Open main menu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN/I)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives


Slugger O'TooleEdit

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? ( 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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 WordsmithTalk 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


HelpMeStopSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 [1], 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)
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)

The Pirate Bay official URL - possible linkspam or malware attackEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 which is most definitely not 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)

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[2]. Three days ago it also got an English description: "décription".[3]. Looking at "recent" changes in articles, since two days a fang is described as "a big ugly thing with a christmas tree"[4]. This is two days old. Jenna Marbles has grown 4 feet[5].

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 "[6].

Oh, and Ammonia production has a vandal title at Wikidata since 2013[7]. 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)


Account blocked and tagged. Good catch. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of sourced contentEdit

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 ([8], [9], [10]) 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) (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)


(non-admin closure) User was determined to be a sockpuppet of Bokpasa by checkuser investigation. Blocked indefinitely and tagged as a sock by Ivanvector Rockstonetalk to me! 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a small correction: I am not a checkuser. This was a behavioural investigation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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" : [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].
  • Adding poorly translated text to articles without changing the smallest thing: [20], [21].

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 (talkcontribs) 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lame legal threat from an obvious sockEdit

Blocked for 2 weeks by Black Kite. SemiHypercube 15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (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 [22] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 [23] 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)

User A H Butt (again)Edit

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.


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)

User:Airline7375 on Thomas Cook Group articlesEdit

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 [24] 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 acts to Wikipedia:Conflict of interestEdit

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.“[25]
  • and his other statement says: „Kurmanji means Kurdish in Kurdish“.[26]
  • another statement from him says: „Kurmanji is a synonym for Kurdish.“[27]
  • Other COI edits from him says: „This page is about Kurmanji Kurds not Kurds in general“[28]
  • and also: „Most of what this page has is already mentioned in Kurds.“[29]
  • another COI edit from him claims: „Hüseyin Aygün is a politician not an author“[30]

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.[31] (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“. (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[32]). --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 repliesEdit

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)

Proposing an IBANEdit

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 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)

Misusing of the sock puppetry templateEdit

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). (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but stop pushing for your POV like your edit here[33]. 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. [34] --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. (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. (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. (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 ([35]) he accuses me of being something I am not. Then he reported me here ([36]). And last but not least, he even goes so far as to request for semi-protection ([37]) 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. (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. (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)

Closed Afd by his ownEdit

Alexxeos (article creater) closed Afd as speedy keep by his own! check it 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. (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)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 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)

Dubious renaming of hundreds of articles over many yearsEdit

  • 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?Edit

Per clear consensus of the community, Fergananim (talk · contribs) is banned without conditions from moving any page on Wikipedia. There is no consensus on limiting the restriction from any particular namespace, and there is no consensus that they be banned from proposing or discussing page moves and title changes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)
  • 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 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unacceptable behaviour by YbsoneEdit

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

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

  • Hmmmm.... When I look at the histories and talk pages linked above, I see two editors being rude, two editors edit warring, two editors threatening to report the other to "the admins", and two editors arguing about the quality (or existence) of the other's sourcing. And to be honest (though I am not a car guy) it looks to me like U1Quattro is coming off as the worse of the two. I also note U1Quattro's recent blocks for similar behavior with another editor (see here), who he is still feuding with as of a few minutes ago ("until a consensus is reached, the edit I made stays"? That's not how it works....). It would be appreciated (and wise) if @U1Quattro: and @Ybsone: both dialed back the pointless aggression and edit more collegially, so you don't waste other people's time. But User:U1Quattro, you're getting pretty close to a significant block yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC
Floquenbeam I have tried to reason with this user before but all he does is act rude for no reason when asked for sources for his edits. You may have already seen how he comes off on my talk page and has been pocketing evidence against me by threatening to report me.U1 quattro TALK 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Um, did you read what I wrote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I did read that Floquenbeam. I'm not feuding with Vauxford as of now. I wrote that comment as he tends to revert edits back to what he personally thinks is right without seeking concensous on the subject matter's talk page. I don't know how am I getting close to another block as I have just been out of one. Also, administrator intervention was necessary as Ybsone continues to edit without source with no change in his behaviour.U1 quattro TALK 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Although I'm taking great care to not start up what happen in the past between me and U1Quattro but I'm not impressed that shortly after his block he has already reverted a edit I did and done the usual "I'll take the matters to administration" threat on my talkpage, as pointed out by Floquenbeam. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I will state my case, and would like to point out at this time that I am constantly being harrassed by User:U1Quattro. My edits were reverted at least 19 times over the past 9 months and not once was it necessary, and not once was it correct.
1. 612: Special:Diff/855578814 My edit was reverted just on occasion of rewriting the article. With this correct engine links were reverted. Vandalism of my work.
2. 575M: Special:Diff/879639849 My correct, and later, sourced edit was reverted, even though previously there also was no source. Special:Diff/880025334 Here I presented that my claim was sourced but it was deleted not improved anyway Special:Diff/880107734 and User:U1Quattro begun a conversation accusing me of being lazy. His rude behaviour and unwillingness to improve an article. And so I inserted a source Special:Diff/880427587, which was deleted maliciously Special:Diff/880566579 and replaced by a "credible" source, ie. a forum... Special:Diff/880569080. My later update of dividing production numbers into two completely different models (practice very common) was just deleted Special:Diff/894035517 because it is, quote: "Too confusing.", whch will be a very often defense mechanism for User:U1Quattro, so he deleted it from infobox altogether. Again I see this as vandalism of my work.
3. 599: Special:Diff/880107892 A very long engine size was shortened as is common in any other Ferrari model but this edit was reverted because User:U1Quattro deemed it: "Not needed." It was then reverted yet again Special:Diff/880566293. User:U1Quattro then begun edit warring Special:Diff/891852265 and Special:Diff/891870862 about a picture clearly inserted into wrong place and was deaf to any constructive arguments. Especially frustrating when they are correct and with a little attention I would not have to waste my time to do one edit three times. When I tried to peacefully point out what are we talking about he accusses me of being rude.
4. EB 112: Source I presented is the highest authority on Bugatti EB 110 and 112, but: Special:Diff/881425458, Special:Diff/883089248 Here he states that source shows 2 cars (it shows 3) Special:Diff/883134358 Still stubbornly argues that he only sees 2 cars. Special:Diff/883136624 Here he claims he added a more reliable source, that just proves my point further but after 4 revertions. Time surely wasted. Also see talk page for EB 112: where he claims that this "unofficial registry" is... "confusing" when it isn't. I even posted three separate links to three chassis numbers Special:Diff/883138743.
5. F50: Special:Diff/885645951 I was not asked for a source my edit was just reverted. He could have just followed the link.
6. Coupé: Special:Diff/893820486 Special:Diff/893818480 Special:Diff/893802825 Special:Diff/893778756 Special:Diff/893739643 Special:Diff/893737761 Special:Diff/893736904 Special:Diff/893716503 Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893710349 Special:Diff/893606976 Special:Diff/893606872 Special:Diff/893606503 Special:Diff/893606228 Special:Diff/893349542 (other members of the community also helped providing proofs of facts stated by me, to no effect)
Coupé talk
Coupé talk on U1Quattro talk: Deleted by him Special:Diff/896526399
Coupé talk on my talk: with a racial outburst about a japanese trading site that showed a limited edition 3200 GT for japanese market with a plaque that said Japan Special:Diff/893720057
7. Ghibli (M157) talk (after being stuck in a ill-logic loop that an era-successor is also the successor to every individual car type) just a pearl of his logic:
"The Quattroporte IV was itself based on the BiTurbo so it never succeeded Amy of the Biturbo family cars."
"The Ghibli II succeeded the BiTubro and was based on the BiTurbo"
Special:Diff/895002665 he also changed one of his claims after my reply
8. Quattroporte Special:Diff/898127851 Again not asked to show a source (should I be asked for a source to prove what I see on the picture? Really?? ) my edit was reverted just to start a war with yet another user. I showed a source anyway.
Quattroporte talk on U1Quattro talk when I asked for him to stop reverting my contributions and he gets offended?? YBSOne (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
To that I can say I'm not rude. I'm defending facts. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Ybsone your proofs clearly show that you edited without a source in the first place. On the 575 page, you added a source in the edit summary and not in the article which is not how it works. You only add source when you are done arguing and I'm sorry to say, this is not how editing works on here.U1 quattro TALK 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
About the EB110 page, yes I was wrong but you could've been more courteous while pointing out my error which you clearly didn't do and kept on adding some unofficial registry. This was resolved once I added a more credible source. Your "defense" of the facts is not only unethical but it also discourages me to keep editing.U1 quattro TALK 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Ybsone I can clean my talkpage. I am not estopped from doing so especially when the discussions are not active anymore.U1 quattro TALK 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You claim that I don't source my work, but You don't do it Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893720240. Difference being that I am a journalist.
You claim that EB 110/112 website is just some unimportant unofficial registry. His website is THE website for EB 110 and 112. Just like mine is for the GTV/Spider: and Lancia Lybra and Maserati Coupé. Researching italian cars' history is very tough. I know it and You clearly don't.
You claim that I asked You to contact Maserati. If You did:
You claim that I incorrectly sourced 575M manual transmissions. But You reverted that edit... to my edit that was before Special:Diff/818782708 and yet lack of source didn't bother You at all.
You claim that I didn't source that Quattroporte V intake is plastic and black. I don't have to source every single fact that can be, with open eyes, clearly seen on the picture and I won't be bullied to do so.
You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting.
You claim that I should accept any sources, any time. Nothing furthest from the truth. As I told You many times be inquisitive not repetitive. You have presented countless sources and all of them were wrong and unacceptable.
You claim that I should encourage You to edit and be more courteous while pointing out Your errors. Yet You don't have to adhere to Your rules. YBSOne (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh so you're a journalist what would you now claim next? That you are a historian? It's that behaviour of yours which is the most repulsive of all. You are repetitively stating a personal blog as a source which is run by you and you hae basically "ordered" me to use this source. Who do you even think you are? Some kind of a dictator? I think that Ferrari owners, who own the cars and are in contact with Ferrari are more reliable sources than a personal self researched blog-site which has been forcefully used here. Yes I did contact Maserati and they got back to me with the owners manual. Frankly, I don't have any blogs to post the records there. Yes you do have to source every other "fact" that you think is right, otherwise it is just self research. I only see a lack of understanding to the policies which are followed here. FYI, a talk page is a user's personal name space and he can use it the way he wants. You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide.U1 quattro TALK 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am a historian. I have researched automotive history with many successes and published my findings on my personal website mainly. My historical research of type 916 Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider is unparalleled in the world and widely respected in it's community. It was even commended by Cenrto Documentazione AR. You on the other hand were tasked by community and me to research one simple fact, like a name of a limited edition, and failed. You asked wrong questions and got same answers. I asked right questions, again, and received a confirmation of facts I already knew. Consensus was reached and You were still stubborn. You claim You needed sources, but when I provided credible and primary ones You change them to Yours. You don't want facts You want Your facts.
I was very patient over the months of harassment. Even didn't participate in recent actions against You from other user, although I did reply to what I was asked to provide. You wanted to start this fight by provoking me with vandalism Special:Diff/898127851 and You got it. Now You manipulate opinions that You are the victim. You are not a victim but an agressor. First thing You do afer block is lifted You harass all of Your "enemies", undoing work of at least 5 different users. Admins can see Yours and mine contribution history. You are the dictator because You don't care about consensus nor facts. You claim to respect policies yet You constantly vandalise my work, replace primary sources with uncredible secondary ones, attack personally, threat, edit war and for this I expect User:U1Quattro to be blocked by Administrators.
Should Administrators have any further questions towards me I am at their disposal.
With regards, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, historian. YBSOne (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you even know what harrasement is? I think you need to have a look at the definition of what harrasement is before you start to act as a victim of harassment. That is a very bold claim that you're making about your research and everything else which was "successful" and has recieved "acclaim". Infact, I don't even see a mention about you in the automotive press let alone the Italian automotive press and I haven't seen any proof where this is verifiable. Wikipedia isn't about you or your facts where you go on to claim that your "work" is vandalised. I have now found solid evidence that your website is in violation of the policies here as pointed out by 72Dino and hence cannot be used as a source in the articles here. Yet you had the audacity to come out on my talk page and force me to use the site. I wasn't tasked by anyone to do research on the sources, I did it on my own free will and shared the response which I got in return. You on the other hand, posted your own blog in which it was highly unclear about the said conversation you were pointing at. I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here. I have provided my evidence and that shows how you behave and force others to stay along at work and act like this site is all about you. That's all I have to say.U1 quattro TALK 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You were using Special:Diff/818411451 that clearly violates policies as being self-published and uverifiable. Also the production sums are way different from official Ferrari claims. Yet in 2018 You had absolutely no problem with it what so ever, because of double standard. My note: "Please do not use this source in the future" is not an order nor forceful. You are manipulating facts to Your advantage and blowing them out of proportion. YBSOne (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There you have it. Does the manufacturer who is manufacturing the car knows better how many were produced or some self proclaimed historian and journalist who has no sources on where he got his information? I will let the admins decide.U1 quattro TALK 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
And as usual whenever is convenient You manipulate Your own positions: Special:Diff/893874280 Special:Diff/880569080 Double standard. YBSOne (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
On the Ferrari 575 page, I just changed wording of a sentence, that doesn't change its meaning. Just accept that you're out of justifications now. Plus about the Maserati talkpage, I talked about my doubts but accepted the name as is.U1 quattro TALK 11:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Well, I reported him for his odd behaviour which is clearly showing here.U1 quattro TALK 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You should consider your own behavior as well. Your abrasive discussion style and apparent tendency to hold grudges doesn't make anything any easier. You criticize YBSOne for using a self-published source while you try to use an online forum as one, which is equally unsuitable. Your comment here is completely unacceptable, and given that you just came off a week-long block issued in part for such behavior, you should know that. Misconstruing someone's opinion and then accusing him of "lack of knowledge" is a personal attack. You criticize YBSOne for not seeking consensus, yet change images in the midst of an ongoing discussion about them - one of which, there is no indication whatsoever of consensus for.

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

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

MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish JewsEdit

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

There have been ongoing edit conflicts on wiki with editors who insist that Jewishness is a distinct and exclusive ethnicity and, for instance, one can't be both Jewish and Polish or Jewish and German, individuals are one of the other. Perennial pov conflict that needs attention? (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I have seen some of that too; this board relatively recently had an incident of a long-term IP editor who seemed to believe one couldn't be both Swedish and Jewish, and kept replacing "Swedish" with "Jewish". Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be a bit distorted version of the events.I have actually seen attempts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from articles about individuals who collaborated with Nazis leaving only Polish in the lead first sentence, under pretext that it indicates nationality[38].Also in case of Salomon Morel the issue has been it seems debated since years looking at history of the page.For the record reliable sources in cases of individuals with complicated identity often use the term Polish-Jewish as per Per Anne Applebaum "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-56 "the unusual case of Salomon Morel, who – all agree – was a Polish Jew and a communist partisan" New York Magazine - 9 Mau 1994.
Per MOS:ETHNICITY MOS:ETHNICITY,that ethnicity can be mentioned “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” The cases where somebody was involved in Holocaust and it played a major role in his life, or used his ethnic background as defence against persectution for crimes and it caused international controversy are I believe good reasons for mentioning the ethnicity in the first sentence.I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland. I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland.
As for recent activity it seems that popular publicist Rafal Ziemkiewicz re-tweeted this characterization on his twitter webpage recentely[39], which probably led to people reading this to react. I don't know how to link to re-tweet, as I don't use twitter much.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that could help explain the recent influx of editors at the Rumkowski article, though perhaps not at others. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding this edit you criticized above, you do realize that the nationality parameter on infobox person is only for citizenship, not ethnicity, don't you? Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that the tweet was the cause of interest because many people have noticed that in case of hideous Jewish characters, their Jewishness have been erased from the article. We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). Another example may be the recent edition in Stefan Michnik which was a Stalinist judge who was responsible for murdering many Polish anti-communist soldiers, generals etc. All information about his sentences have been deleted even though I provided two different sources. All of them have been marked as "too far-right". User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one click. Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. Tashi Talk to me 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[1]

Tashi, I suggest less emotional approach.I know that some of the crimes comitted by Nazi collaborators or Soviet executioners can be upsetting but it's best to keep professional attitude and don't use insults, I suggest you re-write your sentence a it.
From a technical point of view I encountered a similiar problem once before:mainly the units of Selbstschutz in Poland 1939 were made of Germans with Polish nationality living in Poland that fought against Polish state. Would it be fitting to describe such individuals as Polish? I am sure this would seem wrong and there should be description of their ethnicity as well in order not to confuse the readers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Trust me that I'm trying to keep it as professional as possible but I also wanted to point out some facts that seems to be constantly omitted. I have nothing against Jayjig or any other user and I think we can work out and reach a consensus :) Though, there's a space for the debate about the nationality since that term is understood differently worldwide and it can be the bone of contention. I understand the argument that nationality is somehow related to the citizenship but there is no doubt that calling people like Rumkowsky as Polish is totally misunderstanding since he did not identify himself as Polish. Someone suggested the term "Russian-born Polish Jew" and I think that would be acceptable historically Tashi Talk to me 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Note that I have extended-confirmed protected Chaim Rumkowski, it is clearly appropriate as the semi-protection (where I was the protecting admin) is not working as designed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I do not see why there need to be labels made in the article about Chaim Rumkowski. Disputes concerning nationality or descent are common and tend to be left out in most cases when a consensus is not achieved, as in Nicolaus Copernicus where only occupation is stated. However, it is appropriate to consider where the person lived, worked and/or obtained citizenship. Rumkowski held Polish citizenship and lived in Poland which is a dominating factor. In general context, I cannot stress enough that "Jewish" is not a nationality only an identity based on both racial descent and religion. All Polish Jews (considering they haven't emigrated) that are either secular or not Orthodox should be labelled as "Polish" per citizenship laws. "Polish-Jewish" or simply "Jewish" is a term appropriate for rabbis and religious or spiritual leaders. You do not see the label "American-Jewish" in articles about American actors, musicians, soldiers or politicians that are of Jewish heritage. Oliszydlowski, 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Rumkowski was born in ethnic Russia so he might have been perceived by Polish Jews are a Russina Jew (Litvak).Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

A reader should be informed why Morel run away to Israel rather than to Sweden or Chile.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm disturbed by the statement from Tashi, We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). (emphasis mine). This is reminiscent of the "exclusionary antisemitism" common in pre-war Europe. Compare with:
Exclusionary Antisemitism
The exclusionary nature of antisemitism derives from the perception that the Jew stands outside the nation, and represents an alternative nation or an anti-national, internationalist collective. This idea thrived in the early twentieth century when Jews were said to be internationalist, and thus to stand against the interests of national communities. Because there are distinct Jewish communities in many countries, antisemites alleged that: 1) Jewish communities conspire to advance their collective interests to the detriment of their "host" countries and 2) the dominant forms taken by this conspiracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are international finance and communism. In making such claims, antisemites sought to push out the Jew altogether.
Source. To go with Tashi's quote, see their edit here: [40]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem was that Jewish community was very strong and very separated. It made up majority in many places. In addition to separation between ethnic Poles and ethnic Jews, there were also separation between assimilated Jews and non-assimilated Jews. Pre WW2 state was very liberal in national and religious question. Cautious (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, antisemitism. Sorry but if the discussion is going to be about playing the antisemitism card then I'm out. I don't know how well you're familiar with Polish history but it is a fact that a lot of Jewish people didn't even speak Polish though they had lived there for a few centuries. It's not only about Polish only. That's historical fact and what's antisemitic about it? The other thing, yes I added he was a Jewish businessman because that information had been deleted. It's not something I made up. I used to say he was a Polish Jew but someone is trying to delete that information and I don't know why Tashi Talk to me 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Just got these kind words from a newly created account on my talk. I will note that comments on "playing the antisemitism card", and above that editing of WWII historical articles was prompted by tweets by Rafal Ziemkiewicz, are deeply concerning. Some context on Ziemkiewicz is in order: Guardian 2018 (visit cancelled to UK, views on Muslims, gays, and Jews, Ziemkiewicz calling UK "fascist"), National Post, 2019 (comments on Jew hatred), JTA 2018 ("scabs" for jews), JTA 2018 (WJC - "gang of international blackmailers"), Pankowski, Rafał. Right-wing extremism in Poland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Department for Central and Eastern Europe, 2012. (endorsement of a book advocating that Poland should've allied itself with Hitler in 1939), Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. (views on Jedwabne pogrom and antisemitism). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree. In my POV those comments was prmoted by this: ("'Israeli minister who made anti-Polish remarks a stupid idiot’ Prominent Holocaust survivor Ed Mosberg blasts Israeli FM over anti-Polish comments". Artcile date 02/05/19 16:10 Rordayukki (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Many Jews didn't identify themselves as Poles and spoke polish with very strong accent. It might be due to the fact the seprate religious education was allowed. This has changed after WW2, when the state enforced uniformed primary education and went hard for uniformisation. Cautious (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd recommend caution, to avoid stiffing the debate through chilling effect and variations of Godwin's law and political correctness.
Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.
Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."
Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)
Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".
Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"
Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment ([41]).
But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well "
Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."
Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""
I hpoe it is clear that it is not 'antisemitic' to discus to what extent Polish Jews spoke Polish and identified with the Polish nation, and that someone who makes the argument that some, and perhaps most Polish Jews did not speak Polish, is not an anti-semite who deserves a topic ban. We should, of course, keep antisemitic discourse off this project, but the case discussed above is very much a normal academic issue, not 'an antisemitic trope'. PS. Personally, I am not convinced that 'most Polish Jews' did not spoke Polish, this may be an exaggeration, but it is one tha at least some scholars support. And I think the sources presented above make it very clear that at least a significant group of Polish Jews did not speak Polish (but whether that significant group was 10% or 90%, I have no opinion on yet). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
When someone does not say "some Jewish could not speak Polish" but rather "Jews were not Polish, and the evidence is they could not even speak our language". The issue is not that they could not speak Polish, but that they were not Polish, but rather They are a race and nation apart (see the quoted canard above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I've never written that Jews are not Polish. I just pointed out that many Jewish people who lived in Poland did not identify as Poles and it can be observed in fact that they did not know the language of the country they lived in and other arguments Piotrus mentioned. There have been thousands of Polish Jews who identified themselves with Polish and Polish culture. I really don't see anything antisemitic in that claiming. If banning is the way of discussion then I think that the idea of Wikipedia is already dead since we can disagree on many topics but we should try to reach a consensus. Tashi Talk to me 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
No you have just used it as an excuse to argue to certain types of people should not be called polish based upon no other evidence then they were Jewish. If you had provided some sources saying "X did ot indetofy" as Polish I would not have ascribed this view to the perpetuating of antisemitic canards. The fact is the only evidence you have produced (some of which even contracts your claim) is that some Jews could not speak Polish, ergo a particular jew (which not source has said could not speak Polish) was not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not even evidence, since there is no natural historical equation between citizenship and fluency in the designated national language. You don't require it in Israel, be you Israeli Arab or a Jew making aliyah. Sometimes states stipulate this as a sine qua non (notoriously in Baltic states) but where ius soli defines citizenship, being born there automatically confers citizenship. When the US passed its citizenship act in 1924, that right automatically extended to indigenous peoples like the Navajo, though many did not speak English, and even to this day, on a number of reservations studies indicate that 20% are monolingual, not knowing English, something which in no way imperils their citizenship identity. To give an extreme example when the Piripkura or Kawahiva were discovered in Amazonia, they were automatically Brazilian citizens since they were born there, though they didn't speak Brazilian. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus BTW, according to Halik Kochanski more than 80 % Rordayukki (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I'd like to see what source she uses for that. It's a rather far-reaching estimate that needs good backing from sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • After reading this and reading some of what some are calling RS, I do think a TBAN for Tashi is in order. I saw a lot of links posted, so I am not sure if this was in the mix, but this is one of the sources being pushed, [42]. This is not something we should allow on the encycopedia. Antisemitism or antisemitic tropes should not be tolerated or condoned. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To Piotrus: pointing out ethnic tropes & bigotry is not political correctness [43] run amok; it's basic human decency. Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [44] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I could equally accuse Poles of not 100% speaking Russian, German, or Yiddish, even though they "lived there" for over a century, but that would be silly.
Then there's Tashi's targeting of Jayjg: User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one. Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. This is highly inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @K.e.coffman: I certainly agree that unsubstantiated accusations like the comment about Jayjg are not constructive, and I hope User:Tashi will withdraw it per WP:REFACTOR. However, regarding the first point, there's a difference between repeating bigoted stereotypes (ex. Jews are greedy, Caucasians have big noses) and and a scientific analysis of whether some cultures are more mercantilist or some DNA is more likely to result in, well, large noses :) We should warn people to avoid the former, but the latter should not be discouraged. It is very unfortunate when a chilling effect can be seen when a trigger happy admin throws blocks and bans or their proposals around. Frankly, commenting in such discussions at A(N, N/I, E) or such always makes me wonder - will I get banned or blocked? Because sadly I have seen a lot of misunderstandings and such solved with a banhammer. Why bother drawing lines if nuking solves quickly problems, eh? In either case, I think we should both warn some people here to be careful when it come to using streotypes or such, but also, warn people not to denounce others too quickly to avoid chilling effects in such discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @K.e.coffman:, @Piotrus:, @Slatersteven:, what do you think of this "refactoring", that still doesn't appear to accept that there's anything wrong with bringing up some random 7 year old attack thread on some outside forum, but "apologizes" if that was somehow taken as an attack? Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see what the relevance of that forum is, not what it "proves" in the way of anything. It was not in and off itself a PA, but it was (I think) uncivil. What a bunch of loud fingers on some forum think is irrelevant and a distraction, but does imply the user see's this as some battle against a "towering figure in the history of WikiKorruption", i am also am also somewhat concerned that that forum had an outing attempt, and linking to it here was outing as well. Overall it reinforces my view the user needs a TBAN, as I see nothing but distractions and obstructions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all kind of a stupid argument, because in both cases - that of Chaim Rumkowski and Salomon Morel - the information as to their ethnicity/nationality is pretty much implied/stated right there in the sentence. In case of Morel, whom Icewhiz is trying to "tag" as Polish [45], it says in the same damn sentence he worked for the Polish security services. So his citizenship is kind of obvious. In the case of Rumkowski the first sentence states that he was "head of the Jewish Council of Elders" which already implies he was Jewish. So there's no point in trying to "tag" him as Jewish either. Trying to invoke an overly literal interpretation of WP:MOS here to insist on adding the nationality/ethnicity in the lede explicitly is a classic example of WP:POINT and WP:GAME. And WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

How is it possible that the Jewish Poles had Jewish property? Citizens of Poland have Polish property which is nationalized if heirless.
Pre-war Poland was obsolete, it continued some pre-division customs. Jews had their parties, Poles had their parties and Ukrainians had their ones. This division created ethnic wars partially described in Intimate Violence . The massacre of Poles by Ukrainians was bigger than anti-Jewish violence of Poles. BBWR and socialists accepted Jews.
The Jews were strictly isolated by their religion, mainly by lack of mixed marriages. A poor Pole wasn't able to marry a Jewish girl and join a Jewish business. Even getting work was a problem. Such division craeted serious economic and social problems. It's impossible to creatre a modern state from two strictly economically and socially divided ethnicities.
Zionists weren't Polish, they constructed future Israel. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a couple of users in this thread who clearly should not be editing Polish-Jewish topics. Is AE sufficient to enforce this, or do we need a new ArbCom case? In addition, let me please warn everybody against WP:NOTFORUM violations. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Seriously? Chilling effects to the extreme. While I fully support NOTFORUM, trying to topic ban someone for one-two talk page posts is ridiculous. Topic bans should be limited to people who have shown a consistent pattern, over many edits, of problematic editing of content, not made one-two borderline comments. I would like to see how many people you'd topic ban after seeing discussions on pages of Trump, Obama and such... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|[[User talk:Piotrus|

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

  • Comment This thread is an exemplary example of one problem that hounds editors in these fields: not prejudice (like antisemitism), but Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with it. This aspiration to keep Wikiepdia a "sterile space" where we only discuss editorial decisions and policy technicalities is, as we all know, ridiculous: Wikipedia is a reflection of society, and society has bigots, and so some Wikipedians are bigots. The assumption that calling out bigotry has a more "chilling" effect than not being able to call it out at all, has denial built in to it: that we don't have bigotry, that the usual processes are enough, that people minorities are "too sensitive" etc. And so in Wikipedia's current climate pointing prejudice out is a cause for indef blocking, while expressing prejudice is pastime that rarely gets addressed. It's not at all difficult to recognize: some editors are entirely concerned with eg. introducing sources that 3rd party RS describe as prejudiced; others repeatedly and explicitly express opinions that RS state are stereotyping, nationalistic, prejudiced etc. The fact that they're being polite about it (eg. dogwhistling) rather than burn crosses and paint swastiakas on synagogues doesn't make it any less severe, and Wikipedia should address it just like any other "real world" organization. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is sometimes it is six of one half a dozen of the other, I have found myself supporting both sides of this particular issue (Jewish/Polish) at one time or another. At least in part because of a desire to label and dismiss the other sides opinions. What is happening it is producing a toxic atmosphere where a lot is being said that should be actionable, and maybe lead to topic bans (by both sides, no user should ever feel intimidated). Now in this case (I think) the case is clear cut enough, but I also do not want to other side to continue to bait any one they decide is a Polish Nationalist. I think this is one some users have turned up here to defend what should be seen as pretty indefensible. As such I do not think this is going to go away with the banning of one user (or even one side). I think there may need to be DS as harsh (and enforced) as there is for Jewish/Palestinian topics.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The concern I have is that some editors are using the label 'antisemitic' with little justification, but because of the 'political correctness', anyone who disagrees with them is risking being labelled an 'antisemite' (or a ill-judged defender of such). Hence, the chilling effect (intimidation). Do you want to stifle a discussion, scare some people away and bait some admins into political correctness-like blocking? Accuse your opponents of antisemitism and watch sparks fly. This is how we already lost the most prolific content editor in this topic area, User:Poeticbent, author of 1000+ DYKs, including among others dozens of perfectly neutral and informative entries of Jewish WWII-era ghettos and such. Someone accused him of an antisemitic attitude based on a single comment, a certain trigger happy admin agreed, Poeticbent got a topic ban and left in disgust saying 'if this is my reward for 10 years and 1000+ articles, bye'. This is the real danger here - that a group of editors, portraying themselves as on the side of angels ('we fight bigots/antisemites/nationalists so of course we are the perfect righteous guys, if you disagre with us you are a bigot/antisemite/nationalist!'), are going to intimate everyone else of this topic area. The comparison to Jewish/Palestine is not the best, as in that area the sides are more 'gray' than if you paint this as a fight between 'antisemites' and whatever the other group should be called. It is basically a logical fallacy of of Loaded question - posing the question of 'how are we going to deal with those antisemites', conveniently skipping the part where we prove that there are really any antisemites to be dealt with. Now, to be perfectly clear, I am totally supportive of warnings and blocks/bans for editors who are shown, beyond doubt, to be promoting bigotry, antisemitism and like. But there's a difference between calm elimination of editors who are here to promote such problematic views, and a witch hunt that starts when someone accuses someone else of antisemitism, and people pile on with 'antisemitism? awful, truly awful, let's topic ban the whole bunch, nobody wants those kind of people here' with scant evidence that someone behavior is problematic beyond one or two unclear comments that could be variously interpreted. PS. Going back to the OP post, I think there issue of removing/adding words Polish/Jewish to a bio has nothing to do with antisemitsm, just with a form of nationalistic defense of one's nations/ethnicity. For unsavory individuals, people prefer not to think of them as their own. Classic example, Hitler - I am sure many Austrians would prefer a description of him as German, not Austrian, and vice versa. For Morel, ditto - many Poles prefer to think of him as Jewish, and Jews, as a Pole. There is no antisemtism here, BUT there's certainly a problematic attitude. One I have seen in the past on numerous articles that had nothing to do with Jewish identify Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian/Belarus, etc. If an editor is doing little but adding/removing nationality/ethnicity claim to the articles, a topic ban can be in order (one preventing them from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity). That's really is all we should be focusing here: are some of the reported editors doing noting else in this topic area but warring over ethnicity/nationality? If so, we have something to act upon. If not, nothing to look at here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
As I said I am concerned that an over use of the accusation may just be being used to silence those who some users disagree with, just not (frankly) in this case. The user clearly used a common antisemitic canards to claim that certain people born in Poland, who held Polish passports were not Polish because some Jews (not even the ones who the articles are about) could not speak Polish. That is the problem. At the end of the day even if it was not antisemitism it was such a wholly invalid argument that it simply put is disruptive and tendentious as it is pure OR and synthases of the worst kind (and that IS being generous). Given that (even without the antisemitic edge to it) could well justify an TBAN. The possible antisemitism just makes it all the more distressful and thoughtless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Valid concerns, and all the more reason to have a forum where they can be addressed by admins/moderators who actually know what they're doing. I'm fairly convinced that most editors - even those that are clearly biased on some issue or another - aren't prejudiced in the sense we're talking about here; but we both know some are - I bet if I asked you to you'd give the same names that I would - and these are the ones we need to be able to address, and address harshly.
As for Poeticbent: I didn't know him except for the 2-3 times where he rushed into a discussion, flouted some accusations and disappeared. That behavior, to me, is unacceptable regardless of motive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will say this: Wikipedia as a social system is poorly designed (well - barely designed), and many a veteran editor grew tired of its impotence and abrasiveness, either left or were left. Put differently: the current system isn't built to accommodate and consider a variety of human behaviors and modes of communication; to minimize editor wear we need a system that is. Such a system would naturally know how to deal with prejudice as well, be it real or imagined. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying we need another noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm saying we need changes in policy, informed admins and a change to DRN that will actually make it useful. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really in the scope of this ANI. I think you need to raise this at village pump. But this also has nothing to do with the question at hand, why should we no sanction the reported user for their actions. I do not care what the other boys did, did his actions fall short of what we expect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Nor was it intended to be, which why it's a comment and not a vote (or whatever). But it is in the context of this discussion, and the discussion is in its. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Chaim Rumkowski was born on the area of Russian Russia, not Belarus. His mother tongue must have been Russian and Yiddish. He was not perceived as Pole or Polish Jew, because there is no information about his assimilation into polish society. Cautious (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the discussions above, this is still an issue; another seldom-used account has just shown up, and decided that "Jewish" is a "nationality", and started putting it infobox person.[46][47][48][49][50][51]. Perhaps one of the editors above who are concerned about labels etc. can explain why this still only seems to happen on biographies of Polish Jews who collaborated with Nazis, and not on any of the other approximately 1600 biographies we have of Polish Jews. Jayjg (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ I did not mean to neither insult nor attack anybody and if the user Jayjg felt that way, I hope he will accept my apologize. I used that particular forum to underline my point that this particular user has already been a topic of similar discussions, not to attack anybody but as I said if it was taken that way by Jayjg, I apologize ~~~~
  • I would have more sympathy for an appeal to leniency from Piotrus it wasn't for the fact that he defends SPAs accounts in the topic area under the guise of fighting political correctness. For example, Piotrus did not request that Tashi retract his statement against Jayjd until after multiple posts from other editors and myself. Instead, there's a discussion on how Tashi's discourse was "very much on a normal academic issue" [52], that this is "Chilling effects to the extreme" [53], and that we should just all "move on" [54]. Prejudice is not acceptable. If such discussions would deter those who use Wikipedia to publish their unfiltered worldviews, then good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to insert mistakes and BLP violations on Lee J. CarterEdit

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. (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. (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)

Personal attackEdit

Personal attack by User:Ahmedo Semsurî calls me a troll.[55] (and the word "satisfy" is offensive too) When I told there is nothing about his claim in this source on page 30: [56] You can treat each other with respect rather than giving other users a name. (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)

National Democratic Alliance (India)Edit

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 [[57]] 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 c) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That should keep the DS admins busy Nosebagbear (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Heavy rule breakingEdit

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: 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“ [58] 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:î_reported_by_User: LMB500 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
And what I am seeing is a possible boomerang. This (for example) [[59]] 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 [[60]. 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"[61][62] 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!
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. [63] --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/ 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/ --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)

Malaysian IP with strange contribsEdit

2001:D08:DB:CEC0:F883:2D25:DC24:A157/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • • 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:

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 [64] 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 [65]. Of the above edits only [66] 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)
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)

Probable compromised admin accountEdit

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. SQLQuery 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 [67] and [68] --DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like we got a extra season special. --qedk (t 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. SQLQuery me! 02:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User creation logEdit

  • 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 c) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Anne KnishEdit

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)
  • 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)

Blatant promotion of IMPACT Centre of CompetenceEdit

All done. El_C 23:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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)

What is procedure to change user nameEdit

WP:CHU is thataway. --qedk (t c) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please provide me the link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerobulbs (talkcontribs) .

WP:CHU. El_C 11:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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) problematic editingEdit (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 (talkcontribs)
  • 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)


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: 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Range BlockEdit

I would like to seek a range block that covers user:, user:, user: CLCStudent (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @CLCStudent: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is not for ANI, but WP:AIV. --qedk (t c) 20:45, 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 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)

User Hyde1979Edit

Persistant BLP violations (many age-related [69][70]), including a long-running edit war [71][72][73][74], despite many warnings, with no attempt to discuss beyond an occasional edit summary, that are sometimes misleading [75][76][77][78].--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)