "user mocking people" or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You have no business to warn me of anything. Cassianto^Talk 17:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @Cassianto: Sorry you are being harrassed. The range for these two IPs would be 82.132.192.0/18, which seems too wide for a range block, unfortunately. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Great, a constructive comment at last. Thanks for letting me know, FlyingAce, and for acknowledging the harassment. Cassianto^Talk 17:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible compromised account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gordy66 (talk · contribs · count)

Account is 13 years old and just now made their first edit. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's weird, but it doesn't necessarily make the account compromised. I think your warning is a bit over-the-top, but the account has been warned now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

My account was created in 2007, and my first edit was in 2017... I have to say that I agree with NRP about the warning, a simple uw-vand2 would have sufficed. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced the original warning with {{uw-vand2}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Drbaseball95 continues copvios

• Drbaseball95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being blocked just a few days ago for uploading copyrighted photos, he once again continues, making clearly false claims about how he took some of the photos himself as I can easily find many of them on the internet with a google search. I recommend a re-block. funplussmart (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at a few of the pictures, I am finding it hard to believe that he took all of those pictures himself. I would as Drbaseball95 to provide proof or I would agree that a block is in order. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

He's lying. Blocked indef. I'll delete all photos uploaded by this user , whether or not they're tagged. No need for someone to try to find each place he stole them from. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus, what a bother. he's been doing this for a month, and I've now gone far enough back that most articles can't just be rolled back anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  They have been blocked on Commons since 2012 (though they somehow managed to upload there photos in 2019), and I blocked here theor sock, Nats379, who was also blocked on Commons at the same time [247].--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Accidentally, for lying about copyright status of the uploads.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  This stupid website. I've been battling Special:Nuke for 15 minutes, it won't let me delete more than 5-6 at a time or it blows up. There are like 80 left. Any admin with AWB want to fire it up? Or at least see if you have better luck than me with NUKE? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think I nuked all of them but I am not sure how to check.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  You can check here .Lurking shadow (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, this is what I have done first, but clicking on every photo shows that I have deleted it twice (!)--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  [248] this shows just the uploads and if it's a redlink then you know it's deleted. And [249] was missed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, if you view 500 edits, a whole bunch were missed, this guy really uploaded a whole bunch of photos. Wow. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, this is indeed clear. Some photos have been uploaded to Commons, and I am trying to deal with them there (probably they will have to go to AfD). And the articles still need to be cleaned up.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• All those uploaded to en.wiki have gone[250] except for one single cover with a non-free use rationale. Any other blue links caught on the uploads log are on Commons. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • And that single cover doesn't appear to be eligible for copyright, its just a few black lines. funplussmart (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Per C:COM:PRP, I've deleted all the Commons uploads; all were photos, and there weren't any images too simple for copyright. No point in filing a DR in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this makes things easier. I hope I will finish cleaning up the articles today.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

126.209.22.197 problematic editing

126.209.22.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making a series of edits, almost all of which are problematic in some way, most of which have been reverted at least once. As examples:

• here and here he inserts some conspiracy-like doubt about the deaths of people whose bodies were found at sea.
• here he introduces some rambling discussion/description/speculation regarding the individual who recently kicked Arnold Schwarzenegger in the back, and reverts it back in after it is removed for WP:NOTAFORUM.
• here he incorrectly (and irrelevantly) inserts the claim that an individual was an immigrant from Germany, then doubles down by modifying the biography of that individual to match his incorrect statement.
• here he rather creepily describes a German Jew as a "Jewish guest in Germany", I guess implying that he wasn't a real citizen/German.
• here adds a strange and irrelevant "distinguish" article to the top of another article.
• here adds a bizarre "See also" to an article, with a cryptic edit summary - is Jack the Ripper a suspect here somehow?

See his history for the rest. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• here and here he inserts some conspiracy-like doubt about the deaths of people whose bodies were found at sea.

It seems that these two powerful public figures met their fate at sea off the coast of Africa, seperately. "Lost" at sea is not disputing death (within the infobox), without criticising the documentation of recovered bodies or body parts. Doesn`t seem "problematic" at all.

• here he introduces some rambling discussion/description/speculation regarding the individual who recently kicked Arnold Schwarzenegger in the back, and reverts it back in after it is removed for WP:NOTAFORUM.

the material contributed to the TALKPAGE was a description of events SEEN in video, the question of editting (as per the summary) that material for eventual inclusion in the article if ever is the audible shouting, which "sounds more like `new kidney`" than Lamborghini. Bear in mind that many readers (and wikipedians) of wikipedia have disabilities, hence the descriptive nature of the material.

• here he incorrectly (and irrelevantly) inserts the claim that an individual was an immigrant from Germany, then doubles down by modifying the biography of that individual to match his incorrect statement.

You misrepresent; please double-check the article and the cited references and reconsider.

• here he rather creepily describes a German Jew as a "Jewish guest in Germany", I guess implying that he wasn't a real citizen/German.

Again, you misrepresent; where does the article say Ballin was German or a "German Jew"? The subject of the article was given an elevated status as a guest by the Kaiser himself!

Perhaps you need a rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.22.197 (talk • contribs)

• It's hard to see a clear breach of any policy in any single one of these, but I've seen a few and reverted them. There's an agenda being pushed, and accuracy isn't being taken seriously. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked IP for a week for anti-Semitic trolling. Just for a week because I don't know anything about the IP; if it resumes, reblock for longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been uninvolved with this beyond reverting his "See also: Jack the Ripper" line (which was clearly non-constructive, to say the least) and giving him a vandalism warning, but I notice that all his contributions have been superseded, and he has been blocked for a week, so I don't see that any further action is possible at this time. Let's see if he shows up again in a week, or gets a sock puppet. ubiquity (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd support an immediate unblock, with restrictions, to allow them to respond here (but no mainspace editing, under pain of a long block). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

They've already answered above, and every response was prevarication or dissembling. I've yet to see an edit they've made that was actually fully compliant with WP policy and guidelines, or particularly useful in any way. User:Floquenbeam has identified exactly what this editor is doing; I'm not sure why we need waste any more time on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Before anyone considers unblocking, I think this may be WP:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net. Granted, they're not going on the usual rant about domain stealing, but the ISP is the same and style is very similar. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Agreed, the editing patterns are distinctly similar to the "Hydro" person. In the past they have also tried to insert other conspiracies and misleading claims, unrelated to the domain name, so it's not out of character even. -- intgr [talk] 12:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dubious renaming of hundreds of articles over many years

• TLDR: Fergananim has moved almost 500 articles to dubious titles over a period of 13 years.

Two articles on my watchlist were moved three days ago: Rory O'Moore to Ruairí Ó Mórdha and Rory O'More to Ruairí Óg mac Ruairí Caoch Ó Mórdha. While the first is the subject's name in Irish – though not commonly used in the sources – the second is completely made up. Checking the histories of the articles and their talk pages, I found that the user, Fergananim had already moved both articles in July 2011, one of them three times in one hour to three equally inappropriate names, and that I had reverted and discussed the moves on both talk pages at the time. When I raised the matter on the WikiProject Ireland talk page, one respondent, SeoR, said that he had discussed problems with article renaming had been discussed with Fergananim in 2017 and 2018, and that Fergananim had "acknowledged themselves not to be an expert on Gaeilge (Irish)". A look at Special:Log/Fergananim shows that he/she has renamed almost 500 articles (plus 500 talk pages) over the course of 13 years, most of which were small articles with few or no watchers, where the readers would have no idea whether the new name was right or not. The edit summary was almost always just "correct form of name" (this from a person with no expertise), and as far as I know he/she did not discuss any of the moves on the talk pages. I am asking:

• that all of the moves be reverted, going back to 2006, if this is technically feasible and not too much trouble, and
• that Fergananim be asked by an admin not to perform any more page moves, at least not without prior discussion at the WikiProject Ireland talk page.

Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have asked Fergananim in the past (see their talk page) to stop moving to non-common English names and stop changing names without valid sources. They have been known to change the names against all the references in articles and I did almost block them for it at one point. I hadn't noticed them come across my watchlist recently so it's not something that has come up again for me, but I can say this has been an extremely long term continuing problem that I had actually hoped was stopped. They do also seem to be just translating names into Irish instead of being able to prove those versions were actually used or existed. I acknowledge this is a problem. Canterbury Tail talk 14:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A disruptive POV pushing editor? Great. GiantSnowman 14:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I could certainly support an editing restriction against moving any articles. If there are any more ridiculous moves then an indefinite block would be valid. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

500 articles! Is there a way to mass fix that? Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose such a thing on WP:CONTEXTBOT grounds. When you move that many pages, some might have ended up at the right place by accident, or someone else may have moved the page in the mean time, and what would you do with redirects created by multi-moving (e.g. Rory O'Moore, the one moved three times in an hour)? Too many potential issues, I believe; we'll just have to do them manually. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Scolaire, GiantSnowman, Canterbury Tail, and Otr500, I've generated a list of all mainspace and category-space pagemoves that Fergananim performed, and it's sitting at user:nyttend/sandbox. Would you mind helping review pages? Some of these moves are indeed good, and others have been reverted by third parties or moved somewhere entirely different, so please please check every one before doing anything. When you've reviewed something, please remove it (if it's now good), or fix it and then remove it, or increase the indent from * to ** if you want to mark it as "needs to be fixed" for later. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Topic Ban on moving pages?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the user has been disruptive in their moving of pages, I think a topic ban on moving pages for the user would be appropriate. As per WP:TBAN they would be prohibited from the actual moving of pages, as well as discussions on moving pages. I believe this would be a good first step towards stopping the disruptive moving that Fergananim performs.

Scope of the restricted actions as a result of the TBAN:

• The direct moving of any pages, except pages in the user's own userspace.
• The participation in move-related discussions.

This ban would be indefinite, and he would also be prohibited from appealing the topic ban for a minimum of one year from the date of the ban going into effect. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - 13 years is plenty of time to change editing habits, they clearly haven't learned. Cards84664 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on making any undiscussed page moves (including own space). I oppose stopping this editor taking part in RMs at talk pages. GiantSnowman 15:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see the benefit in stopping them discussing moves — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment (in reply to GiantSnowman and MSGJ) I see your points. After a couple minutes of looking at them, the proposed move discussion restrictions seem ridiculous to me as well. I still think the restriction on undiscussed page moves is perfectly valid. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support both bans. Fergananim is not a joiner, so he/she is most unlikely to contribute to an existing RM. On the other hand, if he/she makes a move request on an article about an obscure historical figure, it will quite possibly not generate any response and thus be passed by default, even where it's wrong. A read through the user talk page will show that Fergananim is unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia policy, preferring to use the argument that it "is generally scholarly practise here in Ireland." It's not, by the way. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Alternatively, he/she could be required to discuss moves on the WikiProject Ireland talk page, where it will be seen, and not at the article talk page, where it very often won't. Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You know, this could use application on a wider scale, not just for particular problems. Qwirkle (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving topic ban, not preventing discussion - I'd also like to see them have a topic ban on changing names. Discussing them on talk pages is fine for consensus, but the user should not alter any names on the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • • So, what's the verdict, folks? Fergananim (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Fergananim:...níl thú anseo?! :D ——SerialNumber54129 11:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Verdict is for now I recommend you stop moving and changing names against references until something is decided. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban on moving pages, and on initiating move discussions. Not sure that banning them from move discussions initiated by others is a good thing, but I'm not going to stand in the way of the very needed ban on moving pages if it's a package deal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Could an admin close this? It's been 24 hours as mandated by the banning policy. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  @EggRoll97: There is WP:NOHURRY. Nor does it need an administrator close, consensus looks unanimous till now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban on moving pages. Names should follow sources. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support both bans. Possibly indef on the first and a time limit on the second. It seems logical if the editor may not or has not participated in move discussions, replied to warnings or heeded them, --OR-- may decide to discuss reverting any moves, that could just add complications. I don't know how many moves were made after being warned but it would seem one would be too many but 500! I would think there are enough pages on Wikipedia that if the editor is here to build an encyclopedia there would be plenty to do. Otr500 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivanvector, I'm disappointed that Fergananim was not asked to propose moves at a central forum such as the WikiProject Ireland talk page. If he/she makes a move request at, for instance, Talk:Giolla na Naomh mac Muireadhach Mág Samhradháin, and nobody responds because nobody is watching the page, then the move will be made just the same as if he/she moved it directly. It is precisely at that sort of article where the damage has been done in the past. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I did see that you suggested that, but it was not widely supported. WP:RM suggests that such a notification is best practice, but not a requirement. If you think it should be a requirement for this editor you can suggest it again and see what happens. Or, if the pages where the requests are made are properly tagged with the WikiProject Ireland banners and the project has article alerts set up, you can watch that page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That page is here, by the way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this topic ban on moving pages. This is the English Wikipedia. I well informed them back in 2017 about the policies in force in regards to naming conventions. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Page moves to be discussed at WikiProject Ireland

Per the above, a move request at a page that isn't watched is effectively the same as just moving the article. The article alerts option won't work if the page is not tagged as WikiProject Ireland, and since we don't know where he/she will strike next we have no way of checking whether the page is so tagged. I propose that Fergananim be required to initiate any future page move discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. --@Ivanvector, EggRoll97, Cards84664, GiantSnowman, MSGJ, Qwirkle, Canterbury Tail, Serial Number 54129, Thryduulf, Paul August, and Otr500: --Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that WikiProject Ireland doesn't concern all articles, just those in it's scope. I would, however, support a restriction requiring him to notify an appropriate WikiProject related to the article. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:IE does concern every article that Fergananim has ever moved, or is ever likely to want to. I don't object to "appropriate WikiProject" being used, as long as it adds that WP:IE is the appropriate project for Irish historical figures. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think this is necessary. If an editor starts a RM discussion, nobody joins in, and the article is moved - that's just RM sometimes. If you want to move it back use RM again and notify a WikiProject then. GiantSnowman 16:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • But how do you watch 5 million articles to see when one is moved? The problem is that Fergananim has moved articles on very minor subjects from titles that were informative to titles that are useless – and only about one in a hundred has been caught, which is why no action was taken for 13 years. You can shrug your shoulders and say "that's life", or you can say "don't make a move request without notifying possibly interested parties that you're doing it". To me it's a no-brainer. Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's RM sometimes, as GiantSnowman said. We (admins/reviewers) have to presume that if someone has put a move request on a page and nobody else has commented after the required period, the request is uncontroversial. We can't assume that every move is controversial, that's not how Wikipedia works. Consider that with requiring them to post move requests but banning them from moving pages themselves, that guarantees that the request will be listed for seven days at WP:RM#CM at least, where even if none of the 1,665 users watching that page see it, it will at least be seen by whoever closes the request, so blatantly inappropriate requests would (presumably) be filtered. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments: We are drifting way from the issue it seems. I am not sure how to equate "business as usual" to someone that is blatantly moving many articles, that surely must be a disruption since it was brought here and apparently agreed upon, to "if an editor"? That lost me totally as it seemed were were discussing one particular and specific editor improperly moving a multitude of articles and apparently sometimes for no clear reason except disruption. Shows what I know. To me it seems a free pass, probably until the next time or next 500 articles. It also seems like someone is possibly smarter than credit given to pick that many articles and move them without raising flags -- or -- the incident is not considered as serious as it seems. I would hope the apparent assumption of good faith is rewarded and the editor becomes constructive over disruptive. Otr500 (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Ivanvector: Otr500 hits the nail on the head when he says that it's not just about an editor or an RM. How many of the 1,665 watchers would know whether moving Mathghamhain O'Brien to Mathghamhain Maonmhaighe Ó Briain is appropriate or blatantly inappropriate? All of Fergananim's 500 moves were of this sort. They're all related to medieval or early modern Irish names that just look like gobbledegook to anybody outside Ireland (and most people within Ireland). Asking RM watchers or closers to guess whether such a move is appropriate is effectively opening the door to another raft of unopposed moves. @Otr500: In fairness, we are absolutely right to assume good faith here. Fergananim is disruptive but not deliberately so. They genuinely believe that stringing together multiple names from some old genealogy is a more appropriate title than the name used in history books. They don't trawl Wikipedia looking for articles where a name change won't be noticed; they just have an interest in very minor figures in Irish history whose articles would not typically be watched. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• You know, I think there's more to this than just the issue of odd page moves. Take this edit for example, in which Fergananim changed the "native names" of the British Isles to remove the Scots name from the list, changed the Irish name to remove "Great" from Great Britain, and then massively altered the article to insist that "British Isles" is a contested term with "Ireland and Britain" (their translation of the Irish name, from which they conveniently removed the word for "Great") preferred. They also, on an article which is watched by 2 editors (3 now, hi!) removed the English name from an old genealogical work (which I think is Gaelic but this isn't my area of expertise at all). They've also changed "British Isles" to "Ireland and Britain" in at least one other article. This looks like a POV warrior to me, a particularly disruptive one, and I think a more broad topic ban from any edits to the subject may be in order. I'm just not entirely sure what the subject is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't like or want to cross lines or even give the appearance to assuming bad faith, and I haven't looked at any of the articles as they are not in my areas of normal editing, but I had the thought that when that many articles are moved around they are likely being moved for a particular reason. Now that this is "being scrutinized" I will bow out so thanks to everyone. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User: Trillfendi

User:Trillfendi appears to have a fairly large chip on her shoulder, and is insulting other editors regularly. She has been warned about this many times (User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 1#February 2017, User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 2#WP:CIVIL, User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 2#WP:OWN on Drake (musician), User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 2#March 2019, User talk:Trillfendi#Edit summaries, User talk:Trillfendi#Wikipedia Etiquette, User talk:Trillfendi#?, User talk:Trillfendi#Civility) and has been reported here before, but never seems to improve her behavior. I realize she is a good editor and that has given her some leeway, but at some point surely enough is enough? Can an admin step in and give her a warning with a little more teeth? (Full disclosure: when looking through her contributions I saw a couple questionable article creations which I nominated for deletion. This doesn't strike me as very relevant but I'm sure she'll bring it up.)—Chowbok ☠ 14:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that looks problematic. But why are you following her around, in the first place? El_C 14:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a rude and insulting comment from her to another editor, and I looked her up, assuming her to be a new editor, and was surprised to see that she has a long history of behaving this way. As I said, I also noticed some problematic article creations (along with several article creations that seemed more legitimate). I think looking at the contributions of a problematic editor is legitimate.—Chowbok ☠ 15:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Her behaviour is not acceptable (However I have seen worse). Personal attacks on other editors does help not Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Left a warning, but I also feel it would be best for Chowbok to give her some space. El_C 15:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll do as requested, but I think this even-handedness is a bit insulting. I'm not the one violating policies here.—Chowbok ☠ 15:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you feel insulted, but I'm interested in contributing to conflict resolution here. El_C 15:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I found 'her' vulgarity and profanity offensive. @El_C: Could you direst me to Wikipedia policies regarding the profane??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (Yea I am Canadian LOL)

There are no such policies. But users are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner. El_C 15:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• comment. I think it only fair that Chowbok gets a warning for wp!hounding if the hounded got warned for astonishingly petty civility violations. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think calling someone a brute (with the edit summary "Dumbass") is as "astonishingly petty" as you make it out to be. User was already warned about lapses in civility earlier this month. Another warning seems fitting. Chowbok was asked to stay away from her, also. El_C 15:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Can we not jump immediately to collective retaliation against civility complaints? Is it too much to ask for some basic civility on Wikipedia?--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Clearly it is not too much to ask. Treating people with respect, even when we disagree is important. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and repeated sock editing by a sock edit who changes its ip address all the time.

Hi this user 2405:205:4402:C3ED:0:0:A5F:38A4 is at it again and is reverting people's edits as they did with Prince Narula. They are also doing the same as 2405:205:440E:C642:0:0:460:C8A4. Please investigate and block them. He is also lying saying I'm a sock edit and smartly blaming me saying 'RV edits' when I'm not even blocked or other users as I and other users haven't done anything wrong and haven't vandalised Wikipedia ie Karan Tacker.<-----Special:Contributions/109.146.229.148 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)----->

Okay, I have given him a short block for edit warring but it won't stop him coming back. As for yourself, please get an ID. Deb (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

But he will still do it after being blocked and do the same thing. But I have nominated for both articles to be protected permenent but thanks.

Suspicious activity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello I’d like to report some suspicious activity by a user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/898944140 who claims to be a part of Anonymous. Could someone look into it. Thanks! Sonicfan200530 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That link apparently works only if you're on mobile; for a desktop-friendly diff, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=898944140. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t work either. Has the problem been nuked? Qwirkle (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Likely revdelled. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano and Qwirkle, the two errors are different; the MobileDiff link returns a 404 error (which doesn't make sense; it's just a special page that should return an error message if it's not a working ID number), while the latter simply says that there's no extant diff. You can tell it's not been revdelled because you'd get a message showing you bits of the edit (usernames, times, etc.), unlike this. See [251] for what it looks like when an edit's been revdelled. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I edit from a desktop, not a mobile device. I can see mobile links and diffs. I don't think we're talking about who can see things but different views of the same things. I assume the mobile view is set up to make it easier for smaller devices to see the same pages/diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah when viewing the mobile diff on Chrome or Firefox on Windows 10 desktop I get

Bad revision
The ID for the revision you requested does not exist.

When I view the desktop site, I get

2 revisions of this difference (0 and 898944140) were not found.
This is usually caused by following an outdated diff link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

This is to be expected. Both the desktop and mobile sites will work on both desktop and mobile devices and browsers although the usability etc may be different. If for some reason you got a 404 I guess either something went wrong or there's some weird config issue in some part of your set-up. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking into a bit more, the mobile site does actually send a 404. I guess this is perhaps intentional since the page who's diff you are trying to view is indeed not found (deleted). If you have a browser which hides 404s then you won't see the details I linked above. I thought browsers stopped doing that a long time ago, but guess some still do. Anyway I would suggest disabling such features since they can cause confusion, as they did here but it's up to you. But again this is no different from a mobile device. If you have a mobile browser with the same feature it would show the same thing since it's responding the same way to receiving a 404. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, this is how revdel edits show up where the page still exists (not deleted) show on the mobile [252] and desktop [253] sites. On mobile and desktop sites you will see the exact same thing for the main message

You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions have been removed from the public archives. Details can be found in the deletion log for this page.

Differences arise in the display and other details shown, for example on desktop you can see both the latter and previous revision details (editor etc) but on mobile only latter. Here's an example of a working diff [254] [255]. Again different in implementation e.g. the mobile shows it in one continuous view with colours to differentation additions and removals, the desktop side by side. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking into the 404 issue a bit more, it seems Chrome does still do "friendly" 404s but not for HTTPS sites. I also tried Edge and also no "friendly" 404. Internet Explorer is the only browser which showed me a "friendly" 404 for the mobile diff site. Don't have so didn't try Safari or Opera. If you're still using IE now, I personally strongly recommend you change whether to Edge or something else but if you don't want to or aren't able to and also aren't able to disable "friendly" 404, guess you'll have to put up with this confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The user in question is Xyrvam (talk · contribs), and the diffs were on their userpage, which has been speedy deleted by Bbb23. ansh666 01:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Someone might want to keep an eye on the user. They haven't done any substantive edits yet, but even if they continue to do nonsensical edits, they should probably be NOTHERED (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The user page in question was reverted and revdelled very quickly. The mobile link posted worked fine in Chrome when I first looked. The edits to the sandbox are related. The user page may have been an attempt to recruit, or may have been trailing bait in the water, but it definitely violated our rules for user pages. I was ready to revert and revdel, but was too slow. In any case, worth keeping an eye on. - Donald Albury 12:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok I’m on mobile and the edit appears to have been locked. I’ll have to look at their other edits. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok the user it self has disappeared completely, all their sandbox edits don’t show in it’s history. It’s as if they hacked the website to remove their user to keep themselves from any trouble. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sonicfan200530: The user page is blank because its contents were reverted and then revdelled. The user's talk page now has an invitation to the Teahouse. The user's five edits to the sandbox still show in Special:Contributions/Xyrvam&action=view. Nothing has been hacked. - Donald Albury 16:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

To explain, "revdel" means revision deletion, meaning an admin removed the edit entirely from view. That's usually only done for really bad violations of the rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It says the user doesn’t exist. What does that mean? Sonicfan200530 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Does it say that the user does not exist, or does it say that the user page does not exist? Because the user page doesn't exist now, even thought the account exists. In Chrome I see the message "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name." There is also information above that message explaining that the page has been deleted, which you may not be seeing in a mobile view. - Donald Albury 01:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is the above link is broken. AFAIK it's not possible to specify query strings in wikilinks. These can only be specified in external links or perhaps via other complicated methods. So the above link Special:Contributions/Xyrvam&action=view does not work. You will get

User account "Xyrvam&action=view" is not registered.

since the username Xyrvam&action=view does not exist. The URL that is parsed and provided to your browser for the link has percent encoding so the query string element won't be parsed as a query string element but instead a part of the username.

Note in any case a URL should nearly always start with a question mark ? character. The ampersand/and character & is only used for additional elements. This does apply to Mediawiki URLs. So actually that URL will never work e.g. [256] as an external link has the same error. Use a question mark [257] and it does work as an external link. Note that as said, wikilinks don't accept query string elements in that way so you will still get an error if you use a wikilink. In other words, try Special:Contributions/Xyrvam?action=view and you'll get a complaint that the username "Xyrvam?action=view" does not exist, since it doesn't either.

So just do Special:Contributions/Xyrvam as the wikilink. Or instead a working external link.

The user page thing is correct. On mobile [258], it says amongst other things:

No user page for Xyrvam
This page should be created and edited by Xyrvam

BTW, this is their contrib list on mobile [259], it currently shows their 5 sandbox contribs. Note that because of the high edit rate of the sandbox, you may not see them in the first page of the history of the sandbox, but still they are there [260]

Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marc Lacoste, Andrewgprout: multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit: update links 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC) — Edited for concision: 02:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC) — Previous version: 12:53, 26 May 2019‎

Users doing repeated reverts on the same content:

• Marc Lacoste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Both have been blocked before for EW.
• Andrewgprout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — (common AN/EW report)
• 7 reverts in 5 days — refused (AN/EW report) by Marc.
• 4 reverts in 3 days — refused (AN/EW report) by Andrew (similar to my recent 24h block, but these are removals of apt content).

First EW 2 days earlier: 3 reverts in less than 3 hours (history) on Boeing 737 MAX groundings.

• Previous version reverted to: 09:12, 20 May 2019‎

1. 05:53, 21 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)
2. 07:29, 21 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)
3. 08:22, 21 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)

Dispute:

• EW warning diff: 08:45, 21 May 2019
• 17:52, 21 May 2019: Dispute: suggestion

Previous EW: 3 reverts in 6 hours (history) on Boeing 737 MAX groundings, leading to edit protection.

1. 05:22, 23 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)
2. 09:40, 23 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout)
3. 10:51, 23 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)

Dispute:

• 13:32, 21 May 2019 Dispute: Summary of consensus 21 May
• 11:25, 23 May 2019 Dispute: Complaint for edit warring

Comment:

• Andrewgprout made no contributions to these pages, only the reverts (xtools edits summary: mcas, groundings).
• This series of collaboration is effective at avoiding clear EW violation, as described in WP:NINJA.

Last EW: 5 reverts (history) on Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System:

1. 21:01, 24 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout) -196‎ bytes (3 minutes after reverted edit)
2. 01:48, 25 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout) -196‎ bytes
3. 04:44, 25 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste) -196‎ bytes
4. 04:34, 26 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout) -196‎ bytes
5. 05:16, 26 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste) -196‎ bytes (11 minutes after reverted edit)

Dispute:

• 22:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC): I started the dispute on [article talk page]
• 03:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC): Andrewgprout first, strawman response to dispute (direct link)] after revert 2
• 05:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC): Marc Lacoste first, ad hominem response to dispute (direct link)] after revert 3
• EW warning diffs: Marc, Andrew

Comment:

• This pattern of edit warring was paralleled by effortless, distracting responses in disputes, or no response at all from both users. OPs' conduct caused disruption and page protection.
• In the 2 recent EWs Marc Lacoste made the last warring edit (within minutes), while I quit participating in the edit war.
• Marc Lacoste made an [erroneous AN/EW report] ca. 10 hours after this report, that lists my original, beneficial contribution as the first revert.
• We all participated in these edit wars. I tried to make beneficial additions, that OPs repeatedly removed. I initiated discussion and made compromises, to facilitate the WP:BRD cycle, this can't be said about OPs.

Edit: update links 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC) — Edited for concision: 02:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC) — Previous version: 12:53, 26 May 2019‎ —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   02:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I blocked the OP for 24 hours (edit warring) via AN3. El_C 18:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reopened. User wants additional review, and I have no immediate objections. I, personally, think that this Incidents report is just not concise enough, but others should feel free to have a go at it, by all means. El_C 12:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Having run across the OP through talk pages I have on my watch list and following recent events, it's clear they're either WP:IDHT or being pointy. After being blocked for EW, they open two complaints at WP:AN3. Aron, I would recommend withdrawing those discussions, drop the stick and go your own way. Stop being pointy. Garretka (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at the EW report. It's based on an error, my addition listed as a revert. It's obvious I was adding good faith contribution, I started discussions when it was reverted, followed WP:BRD, but OPs did not respond. They made more reverts, then me. Obviously they need similar sanction, and a reminder of WP:5P. I hear you clear and loud, but I have to point out this incident has to be reviewed with NPOV: it was clearly stated, OPs actions were not looked at. It happens, no problem. It can be fixed. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP observes my Wiki movements and opposes me just for the sake of it

So, I've had one specific user observe me edits and now he tries to oppose me on everything. I think most admins know the problem I've had with this user, but this is gone too far. See the latest edit[261]: There are attempts by Kurdish nationalists to create a unified Kurdish language. You are trying to kurdify whole wikipedia. The Kurdification and Kurdish nationalism should be stopped on english wikipedia.. If you see the Laki language, I've given plenty of academic sources to back up my statement. His antagonism is really becoming ridiculous. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

And it's almost tragic if his vote ends up being counted (its not the first time the user chimes in to oppose me on these types of requests). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments redacted, IP blocked, page semiprotected. Nothing more we can do but continue to DENY recognition as it occures. El_C 09:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock requested

This follows on from an earlier thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#IP edits to Emma Tate (actress) – rangeblock(s) requested.

The disruptive anon is back and continuing to add unsourced birth information to BLPs in violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY ([262]), often joined by abusive edit summaries ([263]). I put all of their addresses together and it seems that all of the edits are coming from a single range: [264].

Could this range be blocked or would there be too much collateral damage? The tone of the edit summaries hasn't varied since January and I'm fairly sure that this range's output is all one person. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the previous blocks was this one by User:ST47, for 31 hours. Now SuperMarioMan is requesting a block of Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:3F90:0:0:0:0:0/44. This range is making large numbers of edits to BLP articles usually with no source provided. If you just browse the contributions from this range you'll see edit summaries like "Look, mate. Don't delete any of this as it's true" and "No one cares about WP:RS, Okay?". To improve their credibility even more, they say: "‎Had to revert changes because Wikipedia is a rubbish website. This is honest editing." Suggest a one month block of the /44 for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I blocked the /44 for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive editing from User:Cinefan Cinefan

I think it may be a good idea for admins to take a look at the activities of User:Cinefan Cinefan. They are new but have moved swiftly into a pattern of disruptive editing. Their user page indicates some kind of mission to create and fill categories for people who are dead, and as can be seen from User talk:Cinefan Cinefan they have created two now-deleted categories about subjects who have died. They were warned about disruptive editing on 16 May but have continued more or less regardless.

Today they created Category:People who died in office which they defined as ‘People from any country who died while running a country'. Though most of the people they’ve added do meet this criterion, several, including Goebbels and Hammarskjöld, do not. They’ve added Juan Perón to the Category:Argentine anti-communists with the edit summary ‘Idk if he 100% was anti-communist…’ added Yasujirō Ozu to Category:Japanese Marxists with the edit summary ‘…Ozu gave several nods to Karl Marx…’ . Likewise added Akira Kurosawa to the same category with the summary ‘Not as well known but Kurosawa once had Marxist ideals and later moved away from them’.

More controversially, they have begun adding names to Category: Genocide perpetrators, which is how I came across them. A number of these lack any evidential basis. See Isoroku Yamamoto, Maximilien Robespierre and Reginald Dyer. ’ They added Francisco Macías Nguema with the edit summary ‘....sounds like borderline genocide to me’.

Any one of these actions might be expected of an inexperienced editor and would not on its own be disruptive. What concerns me is that this editor is editing at fairly high volume, making changes based apparently on nothing more than what they have in their head, and not paying attention to warnings about their editing behaviour.

I will notify them now that I have raised these concerns here. Mccapra (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we recently had a user with exactly the same behavior (Category:Genocide_perpetrators etc) who was indefinitely blocked, but I do not remember the name of the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Poundofdonuts, CU blocked on 13 May. Though I think we had more of those.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Accopulocrat--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them indef as a sock of Accopulocrat on behavioral grounds (recreated of Category:Deceased multiple times and interest to genocide perpetrators). I will unblock if someone disagrees. Probably mass rollback of recent edits will be in order, but I will not perform it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The user now says at their talk page they are not Accopulocrat. Whereas I do not think their word is sufficient for unblock, it would be good if someone takes a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, fwiw, I'm skeptical that Cinefan is an Accopulocrat sock. The latter never commented on their own talk pages, has some difficulty with English (incorrect plurals etc.) in their edit summaries, and seems to be almost exclusively interested in genocide and massacres, and did a lot of page moves. Cinefan is more obsessed with dead people in general, and categories, and talks a lot, and has never moved a page. Maybe unblock Cinefan and invite them here to explain why they shouldn't be blocked all on their own for continuing to do dumb things with death-related categories... --IamNotU (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @IamNotU:, this is very valuable input. In unblocked them and invited them to come here and explain themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, would like to clarify I'm not Accopulocrat. I wasn't aware of him until I was notified that he had many socks. I don't use sockpuppets, when I have one account, I stay with that one. If I don't like it? Generally I just delete it or leave the site if I can't delete it. I didn't really care for the genocide list until when I started contributing last night. I've started to understand why people don't want a full category of dead people now. And I don't really see why one would not respond to talk pages. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, considering the two Japanese filmmakers, I read some sources that stated that Ozu was Marxist and believed in Marxist ideals and that Kurosawa was once a Marxist as well, communism and filmmakers has always been an interesting topic to me. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Acks2grind and Eshuark are  Confirmed to Poundofdonuts. Cinefan Cinefan looks unrelated to these socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor stalking my edits and reverting them

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

Can someone please have a word with 96.231.110.11? He or she has begun stalking my edits and reverting them without any discussion or even edit summaries. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo you need to talkpage notify anyone you report at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for obvious disruptive editing. I do not know whether this solves anything, but rapidly reverting everything including ANI is not a way to work in this project.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks this editor has changed to a different IP address - 65.112.187.66 - and has continued stalking my edits and reverting them without any discussion or edit summaries. Ymblanter blocked this editor's original IP address; can someone please block this new address or otherwise convince them to collaborate? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick correction: In a handful of the edits, he or she has begun using the edit summary "ElKevbo stop your meaningless changes." ElKevbo (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

One more small addition: Ymblanter's block is still in effect so this editor appears to be just evading it by using a different IP address. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked all IPs for 2 weeks. El_C 21:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks from 86.141.32.224

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reverted an edit of theirs here, gave them a soft edit war warning (since they were reinstating an edit that had been reverted by somebody else), and created a talk page section for them to discuss their proposed change on the article's talk page. Rather than discuss the matter on the article talk page, they've come onto my talk page to make a series of personal attacks (here of here and here), which continued and became more abusive after I asked them to read WP:NPA. I'm done talking to them - could an admin please explain that this conduct isn't on (or just block them and be done with it?). Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Let's see if the IP responds here before they make any other edits. If the IP ignores this discussion and makes new inappropriate edits, ping me and I will block them. - Donald Albury 13:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Thanks for the offer - they're back on my talk page accusing me of rudeness (for deleting their last abusive message). I don't want to engage with them after their last comment, could you deal with them please? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits Suppressed

Suppressed edits are suppressed under suppression policy, and reasons won't be discussed for obvious reasons. Complaints or concerns about misuse may be sent to ArbCom ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Anybody know why almost every edit on this board has been suppressed? Valeince (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I'd guess it was the redaction in this section: [265]. ST47 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC) It was because [redacted]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Fair enough. I thought it was unusual that every edit before about the last dozen or so has been suppressed. Thought it was a mistake, but if it isn't then please disregard. Valeince (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC) When you mentioned it, I was a bit surprised to see a week's worth of edits had been suppressed, but yes, it was on purpose. And now, we should probably WP:DENY any further recognition. ST47 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee is making personal attacks against me.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background of the Situation:

A few weeks ago I discovered a sentence on the page 2018 United States Senate election in California that I considered to be violent hate speech against the elderly. Originally I handled this situation very badly. I removed the sentence. When people reverted my edit, I was furious. I couldn't understand why anyone who wasn't a far-right hate monger would want the sentence to stay. So I edit-warred and made personal attacks that I shouldn't have made on this talk page. I should of handled myself better and assumed good faith, which was very hard to do at the time. I am deeply sorry for what I did. I was blocked for doing this. After my IP address's block expired I made an account. I promised that I am done with assuming bad faith on fellow editors and now am ready to have a good discussion. I wanted to have a productive discussion about this issue. I started another section of the talk page for the article for this purpose.

Why I am reporting the actions of User:Boing!_said_Zebedee:

On the section on the talk page Talk:2018 United States Senate election in California my behavior was completely fine. I was respectful and was no longer making personal attacks. However, User:Boing!_said_Zebedee then decided to go into the discussion making nothing but personal attacks. He started off with an extremely rude and unhelpful comment, saying that what I was claiming was "utter nonsense" without explaining why. Then he said that me and my claims were stupid. Then he threatened to seek a topic ban although I had already been blocked for my wrongdoings had had corrected my offending behavior. He threatened to ban me simply for disagreeing with him. That shouldn't be how Wikipedia works. Then he baselessly accused me of being a troll. Again, all I was doing was attempting to have a reasonable discussion.

After I called the user out on these personal attacks, he then quoted a personal attack I had previously made in a sad attempt to deflect from what he had done. He conveniently left out the fact that I had already apologized many times for the comments and promised to not do anything of the sort again. He then threatened to ban me from the site, although I had already been punished for my actions and had stopped doing them.

This behavior was clearly hypocritical and unacceptable. When I made personal attacks, I was blocked from the website. I then apologized for my actions and stopped doing them. Now User:Boing!_said_Zebedee, while criticizing me for the things I said, ironically made a bunch of unfair personal attacks against me. It was completely hypocritical and absurd. Because I was blocked for making personal attacks, it is only fair that User:Boing!_said_Zebedee should also be blocked for making personal attacks, and should apologize afterwards. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually think you should be blocked indefinitely for provocations, but I suppose you can have one last chance to shape up. El_C 23:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What provocations are you talking about? After I was unblocked my behavior has been completely respectful. It was this user who decided to attack me. DefenderOfTheElderly (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Stating a subject's age and that speculation is they would retire from their position before standing for election isn't 'hate speech' (and it is so far from violent that I don't know that you know what violence is). The removal was unjustified and I see nothing in the article where BsZ made a personal attack. This is a a WP:DROPTHESTICK situation where you just need to move on. Not that it matters now, because you've been indeffed for this idiocy as I wrote this, so you pretty much sealed your own sayonara from the project. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ℯxplicit's Rude Behavior, and others abuse of authority

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting that ℯxplicit has displayed a total lack of respect in communicating with me about files that I upload that supposedly violate WP:NFCC and WP:CSD policies when I CLEARLY sourced then and proved that the imagees I uploaded are real and exist. After continued to be haggled for months with being told that I "continuously violate these policies" and have been threatened with indefinitely blocking with my account, I am reporting ℯxplicit's rude, abusive, disrespectful and unprofessional behavior. He is insensitive to what I am able to provide this site to give everyone the proper information and proof they exist.

Also, Marchjuly and Yosemiter, while being as polite as possible, are abusing their authority here in constantly telling that I have violated policy after policy after policy and have gone after me when other "editors" do the same exact thing I am doing and don't get punished for it. I have followed EVERY policy to the letter and editors like these three just seem to either ignore the rules themselves or just make up rules as they go along. I ask that THEY be warned about abusing THEIR privileges on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it will show that this is NOT the "free encyclopedia" it claims to be. Thank you! NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@NostalgiaBuff97501: Can you provide diffs of the problem? Providing links to problem edits will resolve this much faster. Thanks! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: NostalgiaBuff97501 is referring to pretty much their entire talk page, most recently Explicit's final warning for continued violations of re-uploading previously deleted, or very similar to previously deleted, images that are not in full compliance with various WP:NFCC policies. I am called out for my notifications for prods and AfDs from various pages that are created below WP:GNG standards, which is exactly what I am supposed to do when I propose or nominate an article for deletion. Despite my efforts to help in the past, the user has never really seemed to comprehend the issues after hundreds of notifications. Yosemiter (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

NostalgiaBuff97501, I think Explicit is being lenient in giving a final warning rather than just imposing the block. Nonfree content rules are not optional. Repeatedly uploading images that violate them is disruptive and wasteful of other editors' time, and calling other editors an "asshole" because they point that out to you is entirely unacceptable. [266] So, Explicit was absolutely right, and I strongly suggest you heed that warning and make very sure any future nonfree uploads fully comply with WP:NFCC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well the thing is, when you've got a number of (I count at least four) experienced users telling you you're in the wrong, It might be a good idea to actually listen to them. Those images do indeed fail WP:NFCC - for example inserting File:BC Lions Helmet 2019.png fails NFCC#3a because we've already got a non-free logo image in the article and having two is excessive. One or the other is fine, but not both. Also, gleefully telling people who know their policy and are acting correctly that "you've been reported! How does THAT feel!" [267] is a distinctly sub-optimal idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And now they are either WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing or WP:MEATPUPPET-ing. New user page is the same description as the old. Yosemiter (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I ran a check because I thought this must be a joe job, but, no –  Confirmed and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amitamitdd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was going to indef block this editor to force them to use their talk page or else to abandon editing altogether, but perhaps some more patient souls here can find a better way to reach out to them?

User:Amitamitdd has made numerous pages which have all (bar one) been either moved to draft space or deleted. They have edited their user talk page before they were contacted by others, but never since. They have as far as I can tell never edited any of their pages after they were moved to draft space. In 8 days time, 14 editors have left messages on their user talk about problems with their editing and articles. But they ignore everything, recreate pages after they have been deleted or moved to draft, abandon clearly deficient pages to create their next problematic one... Their latest creation, Zilha Parishad Primary School Dharwadi, is a good example: a non notable topic, poor syntax, no sources, ... Basically, they have been a waste of time for many editors (mainly nexw page patrollers), for very little benefit. Fram (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

My take is that they have been ignoring the talk page and editors deliberately, as I think they are just recreating the page back to mainspace when it is moved to draft space, as the content of the articles are just slightly different. Personally, I think they have had enough warnings and if they don't explain theirselves here soon, I wouldn't be opposed to a block to stop them from creating these articles which cause distruption and extra work for new page patrollers. Perhaps a block will be able to get across to them that what they are doing is not ok. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, within 4 days the editor has had 28 notices on their talk page, which were all ignored. There have even been attempts by Fram to not just dump templates, but personalise the message. See User talk:Amitamitdd#Draft. Also they have 4 days ago created a copyvio (Vanan bhau) and in the last 4 days had several other articles they created speedly deleted. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have posted a personalised message on their talk page. I bolded certain text to make it clear they need to respond before they make more edits. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The user didn't reply, continued with the same behaviour, and has now been given a last-chance 48h block by User:Lourdes. Fram (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And now indeffed due to absolute silence. Lourdes 15:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot-like removal of airport destination maps

50.100.243.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – Bot-like mass edits apparently without (or even against) consensus, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airline_destinations_maps for the discussion that appears to be cited incorrectly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The removal doesn't seem to be ongoing anymore. If I see correctly, the user has stopped editing in the same second that I have invited them to the discussion. I think this can be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that this appears to be done in error, shouldn’t this all be rolled back before moving on? The new damage has stopped, but the old isn’t repaired. Qwirkle (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, we may lack consensus or verifiability to re-insert the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Are most unreferanced? At the very least should not be restored with zero refs.--Moxy 🍁 02:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-representative example of a seemingly well-referenced removed map: Special:Diff/898813516 – this may well be an exception. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering many of these maps were added without much support in the first place (discussions was tepid at best and there never really has been agreement that they should be implemented), and that they've been removed before only to be re-added with claims of a consensus that doesn't exist, I see no issue with their removal. Note that there's no mention of including a destination map at the WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guideline. These edits are just bringing the articles in line with the guideline. oknazevad (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Saket Modi

There has been chronic COI promotional editing since at least February. It involves edit wars, sock puppets, and vengeful edits against competitor company article Trishneet Arora (including possibly an old AfD-nomination by sock User:KatyRat). I have attempted communicating on talk pages (article and user) and extended confirmed protection. They ignore communication, edit war and create socks. The currently affected articles are Saket Modi and his company Lucideus. The editor is User:Lucideus15. Apparent active puppets are User:Blackwhite21. -- GreenC 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to be bureaucratic, but sock puppetry should be reported to WP:SPI. Anyway, Lucideus15 and Blackwhite21 are  Confirmed to each other. I'll block them both. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucideus15. Thank you. -- GreenC 14:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute about Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

This maybe should be sent to Arbitration Enforcement. This is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues, as most intractable Wikipedia issues are. A request was made by User:JFG for resolution of an issue about the content of the above contentious article at DRN, naming thirteen editors, with the statement that perhaps moderated discussion would work better than one or more Requests for Comments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

My experience is that moderated discussion doesn't work well for very large numbers of editors, so I wasn't planning to try to mediate it, but left it open for a possible volunteer. A dispute between User:BullRangifer and User:Onetwothreeip then spilled over onto the DRN talk page concerning improper editing of the case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Comments_in_wrong_section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Conduct_issues_about_TPG I didn't attempt to adjudicate the talk page guideline dispute, which is a conduct issue. I closed the content issue as beyond the scope of DRN and as compounded by a conduct dispute (talk page guidelines). I have been asked by User:BullRangifer to address the issue of the editing of DRN. I will try to do so, but in any case administrative attention is appreciated.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Why on earth has this been brought here? I made a simple request for Robert, as the volunteer at DR/N, to do what he has the authority to do. I simply request that he restore a comment which was deleted after replies had been made to it. That's all. There is no need for all this escalation. It's (unintendedly) disruptive because we should avoid the use of drama boards as much as possible. I'm only asking for one simple cleanup edit. That's all. Don't drag me into some big dispute and procedure. I'm only asking Robert to do his job as the volunteer and curator there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the issue of Robert not just settling this very quickly and quietly with one simple edit may need a third party's intervention here.

He has now escalated, rather than defused, the situation by posting notifications to other editors. There is no need for all this drama. One simple edit would resolve this. The volunteer at DR/N has a job, and it often includes such cleanup edits. I've seen it done many times before. Why not now? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In my considered opinion, any talk page discussion would be improved by Onetwothreeip not contributing. @Robert McClenon: Can you identify the the removed content and explain why you think it should not be restored, as requested. cygnis insignis 17:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't identified the talk page content issue and the talk page removed content at this time. I wasn't tracking the content of the noticeboard at the time that the issue arose. I will ask why it is considered so important to correct a messy record of a dispute that didn't go into mediation. The purpose of DRN is to resolve content disputes by moderated discussion. This was a dispute that is beyond the scope of DRN. Why is it so important that I (not having ever agreed to moderate the dispute, and having stated that I did not plan to moderate the dispute) edit or un-edit a transcript of an exchange that resulted in heat and no light? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if it makes everybody feel better, I will edit the transcript within 24 hours, but it isn't going to resolve either the original content issue or the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the situation. Nobody is asking you to moderate or "solve" anything, just requesting that you do the typical janitorial work the volunteer does there all the time. This type of correction has been done by many other volunteers, so I don't understand the problem.

The archived discussion should be correct, and right now it lacks important context because comments were made, and content was struck through, in response to a now-deleted comment. That's not right. 123IP's comment should be restored to its proper place in their own section. If they then object, block them. It's that simple. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: hey, sorry, distracted there for a minute. I think that you got that right, I noticed that 123ip had replied in another section and didn't like haven't that moved to his their own section, so removed it. Which if it was replied to would be not okay in the slightest. I will read through the replies here now and see what is up, but think this could be closed/withdrawn (before you-know-who shows up) cygnis insignis 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's fixed now. This should be closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Okay

Okay, I've tried to deal with the problem of coloring outside the lines that was making children cry. Now, will someone please show me the specific talk page guideline that said that I was supposed to clean up the mess left by quarreling editors? Show me one place where it says that I am not simply allowed to sweep the used coloring books under the rug and put the rug back. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Now, go and take your combination content and conduct dispute to Arbitration Enforcement and let me go back to counting portal views. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

To answer the question, my understanding is that an moderating editor can perform tasks on a page that is only likely to be watched by an "involved party" who may view others as being partial. You did good afaik, and it was what you had put your hand up for. cygnis insignis 19:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all based on nonsense really. All that happened was that BullRangifer made a false and derogatory claim about me, regarding my edits on an article completely separate from the article where we are involved in what could charitably be called a dispute. I responded to them in their own section and they withdrew their claim. On that particular noticeboard, participants are given a section specifically designated for them to write their view of a dispute. BullRangifer could have left my response there, but I would have anticipated it would be removed when they resolved that. For some reason they instead moved my response to my designated section, even though everything in my section is about the dispute itself and not some other article. I subsequently removed that from my section, since it completely did not belong, and BullRangifer sought to edit war over my removal of this from my section, which to be clear was never in my section until they added it there.

Since we are joined here by Cygnis insignis however, now seems to be a good time to raise that this person has been following me to other pages to tell people a range of reasons why they don't like me. I have no idea who this is or why they are doing this, but I haven't been bothered to find out beyond asking them why and getting no meaningful response. Similar behaviour has occurred with two other editors related to this dispute, although not with making reflections upon me like Cygnis insignis has done. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, this is not "nonsense", and no, BullRangifer did not make "a false and derogatory claim". This edit by Onetwothreeip is an obvious violation of talk page guidelines. He has a nasty habit of modifying comments made by other contributors over their objections [268],[269]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for move, can be performed by sysops only

Unprotected by Nyttend. ST47 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Kindly help move Draft:Obrafour to Obrafour since it can only be performed by sysops per protection. Thanks. cc @Rmhermen: →Enock4seth ^(talk) 10:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Now unprotected, so you can move it. Before you move it, could you check something in the article? It mostly speaks of him in the present, but at one point there's a past tense, Obrafour had a unique style of Twi rapping and storytelling. It would help if you could clarify: is this a typo ("had" should be "has"), or did he have this style at one time but has moved away from it? Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thanks for the heads up. Well noted. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 12:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Nikolaneberemed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Nikolaneberemed (talk · contribs · count)

I see only a single article space edit from this user's contributions since 2012, with all activity centered on advocating about questioning the scientific consensus or reliable sources on aspects such as race or sex on talk pages. Here is the the latest example. —PaleoNeonate – 22:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nikolaneberemed seems not here to improve the encyclopedia to me. Still, the editor has been warned and had the situation explained at the Teahouse. Hopefully, that will be enough to stop the rants. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the editor appears to be WP:NOTHERE and I considered bringing that behavior here myself for discussion. I suggest that this thread be closed with a stern warning to Nikolaneberemed and a comment recommending a quick indefinite block if this behavior does not change. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jackmarshall052104 alters result of MFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jackmarshall052104/Sandbox_(2nd_nomination), User:Jackmarshall052104 intentionally altered the !votes in the MFD, in what appears to be a bad-faith effort to game the system of the MFD. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jackmarshall052104/Sandbox_(2nd_nomination)&type=revision&diff=899389139&oldid=899292118&diffmode=source

The fabrication has been reverted. I request a block for the duration of the MFD. It is up to the admin whether this should instead be an indefinite block for not here to be constructive.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

On looking over the history of this editor again, indefinite seems in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That's clearly deliberate deception, and that doesn't fly. Blocked indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Last month (April 2nd), User:GenQuest created Wikipedia:Proposed article splits. Various related articles, such as Wikipedia:Splitting, link to it. The wording of the page confuse me. It appears to have introduced some kind of (new?) process for splitting articles. Only two other editors - one retired - have edited the page. Does it comply with Wikipedia policy/guidelines, is it based on consensus, and is it helpful/constructive? The page is messy too, with its use of bold/underline/italic, and all-caps section headers. I'm pretty sure some kind of action is required here, at the very least a rewrite of the page... --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been split from Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I'm not sure I understand why since that page wasn't particularly large and it's not as if we're inundated with requests to split articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, though ironic, if it's going to be kept anywhere, it should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, and that page restructured to accommodate both. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Hammersoft, so you are saying that splitting was split from mergers and you propose merging splitting with mergers? Sounds good to me. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Seeing as how the split was from a merger merge, splitting from the merge merge when the merge happened because of a split merge...oh screw it I'm lost :) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kidding aside, this project page event was discussed and acted upon by project members following guidelines regarding Wikiproject pages. See the discussion Here. Throughout the process, no project members objected to any moves made by any of us in the evolving creation of a Split Article section/page.

Background: There had historically been no actual set-up for an article splitting discussion noticeboard, and these discussions took place locally on the article talk pages. Due to the fact that the split discussion noticeboard redirected to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, another Merge Project member acting in good faith created a section for Splits on the same page as mergers.

There are logical reasons why I moved the section regarding split article discussions from the merger page:

• 1) Mergers are a consolidation event, taking existing articles and meshing the pertinent content of two or more articles together and perhaps doing a quick follow-up copyedit.
• 2) Splits, on the other hand, involve lengthy discussions regarding what titles an article should be split into, where the split should occur, what the scope of the resultant articles should be, which content belongs where, etc., etc. These are not simple discussions, can get quite detailed, lengthy, often involve gaining consensus on each point, and IMO are best served locally on the article's talk page, and not in a noticeboard format.
• 3) The Proposed mergers page is somewhat cumbersome and periodically gets HUGE — with many articles listed awaiting consensus. Project members know this, especially Richard3120 and Wbm1058, two users that do a lot of the heavy lifting on the project. Adding another "project" discussion area to such a page doesn't make things any easier for us and really doesn't even make sense, as split notification discussions get lengthy, and tend to sit around even longer than old merger proposals, due to the difficulty in actually getting someone to do the split.
• 4) The page was set up with the bolding, capitalization, and other formatting borrowed from the Proposed merger page. There is a reason for that, as those of us that actually work the page(s) on a regular basis find it easier to navigate the wall of words while editing and maintaining these pages. If you really feel the need to rewrite the "confusing" wording or change any formatting on the split page, have at it. No one is stopping you.
• 5) A Split Articles noticeboard if really needed; is deemed necessary; and you have the willing editors to move forward with it; should really be set up as its own project — and not part of Proposed mergers. You should feel free to head up such a project.
• 6) If you really are concerned about the set-up as it currently exists, then please consider joining our project. You can then present input, proposals, whatever at Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers and we can all discuss a way forward. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• p.s.: Not even sure why this is listed here at this page. This could've easily been discussed on the project talk page without the use of a dramaboard. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

Thomas Cook group

The information I add to Thomas Cook Group, TCTO and Thomas Cook Airlines are NOT opinionated and are correctly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airline7375 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not an admin issue - please discuss it on the talk page and seek a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: This is in relation to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Airline7375_on_Thomas_Cook_Group_articles. I believe this user is a UPE based on their edits. shoy (reactions) 16:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That was archived without any response, so you'll need to raise it again here if you think it is still a problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits Suppressed

Suppressed edits are suppressed under suppression policy, and reasons won't be discussed for obvious reasons. Complaints or concerns about misuse may be sent to ArbCom ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Anybody know why almost every edit on this board has been suppressed? Valeince (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I'd guess it was the redaction in this section: [270]. ST47 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC) It was because [redacted]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Fair enough. I thought it was unusual that every edit before about the last dozen or so has been suppressed. Thought it was a mistake, but if it isn't then please disregard. Valeince (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC) When you mentioned it, I was a bit surprised to see a week's worth of edits had been suppressed, but yes, it was on purpose. And now, we should probably WP:DENY any further recognition. ST47 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous

We have had an issue with disruptive editing over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous from 71.82.198.122 for the last few days:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3
• diff 4
• diff 5

The editor, on the talk page, is more interested in attacking other editors instead of addressing content, despite multiple requests to address content. Please take action (e.g. Protect the page from IP edits for a while and warn the user). I have already warned them on their talk page Defendingaa (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The anon editor is pointing out a perceived bias in the article and tries to raise the issue on the TP, pointing out that actual literature presents mixed results. You state, in the first paragraph of your user page that you “owe your life” to AA and live by its “big book”. Are you sure you have a neutral view on AA and aren’t dismissing the IP’s criticism unfairly? Both of you, AFAICT, are at 4RR, so taking a step back and re-evaluating your position may be a good idea. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I can and do welcome editors who make specific changes to the content of the article. Claiming the article is not neutral without specifying why the article is not neutral, but instead attacking the editor instead of the content is not helpful. I welcome you (or anyone else) to come to the article and make updates to its content. Defendingaa (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit history suggests otherwise. You have an admitted pro-AA bias that is reflected in your edits to the article. I pointed out that I am in the field of addiction medicine and that the article was not balanced and thus not in compliance with NPOV. What's the harm in a NPOV tag until the situation is resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.198.122 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am the editor that DefendingAA is referencing. The article violates NPOV, but he/she removes the tag without resolution. Please note Defendingaa history of selective edits of the page and the inclusion of weasel words/original commentary. When confronted with the fact that the NPOV issue is the result of the user's behavior, they deem it a personal attack. I would like NPOV tag to stay up until the issue is resolved and that the user refrain from further edits of the article until there is a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.198.122 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

To repeat what I told the IP on Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous: Thank you, again, for your contributions, and I want you to know you are welcome to make positive contributions to the Wikipedia. Please be aware that professional credentials do not matter here and that it’s important to talk about the content, not about fellow editors. I encourage you to discuss specific issues with the content of the article. Are there studies were are overlooking? Are we misrepresenting any studies out there? If there is original content in the article, where is it, so we can address it? But, the fact of the matter is this: “For the past several years, the addiction research field has moved beyond asking whether AA and 12-step treatment works, to investigating how and why they work”. This in mind, I am removing the NPOV tag again; please, if you wish to put it back, please discuss exactly which specific content of the article is not neutral, instead of talking about the editors editing the article. ... In addition, I should point out that, in light of the IP’s concerns, I have made changes to the article. While I do have a personal point of view on this topic, I do my utmost to make and keep the article neutral, but, it would be nice if more editors besides myself actively edited Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. Defendingaa (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone who's name is literraly "Defending AA" has a hard time selling me on their "neutrality" MPJ-DK (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: I've been editing with Defendingaa for years now. He's not neutral, he's something much better--up front and open about his biases and also generally willing to adjust to accomidate them. This is something I can say for very few editors on Wikipedia who put on airs of neutrality like they're pretending to be Vulcan. All humans are biased. - Scarpy (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sick of the pro-Vulcan lobby holding them up as paragons of neutrality. Ask any Romulan for the truth [271]. EEng 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• 71.82.198.122, putting a generic and unspecific NPOV tag on an article is one of the least effective and irritating things you could do. Putting tags at specific locations is much more effective, but even more effective is taking specific quotes from the article, and discussing how to improve them on the talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Dang right, NPOV tag without details (talk page or in other ways) is like the Wikipedia version of "Where is Waldo" for a color blind person, they may get lucky and fix what someone things is NPOV. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bad language by Prhartcom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think if an editor sends you a pretty normal message, you don't reply to them as "fuck off." Especially if it's been 7 days. Can any of administrators warn this editor, I would if I didn't know they'd react in the same way again. Sebastian James what's the T? 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Although I am not an admin, I warned this user. Masum Reza^📞 09:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Your allegedly "pretty normal" message was patronising to the point where "fuck off" does not seem out of place - and then giving them a templated warning is almost as inflammatory. This is a long-term editor. --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that "fuck off" has been repeatedly upheld as potentially rude, but not uncivil, particularly in usage indicating people should vacate one's talkpage. Given the number of times Sebastian James has been to ANI for their own incivility, and the reason they got the edit summary that they did, they should think about withdrawing this. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Still we must think about other's feelings. Words like these can be pretty offensive to new editors. I gave them a general note warning which is appropriate here. Masum Reza^📞 13:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, a warning for "fuck off" as an edit summary when removing a patronizing template on one's own talkpage is not appropriate here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The word fuck off means go away. It is not a personal attack or even uncivil. I see many Americans use this word (in TV) even politicians etc. Sebastian James, fuck off means go away, it is not a personal attack and it is used in American language a lot.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed; it's not. There was an RFC wherein the resulting consensus basically summarized, as you said, that telling someone to fuck off is not incivil.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The transformation from "X is not necessarily uncivil" to "X is necessarily not uncivil" is very bad. There are times when saying "fuck off" should be viewed as an acceptable response to something. But there are also times when it should not be viewed as an acceptable response. Each one should be viewed on its own merits, and people should stop making the argument "X is not always sanctionable => X is never sanctionable" that is on display here.

(In this particular case: I think using it as an edit summary to remove a condescending message from ones own talk-page is pretty defensible, and so is the comment Masum Reza left.) --JBL (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That "message" was only "pretty normal" if condescension is normal. "Have a nice day"? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Truly, what a world we've come to where "have a nice day" is considered condescending and "fuck off" is considered okay!--WaltCip (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

When it's used in such a smarmy manner as the close to a rude condescending message, yes, it is. Reminds me of this: "What a lot of things you do use Good morning for!" said Gandalf. "Now you mean that you want to get rid of me, and that it won't be good till I move off.”― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit or There and Back AgainBeeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would probably have told you to fuck off if I was left that message, too.--Jorm (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly would have. Although I'm a little bemused that people think "fuck off" isn't uncivil. It's just a kind of understandable incivility when you've been the recipient of passive-aggressive incivility first, just with no naughty words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saint Peter move request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This concerns a move request at Talk:Saint Peter. For background, one move request was closed on May 10 as "not moved" [272] by Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This was the tenth such move request regarding Saint Peter, all of which have been unsuccessful. The move request in question was opened the following day by SelfieCity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and later closed by me as being out of process and too soon after the prior discussion [273]. King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted my closure, instead of taking it to move review. He did this despite having participated in the previous discussion [274] and then voted in favor of a page move in the ongoing discussion [275] following his revert of my close, both of which run afoul of WP:INVOLVED. There is also a related discussion concerning the move request on my talk page. Calidum 18:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note that Born2cycle's closure explicitly said: "I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title." Hence Calidum's premature closure was out of process and unjustified, given that the new RM was doing precisely as the original closer asked. And I disagree that I am involved, given that my action of reverting your close did nothing to further my previously expressed opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You certainly are involved, and should not have been the person to do this. I'm neutral on whether a reversion was a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I opposed the original RM and should be happy for any new RMs to be shut down; I did not research the topic and decide on my !vote in the second RM until after I reverted the close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that we just wait a month here to let the move discussion cool down. Then perhaps, we can reconsider. No-one will die if "Saint Peter" remains "Saint Peter" for another month. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The RM has probably already reached the point where no consensus to change the name can be found, so as long as it's open again then nothing seems harmed by a close that some dispute as robbing Peter to pay Paul and others see as possibly a bit premature but recognizing the trend. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, now it should be left to run. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If a new RM takes place, then I suggest to make a discussion for the 12 apostles, not just St Peter. Either he is changed to "Apostle", or they all get renamed "Saint". T8612 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? That's a terrible idea, and won't happen, and the others wouldn't be renamed if it did. WP:CONSISTENCY is and should be always treated as subordinate to the wider WP:COMMONNAME principles. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Because the other apostles are not named by their most common name, which are St John, St Mark, etc. only St Peter, which gives him a sort of statutory preeminence over the other apostles. T8612 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, he is generally considered the most important of the apostles, and most people refer to him as "Saint Peter". Should we call him "Pope Peter" instead? Rockstonetalk to me! 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think King's actions here are beyond reproach. When a closer specifically states that a second discussion should be held to clarify the consensus, and then someone starts the second discussion according to that guidance, you obviously shouldn't just swoop in and force-close that second discussion with the rationale of "Did you miss the first discussion?" I mean, come on. Really? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• The previous closer crossed the supervote line in recommending, in the close, a new RM using ranked voting. It did not reflect the discussion he closed, does not reflect policy, but reflects his recent radical idea for algorithmic processing of discussions, an anethema to consensus decision making.

I support the very old policy that any admin may revert any NAC, except if the sole reason is the nanadmin status, if the admin is UNINVOLVED. These conditions appear to not be met. King of Hearts is not uninvolved. He must not play both roles of admin and participant in the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that the RM be speedy closed, with any complaints about the RM issues sent to MRV. The INVOLVED admin action by User:King of Hearts should be discussed here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• "I mean, come on. Really?" is about right. If Closer #1 closes Discussion #1 "without prejudice" (however that's phrased), and Closer #2 closes Discussion #2 because it's too soon after Discussion #1, then Closer #2 is effectively just overruling Closer #1, and that's out of process. KoH's edit summary suggests that it wasn't "an admin reverting a NAC" but rather "an editor reverting a bloody-obvious out-of-process close", and thus WP:INVOLVED isn't applicable, and if it is, the exception for straightforward cases applies. The broader point is that if our colleague want to discuss something, like moving a page, who are any one of us to say, "No! You shall not discuss this! I say it is not the right time!" I mean, you're just getting in the way of consensus. Step aside and let your colleagues work. – Levivich 03:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• The second close was a very poor one - the closer explicitly went against the previous close. Yes, it might have gone to a move review, but it should be left open now. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• All three closers/close-reverters were at some fault.

В²C closed Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 17 May 2019 with "I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)"

This is a pretty stupid closing statement, as I told him on his usertalk page. It is not based on policy or the discussion, it flies in the face of ancient convention that following a failed RM, there is a moratorium on a follow-up, something like 2-6 months. There was nothing in that discussion to justify him waiving the moratorium, other than that we know he always argues against moratoria of any kind. This sticking of his new theory into a close tells me yet again that he can't be trusted with closing discussions. He can write this opinion for himself nearly anywhere on a talk page, but not in a closing statement where it has no support from the discussion.

Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 24 May 2019. User:SelfieCity, new Wikipedian, takes B2C's bad advice, and initiates a pretty poor repeat RM nomination. It doesn't speak to the failure of the preceding RMs or why they failed, and simply repeats some old points. SelfieCity was enticed into this by B2C.

User:Calidum speedy closes with "Not moved. Did you miss the discussion right above this closed one day earlier?"

While I !voted "Speedy close", I don't support this close, because there was not enough people calling for speedy close, and without participant support, the speedy close is a contentious close that should not be made by a non-admin, as per WP:BADNAC. Calidum could have !voted "speedy close".

User:King of Hearts reverts the close with (rv close by Calidum: "I suggest a new RM using a multiple choice ranked survey to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title")

Surprisingly, King of Hearts quotes B2C's bad line as if it was an OK line. The revert was either a close-war, or an admin reverting a BADNAC. The second is reasonable, but King of Hearts should make more effort to abide by WP:UNINVOLVED; his 02:00, 21 May 2019 !vote could be explained away, but not his 16:46, 25 May 2019 !vote that for the second time asserts a strong opinion on the topic. A proper action would have been to talk to User:Calidum and take it to WP:MRV if not satisfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the first close. There is nothing remotely resembling a written or unwritten rule that a closer cannot highlight potentially strong support for an alternate proposal that requires additional discussion, and recommend a followup discussion or designate their closure as "no prejudice". Such closures are routine. Suggesting a different discussion can't be held due to some "ancient convention" of a "2-6 month moratorium" is nothing short of absurd. We are not bound to such silly procedural points of order, as a matter of policy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes there is something wrong with an NAC-er supervoting their personal opinions into a closing statement. The close is for summarising the discussion, and it is not an ordinary forum for posting your thoughts. There was nothing in that discussion that implied an immediate relist was a good idea, and discussions elsewhere had rebuffed his new theory of promulgating ranked voting. And the outcome is the proof. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As many will know I'm not a big fan (to put it extremely mildly) of much of B2C's activity on RMs, but I actually don't think this was bad. He initally judged consensus correctly (there was clearly no consensus to move), but having noted that there was reasonable support by some respondents for a move to Peter The Apostle, suggested a ranked survey (italics important) "to help determine if there is consensus to move to any other title". I really don't see a problem with that and I can't imagine that it would have received much of a pushback if it had been made by an admin. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• There's a problem with this article in that editors have persistently blocked a move to WP:COMMONNAME to Peter which outnumbers "Saint Peter" by a ratio of 100-1 in book inline text by counting hits for church buildings. I don't think that problem will be solved by a RM being launched with a ? as the title and complicated vote counts. It should have waited a week for discussion of how to present the vote that editors wanted (for Peter the Apostle) now we have confusion and people citing church buildings as hits again.... So honestly close the whole thing down and chill for a month while a sensible RM is worked out. Then when there's agreement post it and vote yes/no. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Take a breath. Wait a bit. Read the previous RMs. Make a better nomination statement than was made previously. Address the reasons made in opposition previously, don’t just ignore. Immediate half-baked renominations are disrespectful to the previous discussion and drive away the non-obsessive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place, but as you've been told countless times over the years, it is precisely WP:COMMONNAME that keeps the name where it is, as most people rightly reject your highly artificial exclusion of everything but academic biblical studies. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy against starting a new RM right after a previous RM was closed, though there is guidance against doing so in cases where consensus was found in the previous discussion. In this case not only was there no consensus found in the previous RM, but the closer of that RM (yours truly) explicitly suggested a new RM allowing participants to respond by ranking preferences from an array of choices. Now, we can and do disagree on the wisdom of making such a suggestion, but there is no denying it was made. And so a new RM was started accordingly. We can also disagree about the timing and the presentation details of that subsequent RM, which I agree left something to be desired, but I see no basis to boldly close it prematurely, and the revert of that BOLD close seems justified, no matter how involved the reverter was.

Speaking of the timing and presentation of that second RM leaving, well, quite a bit to be desired, I do want to point out how this situation exemplifies the importance of timing and presentation in RMs. Although in this case this RM was proposed by someone who did support it, the importance of timing and presentation is why I think only proponents of a given title change should be allowed to nominate an RM, because only proponents, though still fallible, are motivated to at least try to get the timing and presentation right. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Should_noms_of_RMs_be_required_to_support_their_proposals?.

As to the specific issues about this article title discussed just above, this is not the place for that. That said, while this ANI about that title is open, it would be good to get consensus about what is reasonable in the foreseeable future. I think we can all see that the current proposal will fail. Does that mean there is no consensus to move this article? I honestly don't know. Given the strong opposition to the current title, I think there is room for continued discussion. And in my experience discussion about specific titles does not get much attention unless it's a formal RM (presumably because only as part of a formal RM does the discussion matter to what actually happens). So I would not support any kind of formal moratorium, though I would advise opponents of the current title to have a discussion about what single alternative is best to offer; one that has not been clearly rejected by consensus before. If there is one. --В²C ☎ 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please could an admin look into the edits of this IP. Aside from seemingly only having one word they use as their edit summaries (winner), they also repeatedly add unsourced info to articles despite repeated requests to refrain on their talk page. It should be noted that these were removed by said editor here and here. Thanks. Robvanvee 17:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by NJA. Cheers! Robvanvee 17:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Can’t say what they’re doing makes much sense. There were enough recent notices of their talk page to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing and they did have not. I therefore was comfortable blocking for 36 hours for disruptive editing and encouraged them to use proper edit summaries, sources and talk pages after the block (via block log message). NJA | talk 17:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

NJA, please could you look here. Same guy, same edit summaries and same unsourced changes. Different IP number. Thanks. Robvanvee 18:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the same individual. I have blocked this IP for 31 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Robvanvee 19:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking a little closer, I have now blocked the range 119.94.111.0/24 for a week for the ongoing problem from multiple IPs within this range. If other IPs are involved or if the problem returns after a week, please re-report here or to WP:AIV. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do, thanks again! Robvanvee 04:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LeonardMoney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user has continuously uploaded copyrighted images without license to Wikipedia despite multiple warnings not to do so. They were previously blocked on Commons for this same behavior, which is how they started uploading directly to enwiki instead. In addition to the copyrighted images, most if not all of this user's page creations, including redirect overwrites, have been without sources, often leading to either an A7 speedy deletion, PROD, AfD, or restoration of the previous redirect, all of which has resulted in numerous user's times wasted, myself having wasted the most in making these efforts to stop this user's behavior. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I was about to leave a 'welcome' message on the user's talk page when I noticed this thread had been opened. I don't know any of their history on commons, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but when I looked through their talk page I saw template after template, relating to draftifications, CSD requests, COPYVIO stuff etc - but nobody had actually tried to talk to them. This isn't meant to imply any criticism of you, JalenFolf - I'm one of the people who have templated them myself too when I AfDed an unsourced article about an album. I wonder whether a more personal approach might be helpful in getting them to change their behaviour, before we reach for the block hammer? I'll leave a note now. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours with an advice that they should start clarifying immediately. If they don't respond within 24 hours, I'll increase the block till they start discussing. Lourdes 02:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's see how they respond to personal, non-template messages before doling out extended blocks. And please give them more than 24 hours to respond...many people do not edit Wikipedia every day and it is not realistic to expect people with jobs and families to respond within 24 hours to a talk page message on a website. Wikipedia is not the most important thing in our editors' lives. It's a hobby, not a profession. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There are editors with jobs and families? EEng 00:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Liz. A little patience would be a good thing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's actually important to save Wikipedia of copyright violations immediately rather than give fighting chances to editors who have not replied to any past messages. I don't advocate waiting for more than 24 hours normally, especially for editors with jobs and families who display this kind of irresponsibility to the project. Yet, because it's Liz and the Doctor, I'll wait. Lourdes 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point re copyright violations. I still stand by my position "A little patience would be a good thing" but now with the emphasis being on the word "little". - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes and Liz: Unfortunately, LeonardMoney did not change since the previous block. He's back to creating subjects recently deleted by discussion (See Pagandom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagandom (Band)). Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• When someone's every edit has been either problematical or deleted, and they have a talkpage full of notices, and they have not responded to a single comment or made any talkpage posts, nor have they improved one whit, we generally indef them. They can always appeal the block and start talking. But right now this editor is a liability to Wikipedia and a giant timesink. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hijiri88 repeated harassment and hounding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been dealing with an online Wikipedia bully Hijiri 88. This user has used Wikipedia to WP:HARASS me and has been WP:FOLLOWING me. I told the user to stop communicating with me because the user tracks edits and makes snarky comments like this in edit summaries: Here Admits my talk page was on his watch list here The user has now reported me for copyright violations as he had earlier threatened to do. I am asking that this user be blocked for repeated harassment. If the user is not blocked I would like an IBAN which should include a ban on communication/harassment/condescension in the user’s edit summaries. And of course I would like the user to discontinue following my edits.

As an editor if I see or make copyright violations I correct them. But Hijiri 88 admists to “Compiling evidence” in regard to my edits. This goes against WP:AGF Hijiri 88 has stated that Hijiri 88 been tracking my edits WP:FOLLOWING for the purpose of “Compiling evidence” to start a case against me for copyright issues which have been corrected already. Per WP:FOLLOWING from Wikipedia guidelines - “Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.”

Hijiri 88 is WP:HOUNDING and has been WP:TENDENTIOUS. The user also took me to ANI. took me to ANI and on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hijiri88#Freinds user’s talk page]. Hijiri 88 has told me to "(ask Rochelimit what happens when a good-faith editor says they are learning but then a few months later gets lazy and goes back to plagiarizing)." To me – (Hijiri 88) who is clearly following me taking notes to cause me distress: while being tendentious in areas where I contribute and in edit summaries… it reads like a threat.

The editor has been cherry picking my edits (which were long ago corrected - Many from the present Bengal cat article) Then Hijiri 88 compiles them on a list in their sandbox, Every one of the old edits and copyvios have been corrected either by me or by other editors. It is WP:HOUNDING to go through a user’s edits to get evidence for some “Gotcha” moment.

I found myself on the other side of many ivotes in regard to Hijiri88, particularly in Afd's and I tried not to respond to behavior from Hijiri 88 which I saw as baiting or condescension, however I became frustrated at one point after this user's tendentious editing and told Hijiri 88 to get out of the basement and take a walk. So Hijiri 88 immediately took me to ANI After the ANI was speedy closed but I went to the user's talk page to apologize and say that I want to look for areas that we can agree. Eventually that exchange ended with friction.

There were times when the editor specifically called me out like this time, for some perceived slight to another editor, and still I did not respond. I have questioned the WP:CONSENSUS deletions of several articles through deletion review and that also seemed to draw the ire of this user. The user was WP:TENDENTIOUS in my Deletion reviews Here.

I participate in the Article Rescue Squad which I see as a worthwhile project. From the posts this user has made on the Rescue Squad page and from comments made to me, the user is not a fan of the rescue squad. The user considers posting in that forum “Canvassing”. However the page is a call to improve an article that may be worthy of saving. Recently the article on Richard Haine was saved by the rescue squad. Hijiri 88 was adamantly against the article until the nomination was withdrawn and the article afd was a WP:SNOW keep.

One of the major problems with responding to spurious claims and harassment from Hijiri88 is that it takes time…it also takes the joy out of contributing here. Editors want to see evidence with “diffs” and links. Frankly this short response has taken a significant amount of time. Whatever shortcomings I have as an editor - I hope I make up for by being a hard working contributing editor. I endeavor to be the best Wikipedia editor I can be, and I quickly change any copyright violations which occur.. I do not “Compile evidence on other editors” as this is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. The editor claims that blanking my talk page is done to ignore and go about repeating copyright issues: this is not the case… However once I receive the message I am free to remove anything from my own page, after all it is my talk page. See WP:USERPAGE and WP:BLANKING

I know that editors will evaluate these situations and circumstances in regard to the activities of Hijiri 88 as it relates to activities which occurred in relation to my complaints. I also understand that other editors will look for WP:BOOMERANG since I have taken this action. I am willing to risk that in order to end the harassment, following and threatening behavior.

This user/editor has engaged in online behavior which runs contrary to Wikipedia’s stated goals many times.

• Here
• Here**Here
• and other issues Here
• Here
• And violated a self imposed block

I ask that the editors block Hijiri 88 since the pattern of harassment, hounding, threats and tendentious editing is ongoing. It seems clear that prior warnings to Hijiri 88 have not caused any meaningful change in behavior. Lubbad85 (☎) 04:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You wrote all of that but could not figure out it goes at the bottom, you misformatted the section heading, and failed to sign your username? El_C 04:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Lubbad85 (☎) 04:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And it's still not at the bottom, and the section heading is still misformatted. Can you not fix this yourself? — do you need me to do this for you? Because that does not inspire confidence, I'm sorry. El_C 04:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my formatting issues Lubbad85 (☎) 04:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to badger you, but: [f]rankly this short response has taken a significant amount of time. This is not short! El_C 04:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has been brought to ANI several times and I'd like to see his response to your charges. Your report is longish and could be more concise. Let's hear from more editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment- most of these diffs are either completely benign or not related to Lubbad85 at all. But I'd like to hear more about these copyright violations, to know if scrutinising Lubbad85's edits was a good idea or not. Reyk _YO! 05:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've generally been strongly critical of Hijiri88's tendency to get into disputes with other editors in a way that tends to end up on ANI several times, as well as their apparent tendency to continually bring up editors who they were in disputes in the past who were blocked. But for once, I'd have to strongly side with Hijiri88 barring some finding that the copyright concerns were completely without merit. And even then, I'd probably allow it as a once off. Copyright violation are very serious. And we have very limited ability to AGF since plenty of people act in good faith but simply do not understand copyright so make persistent violations. Even when they try their best, they still make persistent violations. And unlike more minor possible behavioural violations, copyright is something where barring ibans I don't think it's every appropriate that an editor should just let it be an wait for someone else to take care of it. (After concerns have been raised and others are looked in to it, it could be appropriate for someone to let it go if they've been in continual disputes with the editor concerned.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• My only response will be to say I have not been brought to ANI a lot recently. One thread in January is neither a lot, nor recent, and virtually all the editors who filed frivolous ANI threads on me back in 2015 and earlier have long since been sitebanned. Lubbad didn't like me scrutinizing his edits for copyvio, and has been intermittently harassing me over the past few weeks despite being warned to stop.[276] I have no intention of reading or responding to the above wall of text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I initially misread Liz's comment as saying I had "been brought to ANI several times recently". Sorry for the misunderstanding. The statement that I've been brought to ANI several times is, on its face, true, but only if one goes back four years or so, and then if one takes an objective look at what came out of those threads it clearly has nothing to do with what's going on here. Anyway, my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.

As for copyvio: If I were just throwing a copyvio accusation out at Lubbad to smear him because he's my enemy, that would be one thing, but he's not my enemy (I actually made a sincere attempt to mend fences with him, and offered to help him edit Wikipedia without violating copyright, but he refused) and the copyvio is, in my sincere belief, very real, hence why I filed the CCI. If it turns out I am wrong about the copyvio (here's the evidence -- I'll let it speak for itself), then I will sincerely apologize for wasting the community's time with the CCI filing, and for hurting Lubbad's feelings as I apparently have done -- but CCI is quite clear that filing a CCI, even if in error, is not harassment if it is done in good faith.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support I would definitely support removing him from the site immediately. While the points he makes in his defense are somewhat legitimate, Lubbad has provided a heap of proof against Hijiri. Letting the conflicts go on would only have the matter brought back time and time again to AN/I or other related noticeboards. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 12:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrable violations of copyright are light-years beyond "somewhat" legitimate, and undercut any number of "heap[s] of proof". Grandpallama (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that sort of heavy-handed response is not gonna happen. El_C 15:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comments: This user, Hijiri88 already has six IBANs with other users.

1. Tristan Noir
2. Catflap08
3. TH1980
4. John Carter
5. Darkknight2149
6. Dream Focus
7. I am requesting a seventh IBAN in regard to Hijiri88, if this user is not blocked.

From my experience user Hijiri88 hounds the members of the Article Rescue Squad – of which I am a supporter. User Hijiri88 regularly makes confrontational posts there: One can just scroll through the repeated hounding/abrasive comments on most entries. A look at the user history of Hijiri88 will reveal that the user has friction with many members of the article rescue squadron. I will not call out the other members of the ARS but readers may look at the history of Hijiri88 on that page and make their own conclusions.

The user meant for me and others to see the very public sandbox/sub page. The user made mention of it several times both in the ANI Hijiri88 put forward and during my apology thread after the ANI. The user began compiling evidence of my old edits on April 16, So the information has been in public view for 43 days, and in fact it is still there. The evidence was not gathered for purposes of a "dispute resolution process" per the guidelines on Wikipedia. The evidence was compiled for a "Gotcha"

Per WP:UP#POLEMIC "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." I am confident that any copyright errors have been corrected and I submit that Hijiri88's CCI report against me is separate from this report of the user's harassment.

It is not honest for the Hijiri88 to say they apologized. I apologized in an attempt to get along after telling the user to, "get out of the basement and take a walk." I then discovered that the user was "compiling evidence" of my old edits in public view and WP:FOLLOWING me without good intentions. Since the user has been allowed to repeat this behavior over and over without an effective sanction - perhaps the block is the right action. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I am confident that any copyright errors have been corrected and I submit that Hijiri88's CCI report against me is separate from this report of the user's harassment. I'm not confident of any such thing, since my uninvolved read of this is that you're clearly engaged in some retaliatory filing because you've been caught repeatedly violating copyright. Grandpallama (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sanction the filer. Repeated copyright violations can and should be grounds for an indef. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Spot checks going back to May 10 reveal no new copyright issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

[277] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I should probably point out how much of what Lubbad has been writing is devoted to my IBANs with other editors, including several that were imposed at my request to protect me from hounding, and two IBANs that were dissolved at my request[278][279] years before Lubbad even registered an account (!?), leaving me unable to defend myself in any detail even if I were so inclined. This is a really minor issue (a new user with poor English abilities making good-faith mistakes and violating copyright, me offering to help and being shot down, and me filing a CCI so the community can handle it and I don't have to) and I'm frankly surprised this thread wasn't speedy-closed. If someone wants to indef Lubbad for his repeated, unapologetic copyvio, that'd suit me fine, but why is this thread even still open when "soft" copyvio blocks ("Convince us you understand your mistakes and won't repeat them and we'll unblock you") are a simple matter that any solo admin can perform, and that's the only possible formal sanction that could result from this thread? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I do have a bit of sympathy for the filer since I've been in exactly one argument with Hijiri88, I have no idea what the argument was about, but I have a memory of it being one of the more unpleasant experiences I've had on the site. That being said, I think a boomerang is entirely warranted if action were to be taken - the relevant diff here appears to be a list of good faith copyvios against the filing parties, with a lot of other diffs that are completely irrelevant and a bunch of unrelated hubbub. Perhaps the copyvio list is retaliation for a personal attack, but copyvios are incredibly serious. I don't recommend any action here, but as noted, if one were to be taken, I would support a boomerang. SportingFlyer T·C 05:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ongoing bullying behavior from Hijiri88. The editor continues to be combative and denigrating. On the most recent Article Rescue Squad’s work to improve the Trace Bundy article. Hijiri88 visited the Afd May 31st, to insult the editors who voted to keep.

The editor tracks the ARS and to show Hijiri88's very real disdain for Article rescue Squad – Hijiri88 made a userbox to represent this on April 30.

On May 28, Hijiri88 also created a userbox to mock my "try to do the right thing" userbox

The user is still WP:FOLLOWING me and now reverted one of my edits. Since I asked the user not to have communication with me, this editor antagonizes me by reverting this edit and then speaking to me in the edit summary (as if I did not know that I used a primary source). This is an album article which will likely be deleted since it has no sourcing. I wrote as much on the afd I was attempting to find sources for the article, and sometimes I use a primary as a placeholder for secondary research. In any event all are welcome to see my edits and my sourcing. Also to see that I do not follow this editor or mock/revert/antagonize.

Wikipedia editors should foster a collegial atmosphere. Hijiri88 continues to create an atmosphere which creates friction and confrontation. I ask the administrators to consider either blocking Hijiri88 or enforcing an IBAN. I regret that these fractious incidents steal valuable time from the real work on Wikipedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Notice also the one editor who voted on the ANI in support of my request is now getting followed and reverted by Hijiri88. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

When a disruptive editor makes a disruptive comment in a discussion one is following, it's natural to check their contributions to see if they have been similarly disruptive elsewhere. On a quick scan I didn't find the same kind of disruption, and the edit I reverted was not "similarly" disruptive, but reverting it was definitely a net positive for the encyclopedia. I can assure you that as long as EggRoll97 doesn't continuously push for me to be "removed from the site immediately" after this thread is closed and you are given a final warning over the copyvio and your harassment and personal attacks against me, or blocked, or issued with a one-way IBAN, or whatever, I have no intention of "following" them further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the correct diff is here: the "do the right thing" userbox has been on my page since August 2016. And there is the bogus "seven IBANs" thing above (the actual number is more like two, and going back to my interactions with editors in 2012 is seriously disturbing and creepy). The user began compiling evidence of my old edits on April 16, So the information has been in public view for 43 days, and in fact it is still there. is completely bogus, as the diff provide clearly dates to May 16, and I had already filed the CCI before this thread was opened. Virtually everything else Lubbad has written here is similarly disruptive and misrepresentative (I did get around to reading it due to a boring train ride yesterday, but there's no way I'm gonna dignify it with a point-by-point rebuttal). Given this continued disruption despite multiple editors telling him to knock it off, and the fact that there's no reason to believe it won't just get worse when there's not an open ANI thread, I would like to formally request that Lubbad be issued a final warning about harassment and personal attacks, including groundless accusations, and immediately and indefinitely blocked on the next infraction. It would be one thing if his content edits were good, but it seems that every single one of his non-minor article edits is a copyvio or a quotefarm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang with extreme prejudice. Copyvio is a very serious matter and until and unless the OP can demonstrate they understand what they have been doing wrong and what measures they intend to follow to prevent a recurrance they have no place in this project. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There is an active CCI against me started by Hijiri88 - we will see what comes of it. As I will point out in this paragraph Hijiri88 does not really understand what a copyright violation is. Copyright violation reporting is a useful tactic Hijiri88 has been using lately against his perceived enemies. Here the editor threatened another active member of the ARS with copyvio reporting. and another member of ARS here. And here the editor proves that he does not really know what a copyright violation is - and he calls me creepy - here the editor goes back seven years to use copyvio as a weapon. And here. and here Anyone is free to see the articles I have started and search for copyright violations. You can also see that Hijiri88 has five active IBANS and more beyond that which expired. Hijiri88 says: "I can assure you that as long as EggRoll97 doesn't continuously push for me to be removed from the site immediately after this thread is closed and you are given a final warning over the copyvio... I have no intention of following them further." In other words, unless Hijiri88 gets his way and EggRoll97 stays quiet, he WILL follow them further. I know we all have wasted much time, but I encourage editors to do what user:A little blue Bori did, and spot check my edits. Hijiri88 cries copyright violations as a weapon. I am asking for the administrators to stop a bully with a proven track record of bullying, and threatening and following. I endeavor to be a collegial Wikipedian. I have shown here on this ANI that the user is a bully, and that I am not. I have wasted a lot of time combating the bully and the misinformation. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

All of the above is completely untrue, and predates any interaction I had with Lubbad by anything between several months and several years. Neither Favre1fan93 nor Adamstom.97 are "active member[s] of the ARS", and their own copyright problems have no relationship to this dispute. This troll is clearly stalking me. When is someone gonna block him? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd say you've been stalking each other. And please do not refer to other editors as "trolls" — descending to personal attacks isn't in anyone's best interests. El_C 03:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict x2) @Lubbad85: I'm not sure you understand, first, how serious copyright violations actually are, and second, that digging up diffs completely unrelated to this case aren't helpful. In terms of your challenge, Christopher Kaelin came up as a copyvio on Earwig because of the overuse of a primary block quote, similar to what Hijiri 88 removed in the earlier edit, which I also would have done - I've now removed that. Dick Bacon was also flagged as a copyvio by Earwig for non-blockquote reasons, so I have to go back adn fix that. Earwig came back unlikely on John Trevena (lawyer) but flagged a quote that I don't think has any business being in the article. Matteo Mancuso was flagged as unlikely but Earwig flagged a bunch of prose that needs to be rewritten. That's three out of four with at least some copyvio issues, a terrible look. I haven't looked at the other ones. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer A blockquote properly quoted and referenced will always alert earwig. I do understand, how serious it is and and so does Hijiri88 which is why the editor weaponizes the complaint. You have erased a properly referenced blockquote because it was primary source material, not because it was copyvio. So I think I have said enough on this thread. I have been reported to CCI by this editor, but this is about a pattern of serious harassment. I yield to the admins. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW I don't think Lubbad need be blocked for the copyvio at this stage. He received a few template warningthat I think mentioned the possibility of being blocked (I haven't the inclination to go back and check), and he did receive a fairly pointed warning from me in the above-quoted reference to the Wikipedia Asian Month 2016 and 2017 runner-up, but it's pretty clear he doesn't like me and isn't going to listen to advice/warnings that come from me, so this ANI thread is essentially the first substantial warning he's received about what will happen to him if he keeps plagiarizing text. My not wanting to see him blocked was what brought me to CCI rather than ANI. I didn't even want to see him blocked for the personal attacks and harassment seen at the top of this thread. It's only the continued doubling down on the harassment and personal attacks in the last ten hours or so in spite of the backlash he'd already seen that has convinced me he won't let up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hijiri, again I can't escape the thought that you enjoy this. I think it is foolish on your part to dedicate so much time to this ANI thread, and that you continue to interact with this editor. I'm not saying you're hounding them, but I am saying that there are many other editors on Wikipedia who are capable of handling these issues; you should be the last one to take this on, because you give the impression that you are latching on to something, and that they have a point. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Lubbad85, apart from your longish report that contains tooooo much pinging to Hijiri, I don't know why you had to ping each time you mention Hijiri in a single comment، the diffs that you provided don't account as hounding. If anyone wants to know the context see User_talk:Hijiri88#Friends. Hijiri was deleting or removing copyright violations done by Lubbad even these old copyvio edits but Lubbad85 didnt like this and I find signs that Lubbad85 voted here and here just to oppose Hijiri vote. this ANI report was an another way to revenge. Lubbad doesn't seem to know how bad is a copyright violation. They also uploaded a non-free orphan image to Wikipedia just two days ago which.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam Thanks for the comments. I certainly over-pinged. Good point! Regarding - Hijiri They Definitely were not deleting or removing copyright violations. Just making a list to WP:HARASS - we will see what comes of it. Regarding the TWO votes that you have claimed that I voted only to oppose Hijiri. I am active on the Article Rescue Squad, and both of those articles were listed there. In fact in the one article for Richard Haine, I voted before Hijiri and was the one who posted the article on the ARS. That article was WP:HEY - really excellent work by the ARS! I hope that helps explain things. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - after taking a look at Hijiri's evidence for the CCI and doing a bit of brief checking into Lubbad's editing history its clear the hounding and bullying accusations are misplaced. Yes when an editor becomes the focus of someone going over their editing history with a fine-toothed comb it can feel like they are being bullied, but the easy way to avoid that is to not edit problematically - and Lubbad's editing has plenty of examples of problems that need to be addressed, probably one of the more serious being their tendency to copy and paste verbatim from sources. This discussion should have gone like below:

"An editor is harrassing me"

"Why are they harrassing you?"

"They say I am doing X"

"You are doing X, stop doing it and they will go away"

This is just another report in the 'someone is interfering with my ability to edit however I want regardless of policy' category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 Cban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Enough is enough, the multiple IBANS show a significant problem with how this user interacts with the community which needs to be fixed. Until this happens, we need to show conclusively that this behavior is not tolerated. Thunderchunder (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Thunderchunder (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nice 21st edit to Wikipedia there. SportingFlyer T·C 03:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. On that note, Thunderchunder, please consider that no one is going to take such a draconian proposal seriously from someone who has so little experience on our project. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just gonna point out that the above new account is clearly either a NOTHERE troll or a sock of some user with a grudge against me who may or may not already be sitebanned, and either way is begging to be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I know you posted this before the comment above by Drmies at 03:49, 1 June 2019. However, that comment applies double to the above. I agree with those who say that repeated copyvios are totally unacceptable, but your frequent commentary is unnecessary and counter-productive. It makes onlookers think your opponents might have a point. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I second Johnuniq's and Drmies's sentiments. Although you are usually right on the substance of these disputes, it does look like you're way too eager to pick fights with people. I think you ought to dial it back a little. Reyk _YO! 08:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and incivility by User:DragonKing22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DragonKing22 This user is repeatedly showing incivility to other editors. They were blocked from editing for the same reason by User:Ad_Orientem (diff). In response to the blocking template, they promised that it won't happen again. Ad Orientem unblocked them. A month later, User:Laser brain warned them for blanking contents. His response was this. On February 14th an IP editor asked or requested him something politely here to which they responded in a very incivil manner. The IP editor's response was this. Earlier this month, User:Drmies warned him for disruptive editing. Again their response was very incivil. Also cursing someone to have them dead isn't something I would call polite. They are definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. Masum Reza^📞 09:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have a recent incident to report? Your most recent diff is from May 5th. ST47 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  @ST47: All of the diffs posted here are from their talk page history. Probably there's more like this in their contributions. Just because they lost his job three years ago doesn't mean they can behave like this. Harrasing a good faith editor isn't something that is appreciated. This might discourage new editors from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides a safe environment for new users and it is a collaborative project. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Masum Reza^📞 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  Masumrezarock100, "they lost his job three years ago" is that something he/she revealed by themself? I think what DragonKing22 said deserve an indef block and they should be able to request an unblock--SharabSalam (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  @SharabSalam: Yes they revealed it in this diff. Masum Reza^📞 14:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that, due to the several weeks that have passed since the most recent incident, a block would not be appropriate at this time. However, User:DragonKing22 should be aware that they are on their very last leg, and that if there are any further civility issues, that they will result in a substantial block. They seem to be off-wiki at this time, so let's wait and see how they respond. ST47 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Well that's charming. Below, we establish that "fuck off" is not uncivil--but DragonKing22, "FUCK YOU MOTHERFUCKER DROP DEAD" is something completely different, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• They were handed their second block for gross incivility back in November, which was lifted when they offered a sincere-looking apology. Less than a month later and immediately below that apology they left this response when they were warned about blanking a page inappropriately. Two months later an admittedly odd request from an IP was met with "do it yourself you jackass!" And then of course we have the lovely response to the lovely Drmies above. And it's not just the incivility: the incivility is in response to good-faith users trying to notify them about ongoing and persistent problems with their editing which they're refusing to address, so the rude outbursts are just icing on this cake. So, I think I'll not wait for an explanation here. They can try with another unblock request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M25 motorway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to improve the quality of this article and was reverted by having it called vandalism: [280]. Do I really have to put up with this? Op47 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Op47: First, this isn't the right place for this. Try Ritchie333's talk page if you must. Second, Ritchie333 is a long-standing admin, so good luck getting anyone to side with you. I can't judge the quality of the edit because not being British, I know nothing about the M25. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

By my eye it does not look like vandalism. I don't know if it is right or wrong, but it appears to be good faith, and Ritchie has been here long anough to know the difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Op47, assuming that the 2km slipway being discussed is [281] (OpenStreetMap), then it does indeed run between the M25 and the A217 (ie. the article was correct as-was, and Ritchie333 was correct to revert). —Sladen (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I made the change to make it run between the M25 and A217. It was reverted to make it run between the M25 and M23 Op47 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies Op47,the diff had been mistakenly read backwards. Can see the frustration now…; hopefully Ritchie333 will be willing to **self-revert** and retract the edit statement. For future reference, please try to exhaust discussion on the relevant talk page (Talk:M25 motorway#Longest slip road) prior to escalating—then the prior discussion can easily be linked to. —Sladen (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Did you discuss this first? No? Then what's it doing here?

You've made two very minor edits here, one correct (it's J8, the A217) and one clearly wrong, which you're trying to justify by resort to WP:OR (and you're still wrong). I don't know why Ritchie is quite so annoyed here, usually in such cases there's backstory the rest of us haven't seen, but I can neither explain nor excuse their response. However you need to discuss this with them, not jump straight to ANI.

Like the M25, watch out for the way BOOMERANGS circle back on themselves too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not "ripe" for ANI and that direct discussion with Ritchie should've been tried first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NLT second opinion requested at Parler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like another admin's opinion about whether this edit by DonLarson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an actionable legal threat. "This events are also being reported on the Presidents new social media bias program" sounds like a reference to an "external governmental process" to me, but it might be something completely made up.

While we're at it, I'd also like another admin to review whether it was appropriate for me to apply autoconfirmed protection to Parler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article I created, after an influx of promotional edits by IPs and new accounts. Any admin is free to change the protection settings as they see fit. Judging by the talk page messages, some sort of external campaign seems to be going on, so more eyes by experienced users on that article would be welcome. Sandstein 06:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a legal threat, but it sure sounds like a competence issue to me. At the very least, they should be topic-banned until they demonstrate an understanding of what we're here to do as Wikipedians. As for your autoconfirmed flagging, endorse as a useful application of WP:IAR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

For those who didn't know, it looks like the "program" refers to this exercise (warning - probably a biased fake news site according to some), which is "for information gathering only". It seems like the equivalent of complaining via Twitter, or writing a complaint to your MP, so I wouldn't call it a legal threat. No complaints about the semi-protection. It looks like a magnet -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if actionable, but certainly some kind of Epistemophobia! Thunderchunder (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• (very not admin) I do not think it is a legal threat. The protection was warranted. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1RR restriction violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SNAAAAKE!! (talk · contribs) was placed on a 1RR restriction as part of their unblock conditions. Yesterday/today they violated this multiple times over.

The violation itself is pretty clear cut, but I wanted to get an uninvolved admin to handle it, as I’ve had disputes with the editor myself, and especially considering their extensive block log. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Will make it clear to the user that this is their last chance. El_C 22:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I was just now made aware of the issue - it happened rather quickly. Granted, SNAAAKE!! has had issues in the past but to my knowledge, it has been over a year since he has been involved in an edit war situation and has not violated anything else to my knowledge. He is a proficient editor - an excellent contributor in topics related to Arthurian Legend and various game character designs. I'm thinking perhaps he has forgotten about 1RR since it has been a tad over a year ago that it was imposed. I am asking for leniency in this matter as he has made progress over the past year, and is a valuable contributor to the project. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all in the context of years. But at any rate, I think this is leniency and, I'm sorry, but you can't simply forget you have a mandatory 1RR restriction applied to your account. Such a lapse in memory was not a consideration when blocking. The mentorship and progress made were weighed, however. So I chose not to go with an indef — even though that was the last block applied a year ago. El_C 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t initially going to come here, but his reaction to my initial mention of this was of no remorse, and it was more than just one revert over his restriction... Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(2xec) But he went over 3RR too. With that many previous edit warring blocks, do you think he forgot about 3RR as well? (And did you really just call EL C's block a "hair trigger" block on SNAAAKE's talk page?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, El C, it is much appreciated. Flo - yes, 29 minutes seemed rather expedient for AN/I...at least, that is how it appeared to me at first. This is not 3RR or AE. I apparently have a different perspective regarding the value of quality contributors to the project when it comes to encyclopedic accuracy vs behavioral issues and edit warring to keep inaccurate information out (I have not studied the material since this is a conduct issue and not a content issue), which I (admittedly) tend to be more lenient toward. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because you write well, that means you can disregard your editing restrictions whenever you want? Am I parsing your reasoning correctly here? Valeince (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, when a report seems clear-cut to an admin, they are not obligated to wait for further discussion in order to act. Don't let various endless ANI discussions confuse you about that. At the event, it took me a lot less than 30 minutes to evaluate and act on this. I'm just as swift when it comes to AN3, sometimes to my own detriment, although not usually when it comes to AE. El_C 23:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

On one hand, I think we could extend a little leniency on the 1RR restriction; maybe a user does forget that he's under a certain restriction. But "no edit-warring" is a basic policy around here, one with which anyone with 7+ years of editing should be familiar. This wasn't a 3RR violation (there were four edits spread out over 30 hours), but it's easily blockable edit-warring, and when you've accumulated 2½ months of edit-warring blocks, you can't claim forgetfulness. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Pirate Bay official URL - possible linkspam or malware attack

42.3.52.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Got a problem here: From Talk:The Pirate Bay "Re this edit: the "official url" template is currently redirecting to https://tea0539.blogspot.com/p/the-pirate-bay_17.html which is most definitely not thepiratebay.org. There are characters in Chinese (Green Tea News according to Google Translate). I'm not sure why this is happening and would welcome suggestions on this. Anyway, we can't link to something that is obviously not the official url." Please could the article be semi-protected until this is fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The same user has also done this at xHamster.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also happening at 1337x and several IPs repeatedly changing the underlying data at WikiData. O3000 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is why enwiki shouldn't rely on the spam-prone {{Official website}} parameters from Wikidata. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Posted about this on WD:AN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've put some semi/PC on the Pirate Bay page. As noted, this is not the only article affected. Any Wikidata or meta admins might want to help out with some blocks and blacklisting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't rely on Wikidata for this type of official site. By "this type" I mean the kind of legally ambiguous (or unambiguously illegal in some cases) site that winds up switching domains regularly. There are a whole lot of efforts to trick people, hijack, duplicate, etc. The dark net drug markets get a ton of spam, which can be even harder to detect as in addition to the official site frequently changing, the url is a mostly random collection of characters so it can be hard to tell one from another. (of course, whether we should be including any such url at all is a separate conversation). For the safety of our readers, we need to have tight control over urls likely subject to abuse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should be using wikidata for anything. Reyk _YO! 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I hear ya. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: If only you would let a WD admin like me know first before you write off the project's ability to fight spam. Semi-protection is all that's needed here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: A fair response. The issue isn't that Wikidata has no defense against vandals, though. I like Wikidata and see it as having a ton of potential, including developing mechanisms to protect against problematic edits. When it comes to fighting vandalism right now, though, enwiki is really very good most of the time, with lots of people and lots of tools that I just don't think Wikidata has yet. For example, if someone becomes autoconfirmed (a low barrier) and edits the url on Wikidata, how many people see it? If it's changed on enwiki, 617 people have the page watchlisted. A semi-protected Wikidata item may be more protection than many projects currently have, but it just makes less sense for sensitive content than a page 617 people are watching. Unless it's full protected, but I doubt anyone really wants that (I suspect you'd hear objections from those who see having material on Wikidata too much of a barrier to editing Wikipedia). Something that could work is that for particularly sensitive and/or likely vandalism targets, perhaps there's a way to full protect/lock just that statement? Or, more broadly, to lock anything that's actively in use by templates on another project, with something stronger than semiprotect on it? I'm just spitballing now, I suppose, in a way that's probably not suited to ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The WD community is quite distrustful of pegging any local access of any sort to the actions of another community (on the principle that we are not bound by the policies of other projects). Our autoconfirmed threshold is significantly higher than Wikipedia’s for a reason, and we also are pretty good with making abuse (edit) filters for this purpose. Anyone who is this concerned about these popular items should request that I protect them, not merely complain that we don’t do as much about the problem—especially as we have more items to watch over than articles here and more edits in 7 years than this wiki has had in 18 (yes, Wikidata has surpassed Wikipedia’s size in those metrics).—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This incident has made me wary of allowing parameters in enwiki articles to be changed on Wikidata. The problem is that enwiki editors may not be watching everything that happens over at Wikidata. Template vandalism is a serious problem, and templates on enwiki often have full protection so that IP or newly autoconfirmed users cannot vandalize them. I always remember this incident in 2015 which led to media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The quality of vandal fighting at Wikidata? The Wikipedia:Editing policy (and the same at 28 other wiki languages) isn't called the same at Wikidata. No, since 16 November 2018 the name of the page in English has been "stupid prick" instead[282]. Three days ago it also got an English description: "décription".[283]. Looking at "recent" changes in articles, since two days a fang is described as "a big ugly thing with a christmas tree"[284]. This is two days old. Jenna Marbles has grown 4 feet[285].

Since nearly a week, at the top of Sony Pictures hack enwiki displays (in those environments that still show the Wikidata description) the subtitle "Kim Jong-un", caused by this. We get serious BLP violations through this method, e.g. Trevor McMillan is said since 13 May to "Cuts staff while spending money on new buildings "[286].

Oh, and Ammonia production has a vandal title at Wikidata since 2013[287]. No, I don't really trust Wikidata or its capability to handle vandalism. Fram (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It seem the spam of another blog in wikidata Cathay Pacific (Q32141) is related. Despite the url is different, it had the same "author" (pseudonym) 绿茶新闻. Matthew hk (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And then for the wikidata off-topic. May i had a templated warning in wikidata? So far i "handwritten" my own message to communicate with the vandals in English, but just like sister project wiki-common, they had templated warning plus some translation that can switch immediately . Can i had that system in wikidata ? Matthew hk (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There should be serious consideration to a moratorium on using {{Official website}} on enwiki. It is hard to keep a constant eye on what this link actually does when clicked, something that the vandals/spammers on Wikidata have already spotted. The high profile articles on enwiki are monitored and the problem with The Pirate Bay was noticed quickly, but other articles may be less lucky. Alternatively, Wikidata could make changing the official URL a feature available to administrators only.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem of wikidata itself, is there was even higher tech nerd barrier to edit it. I had to keep asking which Q is applicable to which P. And then lots of bot edit are wrong. I have to fix ill in zh-wiki as the redirect of related topic, does not mean it is the alias of the article. I have to create box in box in box entry for a complex business group, but sometimes i just bold not to split the entry when there is just the change in legal person and throw two Bloomberg id into the same wikidata entry. For obvious reason i don't think such a complex database need to be allow ip to edit. Definitely not enough admin is another small problem. Way more problem on too many troll ip edits that i seldom saw a good non-vandal edit by ip over there, way much worse that en-wiki that ip most of the time can assume good faith. Matthew hk (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: The Foundation will never allow us to blanket restrict IP's from editing, however, we recently got consensus to implement a blanket semi-protection policy for items being used on a certain number of pages. What number is not decided, but there was consensus: wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/semi-protection_to_prevent_vandalism_on_most_used_Items. One feature I have been meaning to request is a statement-granular form of protection, but I haven't yet.

In the meantime, anyone with serious concerns about it should simply add Wikidata changes to their watchlist. Patrolling it is no harder than here when yo udo that.

It is also wrong that Wikidata has "a higher tech nerd barrier to edit it". Your perspective is unrepresentative since you are accustomed to editing here. To the contrary, in IRL meetups, new users find Wikidata more intuitive to edit owing to its use of a GUI that is simpler than the arcane template syntax we use here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Those who complain that Wikidata doesn't fight vandalism effectively are honestly, in a sense, part of the problem, and not the solution. If you are concerned about that, then you are more than welcome to participate in vandalism fighting on Wikidata. This can be as simple as showing Wikidata changes on your watchlist (see Special:Preferences and go to watchlist settings), and reporting vandalism to me or other admins. I admit we can get better, but part of it too is that not as many people explicitly patrol for vandalism on the project simply because we are a smaller community entrusted with a larger wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is faulting the Wikidata community. It's just the reality of the numbers. In one case, there are a lot of people watching; in the other, less so. That may change in time, but for sensitive material at this stage, I think there's a preference to err on the side of caution. That doesn't mean the Wikidata folks are incompetent or whatnot; it just means Wikidata is still growing. Enwiki has had quite a head start such that it's pretty decent at policing itself (in some ways anyway). I genuinely look forward to when Wikidata is just as reliable in that regard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: What I'm saying that, instead of only trying to address the "symptom", anyone with this concern should instead solve the root problem.

For what it's worth, when I tried to introduce a living persons policy in line with our BLP policy (we don't have the "B" because our items aren't biographies per se), the community rejected it. The same happened when I introduced verifiability. So it's not as if I disagree with a lot of these concerns. But your concerns will not be heard over there if you don't participate in such discussions. I don't mean to canvass support for a particular policy (and think WD's independence is important), but I strongly despise anyone who doesn't trust WD and yet does nothing to contribute when WD is a project anyone can edit.

A good interim proposal should be to just make WD edits appear on watchlists by default. This alone would improve monitoring. I personally consider myself pretty strict when it comes to sensitive cases; users who vandalize such items typically get blocked under a lower threshold than here (usually at most only one warning), and we are also implementing stricter protections. Our mission is in part to serve Wikipedia. In return, we ask that you participate meaningfully.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If Wikidata is independent from Wikipedia, then we should never transclude anything from there to here, since by definition doing so risks undermining Wikipedia's policies. I don't feel that there's any way around it - if Wikidata wants to be "useful to Wikipedia", it needs to abide by and bind itself to Wikipedia's policies and decision-making process. If you're unwilling to do that, then the root problem is that Wikidata is useless to us, and the solution is to rip off the band-aid and set a strict policy against ever transcluding anything from it in a way that would allow a Wikidata edit to directly alter the display of a page on Wikipedia. WP:BLP is non-negotiable and "oh, we tried to convince people to accept it but failed" isn't a useful answer - if, for example, anything from Wikidata is going to be transcluded into a page here that falls under WP:BLP, then we first need absolute assurance that any later changes to that data will reflect Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. If Wikidata refuses to accept that, then you've prioritized your "independence" above "serving Wikipedia" in a way that makes you useless to us. A resource that is useful to Wikipedia is one that reflects and meets our policies, not one that's run like a petty independent fiefdom. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It is up to the Wikipedia community to advocate for its positions to the WD one much in the same manner that Commons serves us but is independent. Independence does not mean we can do whatever we want, but rather, policies made here do not have automatic effect on WD; instead, we are accommodating to individual projects’ needs, but will not base our policies on any single project’s. There are many more Wikimedia wikis than this one and it would not be fair to them. You clearly misunderstood the relation between us and other projects, so please spend some time engaging with our community before writing us off (go to wikidata:WD:PC and open a thread).

I, for one, am pretty strict (stricter than even admins here) about revdeleting BLP-violating material on WD so it cannot easily be restored.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata has every right to set their own policies, rules, ... But people should not expect us (enwiki editors) to instead of monitoring and vandal-fighting on one site, they should now monitor and vandal-fight on two sites, with a different interface, different policies, different userbases (e.g. some users banned here are among the most active and vocal editors on Wikidata), different ideas about reliability and sourcing, ... Furthermore, it isn't just about enabling Wikidata changes on your watchlist, we should also enable Wikidata changes on the recent changes, since everyone of us only watchlists a fraction of all pages of course. When I highlighted some Wikidata vandalism last week, I also bookmarked some pages with one specific type of vandalism (changing the English label, which is essentially the same as a page move would be here). Midget, which has on enwiki more than 500 pageviews per day, has had a BLP vandalism pagemove last week on Wikidata. Mesto only has 72 pageviews per day here, but on Wikidata it has been overwritten in a series of 13 edits one week ago to be about a completely different person. The GA 2008 Sichuan earthquake gets some 500 pageviews per day here. Anyone looking for it on Wikidata in English will need to know that over there, it is called "mi tio se llama pedro" instead since one week. These are not obscure pages, and they aren't even the worst examples. But of course, a page with more than 500 pageviews a day on enwiki alone, gets less than 1 pageview per day on Wikidata. So if the few dedicated vandal fighters there miss it, then it falls of the changes logs and can linger undetected for ages, while the same pagemove on enwiki on a relatievly well-read page would lasts for minutes at most.

It all boils down to the fact that vandalism fighting at Wikidata is highly inadequate, and that to expect people here to double the number of pages we need to check just to make infoboxes and the like here easier to populate (no matter how static these are onmost articles) is not realistic or helpful. That doesn't mean that Wikidata has to change or that the editors there aren't trying: but it does mean that many people at their potentially largest "customer" are very reluctant to rely on it. Fram (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I just found a BLP page which is viewed on enwiki 15 thousand times per day (!!), where the Wikidata page had been moved to a vandalism title 2 days ago by an IP. This change is visible not only on Wikidata, but also on the Commons category (since Commons has outsourced much of its content / infobox to Wikidata). If it is this obvious that no one here (or at Commons), and way too few people at Wikidata, actually check for Wikidata vandalism even at high profile pages, then why do we use such a site to import information (or even to direct our readers towards)? Laziness should not be an excuse to lower our standards so drastically. Fram (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ugh, can we just blacklist Wikidata until they get their act together? RAN's bizarre fidgeting was bad enough, but these bits of vandalism are something else. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  It's not exactly Wikidata not getting it's act together, it's that catching and reverting vandalism is more difficult on a wiki with roughly 10 times as many content pages but 1/7 as many editors as this one (according to Special:Statistics and d:Special:Statistics). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "10 times as many content pages" but 1/10th of the content? Most of these "content pages" are near-empty and have never seen a human editor in the first place. "1/7 as many editors" is overestimating it: many people here at enwiki will be surprised that they have "edits" at Wikidata: e.g. when you move a page here, you are listed as a "contributor" at Wikidata as well despite never really editing there. I'm following 14 bits of recent Wikidata vandalism now: two of those have been caught, one after 40 hours[288], one after 52 hours[289]. Fram (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

    • When I've looked at Wikidata, it seemed to be full of empty pages presented in a confusing "card" format designed to make it look like there was more there than there really is. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

      • Yes, they need a lot of space for little content. Anyway, the good news is that after 12 days, the New England Cheatriots are no longer[290]. Gets some 3,000 pageviews per day on enwiki, and 4 per day on Wikidata.

        • I just discovered that Gauchito Gil was "Trap no son tus ptas trap es mi equipo tumbando el club" alias "Pta entro escupiendo pura adrenalina". --Auric talk 12:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

          • It only lasted for two weeks (and this bit of sneaky vandalism still remains). Fram (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's agin time for some general discussion about Wikidata on enwiki, as the vandal fighting there is clearly abysmal. This is not the right section to do this though, so I'll just leave you with some recent unreversed vandalism of one type only. I keep two high-level examples to myself to see how long it will take for anyone to see and act upon these (I don't edit Wikidata). "but why is the rum gone" has gotten 19 vandalism edits on 23 May, and another one on 27 May, all undetected, even though the edit summaries made it extremely clear that they were vandalism[291]. The actual article behind this is Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. Here 6 edits between 27th and today, all need reversion. Since 24 hours, "Manner of death" has become "Antonia" on Wikidata[292]. Since 29 hours, "maximum" has become "15500"[293]. Noose has been vandalized on the 25th and the 27th, both undetected[294]. Undetected since the 26th[295] and [296]. Since 3 days, the Crown of Castile is called "Chile" at Wikidata[297]. Since the 25th, popular band The 1975 (4000 pageviews per day) has been renamed to "Los somvari els aka “the 1975”"[298]. Did you know there is a Maya language called "Mama"?[299]. At least after three days, the human brain no longer is called "human brStatementsain"[300], so that one is solved. All Boys? No, "All BoysEquesosh on oless"[301]. Black Clover has become "Black Coock"[302]. More: [303][304][305][306][307][308]

At least we got mostly rid of the use of Wikidata descriptions on enwiki last year, otherwise we would have shown our readers that Michael Jordan was a pornographic actor for more than 4 hours[309]. Fram (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User Jamesmiko and his disruptive behavior

Jamesmiko (talk · contribs) – I am reporting this user since he does not start to communicate and just ignores what is written to him. The user in question just reverts other editors' (mine included) changes/fixes/additions to sports userboxes without even discussing anything citing "consistency" as his argument and by doing so he:

• restores redirects to categories;
• restores incorrect and/or non existent abbreviations;
• restores wrong and/or obsolete color codes, which cannot be verified anywhere;
• uses strange color formations, which are supposed to comply with MOS:ACCESS;
• treats the userbox, even when the team has/uses two main colors, as a kid's coloring book by including as many colors as he likes (MOS:ACCESS again).

I posted on his talk page twice (April 2019 and May 2019), and after the last revert on 29 May 2019 at User:UBX/NHL-Penguins (see the page's history for the reverts by Jamesmiko, which are 6 in total since 15 April 2019‎), I decided to take the matter here after I asked Timrollpickering (who made the changes at User:UBX/NHL-Penguins) at User talk:Timrollpickering#Sports userboxes on how to handle the situation. The userboxes, which are affected with reverts, can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Ice Hockey#National Hockey League, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Basketball#American National Basketball Association, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football/American#National Football League. All the mentioned userboxes (NHL, NBA and NFL) can be simply found in one place at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/US and Canadian. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all a bit bizarre, I think a word at this stage is all that is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoever provides the word should probably also include a few about the many many 'orphaned non-free image' warnings on Jamesmiko's talk page, since these pointless uploads are clearly wasting peoples' time. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

86.133.149.192, I was going to say the same thing.SharabSalam (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hence why I say bizarre, I am not sure if this is deliberate disruption or gross incompetence. If it is the latter a talking to might help.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sabbatino Please next time notify the editor involved about this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding about it. I wanted to notify him but completely forgot. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Passwords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One user has been speading their passwords across Wikipedia such as this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/899599455 at which contains a bitcoin password. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, edits were revdel'd and the editor's been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppressed. This content falls under being non-public information. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Lemme get that bitcoin password. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There's gold in them thar Wikipedia edits! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Swarm - I thought Dogecoin was clearly where it's at! What ever happened to that market? lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FilmandTVFan28

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Used edit summary to launch personal attack against IP's constructive edit [310]. 2605:A601:A1AA:7A00:2410:9982:7016:1D2B (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

See also this edit [311], where FilmandTVFan28 attempted to delete this ANI thread. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The OP appears to belong to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Quite possibly. That doesn't however entitle FilmandTVFan28 to unilaterally remove a complaint about his/her behaviour from ANI. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I already explained why I removed the complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmandTVFan28 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

How about explaining here? 86.133.149.192 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So, FilmandTVFan28 used the summary: "NOT on your goddamn life", and we're supposed to sanction them. Elsewhere on this august page, editors argue that it's acceptable to call someone a cancer on Wikipedia. I almost feel like laughing! Favonian (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think that anyone should be sanctioned for "NOT on your goddamn life". I do think however that FilmandTVFan28 should learn to distinguish between an editing dispute (regarding entirely unsourced content the IP was removing) and vandalism. And that FilmandTVFan28 should be told that removing ANI threads about them isn't acceptable under any circumstances. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

How about explaining here? 86.133.149.192 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The only reason I removed this complaint about me is because I was not myself after a rude awakening and I hate vengeance. I find this accusation highly offensive for I never do personal attacks while this user has. It also never bothered asking me nicely (not even once). My feelings were hurt when it didn't listen to me and everyone else. I did quickly learn not to swear anymore too. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Rather than engaging in a long-running debate with a sockpuppet over unsourced assertions in an entirely unsourced article, you either find some sources to back up the article, or take it off your watchlist? As the talk page shows, this dispute has been running since 2016. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After-close note to say...this is a WP:LAME edit war about a show which we simply don't know the current-day distributor of. There's no sources to who owns it outside this wild guess based on corporate hierarchy over the years. I'm removing anything about current distribution; get a solid source or else find something else to do here. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)