Open main menu

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANI)
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 wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit war on Q22663. 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)


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)

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

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)


The page Next Conservative Party leadership election was subject to significant disruptive editing by sockpuppets of Torygreen84 for a period of about six months (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84/Archive). This was primarily about pushing the user's counter-consensus view that the article should include a long list of potential candidates, which would grow each time to In response to this, the protection level of the page was raised to extended-confirmed. Two days after this, Okeeffemarc edited the page for the first time, pushing the same perspective as the banned socks (compare this sock edit to Okeeffemarc's first edit). Bondegezou pointed out to Okeeffemarc that what appeared like a majority view in favour of including a long list on the Talk page was in fact driven by sock accounts ( and that the material Okeefemarc had added included material from the banned sock ([11]). Okeeffemarc denied both counts ([12]) and ignored evidence provided by Bondegezou ([13]).

Discussion between Bondegezou and me agreed that a more limited list not based on material added by Torygreen84 would be appropriate at this point. Okeeffemarc continued to ignore the sockpuppetry that had been pointed out to them ([14]), so I tried to raise this myself with them ([15]). After this point, Okeeffemarc deleted prose from the article and restored their version of the list ([16]), which Bondegezou and I edited to reflect sources and be more up-to-date ([17]) with detailed edit summaries. Okeefemarc restored their preferred version and continued editing that one ( and subsequent edits), ignoring all edit summary reasoning and change that had been made. For one example, Okeeffemarc considered George Freeman as a candidate to have "publicly expressed interest" in the leadership of the Conservative Party, ignoring a citation I added titled "George Freeman rules out Conservative leadership" and mentioned in my summary ([18]). There is a similar case for every other change the user ignored.

Okeeffemarc then copy-and-paste moved the page to 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election without discussion ([19], [20]), which User:Mélencron reverted ([21], [22]). Okeeffemarc restored continued to develop the 2019... version of the page. I restored Mélencron's version and explained in my edit summary You can't move a page by copying and pasting. Start a move discussion on the Next... article ([23]). The user continues to edit 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election and has most recently written on Talk:Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election to complain about the lack of a collegiate attitude, bad faith from Bondegezou and me, and a block of text about various content complaints they have.

I don't know if Okeeffemarc is a sockpuppet of Torygreen84, though the timing of their entrance, the material they have added and their continuing conduct has made me wonder. I'm making this report here rather than at WP:SPI because this user's editing is disruptive regardless of potential sockpuppetry. Please let me know if this is the wrong place to raise my concerns. Ralbegen (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really invested in this, but I'd just like to request a procedural revert of the most recent copy-paste move here. Mélencron (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite. I concur with Ralbegen's description. I don't know if there is any relationship between Okeeffemarc and Torygreen84, but Okeeffemarc is edit-warring and pushing to include material that contains errors and which, best I can tell, originated from Torygreen84. That said, Okeeffemarc and previously Torygreen84 have some sensible and valuable things to say about the article, and there has been a debate with valid points on different sides about what form it should take. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the page, Black Kite. I have been emailed by Okeeffemarc, who explained that the disruptive behaviour will no longer continue. I've invited them to share what they told me by email in this discussion, but in any case I am satisfied that unless further disruption takes place, no action is needed against Okeeffemarc, and I'm happy for this case to be closed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite for fixing this. Wow, what a mess! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Arif soul, communication is requiredEdit

User:Arif soul has made over 5000 main space edits since June 2018. Tha majority of these seem to relate to Indonesian football teams and their players. In that time he has made zero edits to talk space .

He has a talk page full of issues from Articles for Creation relating to referencing BLPs, and from image licensing concerns.

In the last ten days:

  • Added another image with dubious claims to holding the copyright - File:QischilGM.jpg - image has been on id-wiki since 2013 (per google image search) by a different user.
  • Never added a reference to football BLPs, even when going to the trouble to research detailed infobox data such as Rafael Gomes de Oliveira [24] and Ramiro Fergonzi [25], leaving out-dated references in place.
  • Never updates the infobox timestamp when updating appearances for players. [26], [27], [28] and so on.
  • Has blanked a page with no explanation [29] and cut-paste moved the same page User talk:Arif soul#May 2019

I feel, regrettably, a short block, to at least get the user to communicate, may be a way forward. This is an area where en-wiki needs contributors, but not at the cost of BLP issues and image copyright. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Note: I have deleted File:QischilGM.jpg as it was copied from here. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


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" : [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].
  • Adding poorly translated text to articles without changing the smallest thing: [39], [40].

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)

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 [41] 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 [42] 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)

Abuse of admin privileges by User:LizEdit

Everyone seems to agree that this was an honest mistake made worse at least in part due to failure to communicate. The issue with the category page has been resolved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Liz did not notify page creator of her proposed deletion, ignored the talk page explanation contesting the speedy deletion, and then — in what has the appearance of WP:COI in that the same person acted as both judge and jury — deleted her own nomination. (See Deletion log and Page history.) Useddenim (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Useddenim: There is no notification requirement for speedy deletions(or proposed deletions, which are different). Users are expected to monitor the pages they are interested in knowing about. I'm not sure about any rule for carrying out one's own speedy deletion suggestion, but if you feel the deletion was incorrect, you can go to Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The page has been recreated, but the category is still empty (despite the statement on the talk page that it is not empty).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Something is fishy here, the template {{Jakarta color}} is clearly tagged with this category but it is not populating the category. Investigating. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There's certainly nothing untoward about an administrator deleting an empty category after a week, even if they're the one who tagged it. There's no value judgement in that, it's purely maintenance. I would note that even now Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates appears as empty, despite Template:Jakarta color being categorized in that category. I've seen that behavior with template documentation before and it feels like a bug. Maybe this has been reported before. I'll decline the speedy on those grounds, but you should consider apologizing to Liz. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This is hardly "abuse of admin privileges". The category appeared to be empty despite your insistence that it is not, and empty categories get deleted. Please don't recreate deleted pages because you disagree with the method of deletion; the proper process of challenging a deletion starts with discussing with the deleting administrator. Did you attempt to discuss this with Liz before posting here? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As both Ivanvector and Mackensen noted, there is a member of the category – which was clearly stated on the talk page – that is not populating the page. To ignore a valid deletion contestion is at the very least lazy editing. There's no evidence either that Liz made any attempt to discuss this with me before deleting.
@Ymblanter: I didn't say that the category wasn't empty, I said there was a page that was a member of it. Please do not twist my words. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Ten times out of ten, if a category appears to be empty and it was tagged for deletion for that reason, it's going to be deleted. I probably would have done the same thing, without looking at the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mackensen: Then what's the point of contesting a deletion? Useddenim (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Since WP:CSD advises admins to check the talk page before deletion, that argument is pretty weak. However, I note that Useddenim has not contacted Liz about that deletion on her talk page before starting this discussion. That probably would have cleared up the mistake without having this discussion at all. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: you should withdraw this. The category was populated improperly and appeared to be empty when Liz deleted it. It still appeared to be empty when you recreated it, so Liz tagged it as empty again for someone else to look at. She did not "delete her own nomination": administrators are empowered to delete pages without nomination or discussion under certain circumstances, of which empty categories is one. There was no misconduct here. Mistakes were made, and have now been corrected. Remember that assume good faith is a policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the problem. WHat exactly was the fix so that I can take care of it myself if it happens again. Also, WP:AGF works both ways; when an experienced editor creates a new cat within an existing hierarchy it's likely for a legitimate reason. Useddenim (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The category was listed on the documentation page, but not on the template itself. Here it was addedDiannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If admins delete something that shouldn't have and especially if there was an underlying problem when they did, 9 out of 10 times they will revert themselves. As everyone here has already said, it's as simple as talking to the deleting admin. --qedk (t c) 15:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry to just be visiting this complaint now but I've reduced my hours on Wikipedia to nights. If you have any complaints about my actions (deletion, blocks, whatever), just come and talk to me. I don't bite and I'm usually pretty accommodating as long as your request doesn't go against Wikipedia's rules and policies. I'm not rigid about my decisions. As for categories, I'm not sure what is up with Twinkle as I have the "Notify creator" box checked but it seems to rarely follow through with that with CSD C1s (although it does for other CSD options). I will have to inquire about that.

But, you see, the thing about empty categories is that as long as it hasn't been deleted through CFD, categories can be easily recreated if they are found to be useful and fit into Wikipedia's categorization system. So, create some color templates and Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates (or some version of that category) can be utilized. Thanks for everyone who chimed in while I was off-line. I'm sorry to post this after the case has been closed but I thought Useddenim might want to hear from me. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates has been recreated by Mackensen and is now no longer empty! Everyone okay, now? Okay, great. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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 [43] 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.“[44]
  • and his other statement says: „Kurmanji means Kurdish in Kurdish“.[45]
  • another statement from him says: „Kurmanji is a synonym for Kurdish.“[46]
  • Other COI edits from him says: „This page is about Kurmanji Kurds not Kurds in general“[47]
  • and also: „Most of what this page has is already mentioned in Kurds.“[48]
  • another COI edit from him claims: „Hüseyin Aygün is a politician not an author“[49]

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.[50] (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[51]). --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)

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

WP:RBI. Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear administrators,

Over 15 years or so I have made probably hundreds of thousands of edits to Wikipedia. I should not need to assure you that every single one has been beneficial to the project. Tens of thousands of articles are better because of my efforts. And yet, once in a while, for no reason at all, people start behaving incredibly unpleasantly towards me. Most recently, a few weeks ago, User:BabbaQ falsely accused me of vandalism in a spurious report at WP:AIV: [52]

I see only two possibilities here. One, they made a mistake, somehow. Two, the claim was deliberately malicious. What other possibilities are there? I asked them why they'd made the false accusation: [53]. Their response confirmed malice: [54] Next, my simple requests for an explanation of their actions - which, without doubt, I deserve - led to accusations of harassment from uninvolved passers-by. Shortly afterwards, an administrator blocked me. They prevented me from even editing my own talk page.

A week later, the block expired. I returned to edits I'd made which User:BabbaQ had pointlessly reverted. This time, a different problem arose: I encountered User:Materialscientist, who undid my edits for no reason. See for example Gosport Ferry, where I had removed incorrect bold face [55], User:BabbaQ had pointlessly undone my edit [56], and now User:Materialscientist began to do the same. Their editing revealed a flagrant disregard for the rules:

  • They reverted my edit four times in 45 minutes. The WP:3RR says that no user may revert more than three times within a 24 hour period.
  • They used the rollback tool to undo my edits,[57] violating the terms under which it may be used
  • They protected the articles they were reverting to "win" their edit war.[[58],[59]

I reported their 3RR violation. It was extremely clear-cut; there could be no doubt that they violated the 3RR. They gave one single response on the report, saying "Unexplained removals, edit warring against 2 editors using 2 IPs (intentionally or not)."[60] Obviously, that does not justify breaking the 3RR. The exemptions to the rule are listed at WP:3RRNO, and nothing resembling "unexplained removals" can be found within them. My edits were not, in any case, unexplained.

Several other editors expressed their concern at the situation (User:Amakuru, User:Serial Number 54129, User:MSGJ), but following their initial inadequate response, User:Materialscientist simply stonewalled, in violation of WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed." Despite their clear breaking of the rules and subsequent stonewalling, they received no sanctions. Instead, an administrator blocked me once again. Meanwhile, User:BabbaQ who made the original false accusation of vandalism repeatedly sought to close down the discussions, no doubt seeking to avoid scrutiny of their own actions.[61][62][63]

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

The IP also violated 3RR, which they should know to watch for if they have hundreds of thousands (really? wow!) of edits under their belt. But yeah, something about this whole exchange doesn't sit well with me. The edits do not constitute vandalism, but they were treated as if they were (which, of course, they'd be no problem if that was the case). El_C 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) "My edits were not, in any case, unexplained." They were not? There is no edit summary beyond the undo statement on your edits, no entry into the talk page. So howso were they explained? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(EC) With respect to my edit-warring, refers to this edit, which was obviously not constructive (unexplained removal of note and wreckage of archived links). When repeated without explanation, such edits do constitute disruptive editing, and 3RR does not apply to reverting them and protecting the target article if necessary. The other questioned edit was less problematic, yet again, without explanation it removed bolding, which is required by WP:MOS because of incoming redirects. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the rollbacks don't look ideal, but I'd be interested to hear from @Bbb23: who blocked the IP as a checkuserblock [64], so we probably need to hear from them or another CU. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
From QEDK, above: Bbb23 is taking some much needed time away. —Rutebega (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is a recent discussion that looks similar to this one. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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[65]. 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. [66] --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 ([67]) he accuses me of being something I am not. Then he reported me here ([68]). And last but not least, he even goes so far as to request for semi-protection ([69]) 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)

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)

Topic Ban on moving pages?Edit

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)


Renelibrary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This account appears to exist to promote the Rene Gomez Photography Studio. This editor uploads images to their Commons account with the watermark "© Rene Gomez" or "©", and then adds the photos to various English Wikipedia articles. The uploaded images are of historic buildings in Texas, while Rene Gomez Photography Studio does commercial photography. The editor was cautioned January 1, 2019 here by User:Danazar regarding their obligations per WP:WATERMARK, but their promotional editing continues. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am very sorry. Dumb mistake on my part. I will remove the watermarks from further pics. (Redacted) I apologize for the trouble. Thank you. Renelibrary
I disagree that the account is only for promotional purposes. Renelibrary has been participating in many of the Commons photo challenges for years, close to a decade. That's why Commons has those contests. In the process, he has contributed hundreds, if not thousands, of quality images on Texas properties, many of them NRHP and Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks. His contributions have been invaluable to Wikipedia, in particular WikiProject Texas. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:TROUT for the OP. Renelibrary's Commons contribs [70] show over 2,000 photos uploaded over the past decade. (Wow, thanks, Rene!) What Magnolia characterizes as a "caution" in January was actually a polite "hey, you forgot to take off the watermark" message from Danazar, and Rene's contribs show that they fixed the problem. Unfortunately, based on my spot check, uploads since March have the watermark again. I'm sure that Rene will fix those as well. I do not think that Magnolia's level 3 warning was called-for–just a polite reminder would have been fine, rather than an escalation. The warning was posted at 15:09 today. After the warning, Rene uploaded two pictures to Commons without watermarks. [71] [72] For Magnolia to then file this ANI report–less than a half hour after the level 3 warning, and when Rene had complied with the warning–strikes me as trout-worthy. Levivich 17:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I don't get the reason for filing this ANI, especially after the warning given to Renelibrary. I also agree with you that there should not have been a warning given, let alone a level 3 warning. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI - We have some pretty great images on Commons, generally speaking, some uploaded by professional photographers. Has anyone see Commons: Category:Allan Warren. That one even has the photographer's infobox and official website link on it. No problem there. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that professional photographers donating images to Commons is something we very, very, very much want to encourage, not discourage. Levivich 20:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This editor was cautioned last January to stop posting the website for their company on the front of their photos; they didn't get it and continued. I've made 9,804 edits to the Commons and taken 3rd place in two photo contests; that doesn't give me the right to advertize on the front of my photos. No doubt we could get many great photos if we allowed companies to post an ad on the front; I'd prefer to keep the project non-commercial. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
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 mow 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 another person who had basically "ordered" me to use this source. Yes I did contact Maserati and they got back to me with the owners mamual. 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 pack 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)

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[73].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[74], 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)

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)

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)

User:Jorm closing discussions and leaving derisive comments on talk page.Edit

I heartily thank you, comrade, for regaling us with this truly fascinating and titillating tale. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a request to review a close at Talk:Gab_(social_network) to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed the close with User:Jorm on his Talk Page but he left only a derisive comment, "Cool story bro". I don't believe the editor provided adequate reasons for closing and that the discussion was ended prematurely. I opened the discussion to examine the use of the word "extremist" in the article, a word which I claim is a slur. I provided adequate justifications including linking to WP:WORDS which lists "extremist" as a contentious word to support my argument. The editor summarized the closure, stating that referring to the word extremist as a slur is "patently ridiculuous." On his talk page I pointed out that the Wikipedia article on extremism refers to it as a prejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talkcontribs) 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"White supremacists" are "extremists". That's about all I have to say on the matter.--Jorm (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You are wasting your time. 2001:4898:80E8:0:361A:8E7E:12DE:C60 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Bless your heart. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering white supremacist positions are generally far outside of the political and social mainstream, characterising white supremacy as extremism and supremacists as extremists is correct. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was not about whether white supramecists are or are not extremists. The discussion was about whether it was appropriate to use a prejorative in an encyclopedia article.2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
For you and your ilk, it is. Go away now please. 2001:4898:80E8:0:361A:8E7E:12DE:C60 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that User:Jorm has show a pattern of similar behavior. Here are five examples of Jorm resulting to dersive language when confronted about his edits on his user talk page:

I can provide more examples if needed. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You aren't going to get the result you want. Wikipedia is not the website for you. 2001:4898:80E8:0:361A:8E7E:12DE:C60 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I find Jorm's closure here to be sufficient, and I find this complaint to border on vexatious. --Jayron32 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I am certainly no administrator, but I'd like everyone to imagine, for just a moment, how much better Wikipedia would be if every invitation to rancor were replied to with a simple "Cool story, bro." Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It would be if that was the intent but it often comes across as point-ily dismissive. I can understand the anon's irritation, regardless of the validity of their argument. I've suffered the same and it isn't helpful. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
However, "Cool story, bro" is certainly less rude than simply blanking comments from one's talk, which is done by everybody and their aunt. As for Jorm's two closes at Talk:Gab (social network) today, they're both fine. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

There is an IP editor who has left several comments here attacking me. I can only guess who it is. I have taken the liberty of removing one of those comments. Personal attacks have no place in a civil discussion. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Copyright Template is preventing me from saving an hour-long editEdit

Hi! I noticed some unsourced edits happening on Celia Fisher, so I added the major edit template to the page a couple hours ago and have been working on overhauling it. When I went to publish the changes (at least an hour of work), I get an HTTP error. Going back around to the front of the page, I see the prior editor's unsourced additions caused the copyright trigger just a few minutes ago. Would you mind removing the template so I can save all the edits I've made to the page? I'd hate to lose them (and I know there won't be a copyright issue with my changes). Thank you!
Orville1974 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Orville1974: I don't think it's the copyright template itself preventing you from saving the changes, it's the fact that there's now an Edit conflict. So anything we do won't help. The way edit conflicts are handled seems to be wonky lately, so the safest thing to do is save the text of the edit you're trying to make in a text editor, cancel your edit, and re-do it, copy-pasting your text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Orville1974 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've managed to copy over all my edits. Whenever an admin gets a chance, please swing by the page to clear the copyright notice Celia Fisher. Thank you, again!
Orville1974 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Personal attackEdit

Personal attack by User:Ahmedo Semsurî calls me a troll.[75] (and the word "satisfy" is offensive too) When I told there is nothing about his claim in this source on page 30: [76] 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)