Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

ZebraDX3.1 WP:NOTHERE

• ZebraDX3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has used talk pages as a forum multiple times in the last few weeks. I believe a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted.

• Special:Diff/895089160 - "Btw 4 days to day till my b day"
• Special:Diff/896983801 - "Holy Crap What a dream match! You guys ready for Undertaker and Goldberg to clash! Who will be Next or Who will Rest In Peace!"
• Special:Diff/897038949 - "In the beginning it should say 'Goldberg vs The Undertaker is a dream match for some fans..' btw who do you think will win."

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:ZebraDX3.1, you need to shit or get off the pot. We're here to edit, not to chat about rassling or birthdays. This is not a gift-giving community anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unnecessarily harsh response. (Whether or not this contributor is a young person.) – Levivich 18:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Warn. Behavior is not malicious, or fit for ANI. @ZebraDX3.1: this isn't really what Wikipedia is for. Would you actually like to contribute to our articles in a way that meets our policies and guidelines? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Honestly if this continues they need to be blocked, the majority of their edits are forum-like talk page posts. The few to mainspace are unsourced for the most part. Probably needs to be warned once more though, only has one warning at the moment. StaticVapor message me! 05:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• User:ZebraDX3.1 Hello and I want to apologize for what ever I did is there anything I can do to get of this I just started editing and I did not know so please is there anything I can do to get off of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZebraDX3.1 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZebraDX3.1: Do not worry, just do not post anything on talk pages not related to changes to a Wikipedia article and make sure you cite sources when you make changes. StaticVapor message me! 05:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

HelpMeStopSpam

HelpMeStopSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is an SPA claiming to be with VICE who has left a couple of bizarre messages on User talk:HelpUsStopSpam's talk page (including a request to interview them). I'm not sure what to do about it - definitely looks like WP:NOTHERE, but I don't know if they've violated any specific policies yet. creffett (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Have they only made a couple of edits? But, yeah—both usernames suggest WP:RGW even if they mean well with it. ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is VICE?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's a magazine or online publication of some kind. Reyk _YO! 15:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This all looks a bit stale, why raise it now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, 10 hours is stale?? Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I was looking at the talk page discussion as is, the ones you are referring to were removed, diff would have been nice. Yes these edits look like the user is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, didn't think about that. For other editors' reference, diff of the talk page commentary is at [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)

• Bbb23, you blocked User:Tsma73. What do you think of this? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 is taking some much needed time away, Drmies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• HelpMeStopSpam is on the same IP address as Wikitopcoder and Hencoder. Could be retaliation for this edit, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Then my suspicion above was wrong. I do not see any connection between these two and aforementioned accounts. There is a third account spamming "open genus" to Wikipedia: Algo open. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Something came up and I couldn't comment earlier, but I've blocked all three accounts. As NinjaRobotPirate said, they're all three on the same IP address. Given that the messages on the userpages of the older two accounts (I am a PhD candidate at Harvard University... and I am a PhD candidate at ITMO University, Russia...) are at odds with each other, that the IP address is nowhere near either of those institutions, and that all three accounts are technically indistinguishable, they're NOTHERE at best. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DoRD. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Another account, User:StopBiased, popped up yesterday pulling similar crap on HUSS's talk page (only other edit was, for some reason, posting a nooby question on my Talk page), and has been added to those being blocked. So this isn't over, keep eyes open. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cam Howe

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

User was edit warring trying to insert non-RS material citing his organization's website at Patterson Lakes, Victoria. This resulted in a posting by duffbeerforme at WP:COIN#Cam_Howe. 1subwoofer has a history of creating autobiographical articles even after they'd been AfD'd and generating linkspam (further detail at the WP:COIN post). 1subwoofer declared the issue "resolved" and blanked[2] the whole WP:COIN entry. Not sure if a block or TBAN is the right approach, but something's needed here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Requesting one-way IBAN for user:M-J

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

---

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

two thanks, wow. [3] are you abusing special:thanks too? --ɱ 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe I am missing something but this [[4]] is not really harassment (which has to be ongoing and long term, this appears to be the first post on your talk page), a user is allowed to ask for another to be blocked. Hence why I thought there was more to this. Now when they continued, then it became harassment, but you made the accusation after (as far as I can tell) their first interaction with you here. So can you see why I thought (and think) there is a history here we are not aware of?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pirate Bay official URL - possible linkspam or malware attack

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

Got a problem here: From Talk:The Pirate Bay "Re this edit: the "official url" template is currently redirecting to https://tea0539.blogspot.com/p/the-pirate-bay_17.html which is most definitely not thepiratebay.org. There are characters in Chinese (Green Tea News according to Google Translate). I'm not sure why this is happening and would welcome suggestions on this. Anyway, we can't link to something that is obviously not the official url." Please could the article be semi-protected until this is fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The same user has also done this at xHamster.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also happening at 1337x and several IPs repeatedly changing the underlying data at WikiData. O3000 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is why enwiki shouldn't rely on the spam-prone {{Official website}} parameters from Wikidata. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Posted about this on 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[5]. Three days ago it also got an English description: "décription".[6]. Looking at "recent" changes in articles, since two days a fang is described as "a big ugly thing with a christmas tree"[7]. This is two days old. Jenna Marbles has grown 4 feet[8].

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 "[9].

Oh, and Ammonia production has a vandal title at Wikidata since 2013[10]. 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)

Suspicious user paying someone to write an article for their company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cynistrategus has 97 mainspace edits. All are to Thiruvendran Vignarajah and Murder of Hae Min Lee. Vignarajah is the former state's attorney who defended this conviction before multiple courts. The user edits the murder article from a pro-prosecution standpoint and has repeatedly used non-RS and violated WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The user is continually reverting to a particular version of the article. At first, it was "sourced" to police reports and other documents that do not remotely meet WP:RS or WP:BLPSOURCE. After I complained, the user re-reverted to the same version, this time sourced to various WP:RS which did not contain all of the information in the user's favored version. After I complained again, the user has added one additional source which he says does contain the information, which would make it WP:SYNTH as best. My thread at WP:COIN does not appear to have drawn attention from anyone other than me and User:Cynistrategus. I have asked at several related articles for more watchers, with no apparent impact. Would an admin please take a look at this situation.[11][12][13][14][15][16]Adoring nanny (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YoshiFan160

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)

False music certifications

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

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

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

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

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

Lets do a test. [[17]]...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of sourced content

There's been a weird series of interactions with Qwirkle (talk · contribs) on Yuri Aleksandrovich Panteleyev, currently on the main page - history here. He first removed the word raglan with the somewhat hostile but rather meaningless edit summary "WTF!". I'd orginally made an error in writing the article, using raglan for collar, rather than the coat as is mentioned in the article. Not knowing if he didn't understand the word 'raglan', or was reasonably objecting to the mistake of raglan collar, I restored raglan this time in its proper place as the type of coat. He reverted, saying yes, some of those have raglan sleeves, yup. But there is no such thing, in english, as a “raglan collar”.. Assuming he'd not checked the revert and thought the 'raglan' had just been reinserted into its previous place, I reverted, pointing out that this wasn't about a raglan collar any more, but the coat. He reverted again claiming Yes, that was precisely my intent, that is not, despite the occasional zoolanderoid magazine, a common English term. When I asked on his talkpage if he was saying that there isn't such a thing as a raglan coat, he replied "Pretty much". Google returns 119,000 hits for "Raglan Coat" - rather too many to pass off as an "occasional zoolanderoid magazine", and whether it was or it wasn't, it is in the Russian source of the article that that's what it is. I'm not sure if he has some objection to the term, doesn't like being reverted, or what. But he is removing sourced content on the grounds that its not a term in use in English, when the evidence suggests that's nonsense. Spokoyni (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Russian material is, not surprisingly, in Russian, and uses an English loanword in a manner which English itself generally does not. There are many forms of coat with raglan sleeves, ranging from windbreakers to trenchcoats. It has no particular meaning aside from a sleeve design, and a search-engine dredge will rapidly confirm that for anyone with any doubts. (The dominant image that comes up on the Russian word appears to be a lady’s sweater, oddly enough. I’m sure the Admiral looked fetching in his.)

The objection, in short, is not to properly sourced material, but to a calque translation, which is to say, the work of a wikipedian, not a reliable source. Qwirkle (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Raglan in English, Реглан in Russian. Whether he had been wearing a Chesterfield coat, Duster or Ulster coat, if that was what it says in the source, that's what it should say in the article. Certainly Реглан to Raglan is just a part of Wikipedia:Translation. As to English not using Raglan in this way, there are plenty of dictionary results happy to define a Raglan, as well as all those google hits. Wiktionary for example has Raglan (n.) "An overcoat with sleeves of this type." The Russian wiktionary as an identical definition for Реглан. If it will help matters I'd be happy to drop the word 'coat' for just 'Raglan', but "Raglan" is more specific than just coat, and there's no justification on removing it, and certainly not because you think its a "occasional zoolanderoid magazine"-term. To deny sources in other languages from wikipedia because they rely on translations by wikipedia editors and thus can't be accepted as reliable is an astounding suggestion to make. Spokoyni (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Spokoyni, this is a garden variety content dispute and you should be aware that neither ANI nor adminstrators in general adjudicate content disputes. Work it out on the article talk page, and if that is not successful, please use the procedures described at Dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. When words are borrowed from other languages, they often do not exactly preserve the original language’s meaning, and the two words can further separate with time. Sometimes meanings freeze in one language but not the other, sometimes both drift, but in different directions. No one who does not realize this is competent to translate. Qwirkle (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My go-to dictionary, Chambers Dictionary (13th Edition) defines raglan as "noun: 1. An overcoat with sleeve in one piece with the shoulder; 2. Any garment made in this style, esp knitted. adjective: 1. (of a sleeve) in one piece with the shoulder 2. (of a garment) having sleeves of this kind." This suggests that raglan on its own refers to a coat or other garment rather than to its sleeve, and if used as a qualifier can refer to either the sleeve itself or the entire garment. So it looks to me as though Spokoyni is perfectly right, and that Qwirkle has no legitimate argument, and should certainly not be repeatedly reverting. RolandR (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you also believe that loanwords in other languages, borrowed two centuries back, and used in the context of WWII, must share meanings exactly today. WP:CIR suggests you should not do any translations, then. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Two editors, at least, have provided evidence from reliable sources that something is; you have not provided any evidence that something isn't, instead choosing to make vague references to general tendencies and insult others. You might be aiming WP:CIR in the wrong direction. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, @Calton:. The question at hand is not the current most likely meaning of an English word. The sort of Google-dredge Spokoyni did, or a simple consultation of an English dictionary as did RolandR might occasionally help with that, although even in English that is very tricky with military clothing, whose names tend toward the avant-garde and the archaic. Nope, we are looking for the meaning of a Russian word, and so far nothing has been provided by them but handwaves to Google, and a risible claim that two words with the same spelling, give or take Latin vs. Cyrillic, must be the same, and the same over many years of time. By comparison, look at this around the 5th page of the pdf, page 170 in the original. Qwirkle (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle has tried to use every excuse imaginable to prevent the term 'Raglan' from being used in the article. From stating that the term doesn't exist in English, to that translations can't be allowed because they are done by wikipedians, and now that Реглан cannot be translated into English at all on the theoretical, WP:OR, and wholly incorrect claim that Raglan might possibly not be the same as Реглан. This despite the fact that English and Russian dictionaries ([18], [19], [20]) 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)

67.61.34.163

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

Since April 26, the IP has been constantly editing the lead section of 1824 United States presidential election. But, with most their edits largely being unsourced and unexplained, and going against the MoS (specifically MOS:LEADLENGTH and WP:DETAIL), I tried to restore the April 17 version twice. They suggest that the new introduction of a page that already had insufficient inline citations is fine, even though it's not. They were warned by another user on May 6 for making unconstructive edits to the same page. Of all of their contributions, only three of them have explanations, two of which are about the reverts. With that said, I am given the impression that the IP has been making disruptive edits. --Wow (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you have already made a post at Talk:1824 United States presidential election which is the correct way to seek consensus on this routine content dispute. What sort of action by adminstrators are you asking for? Are you asking for a block of the other editor? If so, please explain why, with diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'll just continue the discussion on the other talk page and seek consensus. --Wow (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Okeeffemarc

The page Next Conservative Party leadership election was subject to significant disruptive editing by sockpuppets of Torygreen84 for a period of about six months (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84/Archive). This was primarily about pushing the user's counter-consensus view that the article should include a long list of potential candidates, which would grow each time to In response to this, the protection level of the page was raised to extended-confirmed. Two days after this, Okeeffemarc edited the page for the first time, pushing the same perspective as the banned socks (compare this sock edit to Okeeffemarc's first edit). Bondegezou pointed out to Okeeffemarc that what appeared like a majority view in favour of including a long list on the Talk page was in fact driven by sock accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election&diff=897012121&oldid=896966130&diffmode=source) and that the material Okeefemarc had added included material from the banned sock ([21]). Okeeffemarc denied both counts ([22]) and ignored evidence provided by Bondegezou ([23]).

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 ([24]), so I tried to raise this myself with them ([25]). After this point, Okeeffemarc deleted prose from the article and restored their version of the list ([26]), which Bondegezou and I edited to reflect sources and be more up-to-date ([27]) with detailed edit summaries. Okeefemarc restored their preferred version and continued editing that one (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Next_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election&diff=897582170&oldid=897579760 and subsequent edits), ignoring all edit summary reasoning and change that had been made. For one example, Okeeffemarc considered George Freeman as a candidate to have "publicly expressed interest" in the leadership of the Conservative Party, ignoring a citation I added titled "George Freeman rules out Conservative leadership" and mentioned in my summary ([28]). 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 ([29], [30]), which User:Mélencron reverted ([31], [32]). 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 ([33]). The user continues to edit 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election and has most recently written on Talk:Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election to complain about the lack of a collegiate attitude, bad faith from Bondegezou and me, and a block of text about various content complaints they have.

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

I'm not really invested in this, but I'd just like to request a procedural revert of the most recent copy-paste move here. Mélencron (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have deleted 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election with a rationale of WP:CSD#A10 as a copy-paste copy of Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. I presume that the latter needs to be moved to the former name now, which any editor can do. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. I concur with Ralbegen's description. I don't know if there is any relationship between Okeeffemarc and Torygreen84, but Okeeffemarc is edit-warring and pushing to include material that contains errors and which, best I can tell, originated from Torygreen84. That said, Okeeffemarc and previously Torygreen84 have some sensible and valuable things to say about the article, and there has been a debate with valid points on different sides about what form it should take. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the page, Black Kite. I have been emailed by Okeeffemarc, who explained that the disruptive behaviour will no longer continue. I've invited them to share what they told me by email in this discussion, but in any case I am satisfied that unless further disruption takes place, no action is needed against Okeeffemarc, and I'm happy for this case to be closed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite for fixing this. Wow, what a mess! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Arif soul, communication is required

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

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

In the last ten days:

• Added another image with dubious claims to holding the copyright - File:QischilGM.jpg - image has been on id-wiki since 2013 (per google image search) by a different user.
• Never added a reference to football BLPs, even when going to the trouble to research detailed infobox data such as Rafael Gomes de Oliveira [34] and Ramiro Fergonzi [35], leaving out-dated references in place.
• Never updates the infobox timestamp when updating appearances for players. [36], [37], [38] and so on.
• Has blanked a page with no explanation [39] and cut-paste moved the same page User talk:Arif soul#May 2019

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

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

User:Alg01

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" : [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].
• Adding poorly translated text to articles without changing the smallest thing: [49], [50].

The problem here is not just his behavior and edits. It's this pov pushing pattern that was used by other editors like: Bokpasa. They're having the same behavior and the same anti-moroccan agenda. In 2018, I encountered one of his socks, Lucas-Recio. And I'm having a deja-vu -TheseusHeLl (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear , {TheseusHeLl}

I dont know how to respond to these so i'll just edit this real quick and hope someone reads the following :

1/ I replaced "Morocco" with the actual name of the region at that time , it's not a crime that's called being accurate. Morocco is only a recent political entity.

2/ Dynasties that are ethnically not "Moroccan " should not be nationalised by Moroccans , ex: the Marinids. It's only normal to revert your nationalisation of said dynasties.

3/ If I make grammatical mistakes, point them out and correct them rather than crying about it on this board.

4/ I left you a message on you talk page , you never replied so I assumed you had no arguments.

5/ If accurately describing history makes me "anti-Moroccan" then so be it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alg01 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not entitled to your opinion. The pov that "this country did not exist at the time " is undoubtly wrong. The majority of academic works are against your pov. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what he said to me in Doug Weller's talk page, "Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis.". I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And Irnonically , the only authors that seem to support your claims where born in the last 100 years and have an interesting colonial relationship with Morocco.... -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute not a behavior one. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:594:F6CB:1963:ABAC (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. He's clearly here to edit in a nationalistic way. This text summarizes his agenda, "Not my fault Morocco is historically incapable of founding it's own dynasties , it's reliance on Arabs ( to this day) and it's neighbors in my opinion is the source of your identity crisis. I don't need to put "Algerian " infront of the Zirids or any Algerian dynasty ...because they originate within my country. Can you say the same ? Nope. Without biased historians , what is Morocco's history do tell me?" -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Lame legal threat from an obvious sock

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

---

86.138.110.223 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of KaranSharma0445 that's objecting to some of their edits being reverted. Several of their edit summaries get into the personal attack territory (complaining about my english when using text shortcuts?!?). They've just left this post [51] 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.

Paid editing in Sandra Piesik

I recently nominated an article Dr Sandra Piesik for CSD, it was created by an account named User:Sandraizabela5, apparently that is the name of the person in the article as well. Now, I observed on the article's talk page another user User:Damiandp talking very formally about how wikipedia is a wonderful platform and that they belong to the "Sandra Piesik Wiki team" and "Sandra Piesik Admin Team". Although the person is question has hints of notability(fellow of "Royal Geographical Society with IBG", a page tagged as promotional). I suspect a case of UPE and possible sockpuppetry, as the user damian requested unblocking of the sandra piesik account, which might have happened earlier.

Also found [52] 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)

User A H Butt (again)

A H Butt (talk · contribs) The ink has not dried on the previous report, and this user still ignores the input from the community, and the warning given by DrKay.

Diffs:

• Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell
• Margaret Thatcher

A short block may be necessary to catch their attention. User is notified again. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to block. A short block is unlikely to be successful as they will just wait it out. (They have never posted on a talk page since creating their account in February.) So it will be indefinite until they respond to concerns on their talk page. Is everyone okay with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I would support such a block, on the understanding that it would force the user to engage with the previously-expressed concerns. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, until they resolve to concerns on their talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges by User:Liz

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 added — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If admins delete something that shouldn't have and especially if there was an underlying problem when they did, 9 out of 10 times they will revert themselves. As everyone here has already said, it's as simple as talking to the deleting admin. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Airline7375 on Thomas Cook Group articles

This issue has languished at WP:COI/N for several weeks without action (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Thomas_Cook_Group) so I am bringing it to wider attention here. User:Airline7375 is a single purpose account with regards to Thomas Cook Group and its many related articles. Some of their edits are adding unsourced promotional material [53] 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 interest

This user Ahmedo Semsurî acts to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Some of his COI edits:

• One of his statements says: „Kurdish and Kurmanji are not the same. One is a language, the other is a dialect.“[54]
• and his other statement says: „Kurmanji means Kurdish in Kurdish“.[55]
• another statement from him says: „Kurmanji is a synonym for Kurdish.“[56]
• Other COI edits from him says: „This page is about Kurmanji Kurds not Kurds in general“[57]
• and also: „Most of what this page has is already mentioned in Kurds.“[58]
• another COI edit from him claims: „Hüseyin Aygün is a politician not an author“[59]

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.[60] 62.26.157.20 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." What you are talking about is a content dispute. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA98:3A2A:1A94:EB53 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

According to his Wikipedia page he is Kurdish. So he has a personal connection to these articles that deal with Kurdish matters. This is also a relationship according to COI who says: „...and other relationships“. 62.26.157.20 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)By that logic, I couldn't edit any page on Wikipedia dealing with something made in the United States. Now, if the subject were (for example) an author of a book about Kurdistan or the Kurdish people, then that could be a COI if he were citing himself. But this is just a content dispute, or at worst POV-pushing. Recommend engaging the user on his talk page and closing this. (Oh, and for future reference, there's a page specifically for COI discussions - WP:COIN) creffett (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If the IP account (who I suspect to be the same user who got blocked for sockpuppetry, racism and vandalism) believes that the Zaza literature page is worth saving, then go ahead and add reliable information. Most of the oeuvres you mentioned by Hüseyin Aygün are in Turkish, while "Eve Tarixe Ho Teri Amaene" is a history book. If you look at Kurdish literature or French literature, there's a clear focus on fiction. (Iranicaonline clearly states that is almost non-existing in Zaza[61]). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is fourth of fifth time since late March that this user involves me on this noticeboard. And everytime I told him to use the talkpage, instead of pushing for his POV. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Various admins have also involved themselves and reverted his changes, but he doesn't get it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My replies

–One of his statements says: „Kurdish and Kurmanji are not the same. One is a language, the other is a dialect.“[54]

• Kurdish is a language constituted of three dialects, whereas Kurmanji is the largest of these. Now, this is not disputed by anyone except you.

–'and his other statement says: „Kurmanji means Kurdish in Kurdish“.[55]

• As a Kurdish speaker, I can tell you this (and I've given you many academic sources). The word Kurmanji means Kurdish. So not only are they synonyms, but the largest Kurdish dialect is called... Kurdish(!)

–another statement from him says: „Kurmanji is a synonym for Kurdish.“[56]

• Kurmanji is a Kurdish dialect and Kurmanji means Kurdish.

–Other COI edits from him says: „This page is about Kurmanji Kurds not Kurds in general“[57]

• What you added was irrelevant. The Kurmanjis article is about Kurmanjis not all Kurds.

–and also: „Most of what this page has is already mentioned in Kurds.“[58]

• No reason to have one scarce article that doesn't have any unique information. That's why I merged the Kurmanjis (since reverted) to Kurds

–another COI edit from him claims: „Hüseyin Aygün is a politician not an author“[59]

• He doesn't write fiction (if you can find any, you can add him to the Zaza literature.)

--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposing an IBAN

Hi. I want to propose an IBAN between me and User:Toa Nidhiki05. They are harassing and accusing me of violationg WP:CIVIL (and they are not aware of that they violated it), when I finally tried to stop replying to them, they began to attend other pages that I'm editing, reverting my edits or taking sides against me with Phillis Minaj, who is a new editor and called me/my edit summaries snarky and obnoxious. I'm really tired of this nonsense, and I would like to have an interaction ban with them. They have also been blocked from editing 4 times already. Sebastian James what's the T? 18:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Would you be fine with a voluntary enforceable two-way IBAN? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, I would not at the moment. He seems to be proposing this primarily to remove me from conflicts he is involved in rather than out of some actual problem. I am seriously concerned with his lack of civility and his false and ridiculous attack on me. This is the crux of my issue with him at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The user requesting this, Sebastian James, randomly insulted me in an edit summary yesterday (having never interacted with him before) as well as in an edit summary when I cautioned him against incivility. I expressed my bewilderment with this on the talk page, where he accused me of being a know-it-all and then informed me he never wanted me to talk to him again; this is not surprising given his talk page is entirely blank, primarily it seems due to a history of cautions and warnings from other editors, and unsurprisingly he’s previously been warned against incivility by AN/I in the past. I’ve since gone to other pages where he has had belligerent behavior and commented or reverted, which the user has taken as a personal attack and harassment against himself. It’s worth noting that, on pages like Life is Strange 2 and My Days of Mercy, most other editors have not taken his stance; he’s also currently edit warring on My Days of Mercy, where another editor and myself have both reverted him.

As for my blocks, anyone can look at them and see the vast majority were in 2010 and 2011. For reference, I was 16 or 17 then, and those are nearly a decade ago. I did lose my cool a few months ago, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything here. I try to avoid these circumstances in general, but I don’t believe I’ve ever had any instance of harassment or incivility leveled against me, at least not that I can remember.

It seems to me the more adequate solution is to encourage Sebastian James to be more open to input from other users, to be civil in his remarks rather than insulting, to express less ownership of pages, and to not treat interactions on his talk page as a uniform negative. I know it’s his right to blank his talk page, but it’s incredibly confusing, and other editors have expressed a similar concern. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering that Sebastian has mentioned me too, I'd like to point out that it seems that even after bringing this up here he continues to make uncivil comments i.e. calling other users toxic on Talk:My Days of Mercy; previous to this he has a long history of poor interaction with other editors as can be found in the history of his talk page. Sebastian has also been warned to be more careful in being civil towards other editors at ANI before.

Not to mention he's causing problems on Talk:Life is Strange 2 where he clearly accepts that edits are acceptable but seems to want to argue and make changes to ensure he 'doesn't lose'. The combative nature of his editing doesn't seem to be in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, rather that he's looking to score points. PhillisMinaj 19:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Your latest block was this March and now you have reverted the ANI notification because it was "frivolous". Your edit on My Days of Mercy is incorrect, as I have explained before in the edit summary and more detailed in the talk page, and then you stated WP:BRD which clearly contradicts what you wrote. That "other editor (not editors, you should stop saying other editors when you and the new editor are the only ones that allege an insult from me) have expressed a similar concern" created their account today and is acting like you. I'm not sure why a failed attempt to report me 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)