Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


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

IPs have been blocked for varying lengths of time. Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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


Uninvolved admins are encouraged to visit WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maine and check out the discussion on this portal. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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

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

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

Buaidh has my sympathy. If I were in that situation I doubt I'd have the energy to be angry. It is painful to read that whole shameful discussion. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course Buaidh has my sympathy too. But personal circumsances are not a license to disrupt Wikipedia with rage against the dying of the light. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds a wee ageist.  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in the slightest bit ageist. Just take your rage elsewhere, whatever its cause, and join in Wikipedia's consensus-forming discussions only if and when you are willing and able to discuss the substance, with civility towards those who disagree with you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Don't you realise that anyone who's old enough to be a grandparent (as I became last week, at the same time as my mother became a great grandparent and went to work the next day where she uses a computer) is over the hill and gets sympathy rather than respect. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to avoid this whole subject of portals, because I can see that it's a time sink, but I must say that User:Buaidh's responses to the irrational hatred of portals that has been displayed by various editors who should know better look pretty reasonable to me, and don't come anywhere near the disruptive behaviour that we have had from the people who have decided that portals are a Bad Thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am systematically scrutinising portals and MFDing with detailed, reasoned nominations those portals which have abandoned at at very low quality level. Your decision to call that irrational says a whole lot about Phil Bridger, but little about anything else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to get a little less emotionally engaged with your knee-jerk opinions about what should happen on Wikipedia and listen to people more. I agree with your opinion on the spelling of organisation/organization in category names, but disagree with your position on portals. That's all part of life's rich tapestry, rather than a moral failing on anyone's part. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Phil, you are projecting. The emotionally engaged and knee-jerk opinions are not being expressed here or at MFD by me.
I welcome reasoned disagreement. However, calling hose who disagree with you irrational and emotionally engaged and knee-jerk is just ad hominem commentary. It is not reasoned disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
On this subject User:Buaidh provided the reasoned disagreement: "we spend far too much time philosophizing about Wikipedia and far too little time improving Wikipedia". I support that wholeheartedly as it's pretty much the founding principle of Wikipedia. If you don't like something then improve it. It's quite normal for anyone to become exasperated when this place gets taken over by carpers from the sidelines who complain about what other people are doing or not doing rather than improve things themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Phil, you misread the discussion. I provided a rationale for deletion, Buaidh provided a rant, complete with attacks.
I am improving Wikipedia, by identifying abandoned portals which waste the time of the readers who visit them because they massively fail the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". You may legitimately disagree with that, but it's a core policy of Wikipedia that you express your disagreement with civility.
If you do insist on ignoring that policy and repeatedly making personal attacks, then ANI is not the wisest choice of venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin assistance required[edit]

Simple request, ably addressed by Katie. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

 Done Katietalk 17:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Katie, thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Jpsorts cut and paste moves and general failure to communicate[edit]

Blocked indef. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Note that the same behavior and unwillingness/inability to communicate, continue. I left Jpsorts a message with further warnings and a note about this discussion, which they removed and they still refusing to communicate. Now another invitation was made. --Muhandes (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Doing something once is an acceptable mistake. Doing the same thing 5+ times despite multiple warnings is just disruptive, especially as they've been told about how to move pages properly. Cut and paste moves are akin to copyvios IMO (as they don't include the attribution which is required by Wikipedia's copyright licence), and so if they won't interact with the community, I support a short block and stern warning against doing it again. Note I count as involved as I gave the first warning listed above. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User has blanked the warnings and has continued editing without responding. Joseph is indeed correct that copy/pasting without attribution is a copyvio, and combined with a refusal to communicate, there is no other option on the table. I have blocked the user indefinitely. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Ape spam[edit]

IP editor has 5 edits that appear to be vandalism to me but there is no consensus here to place a block on this account at this time. Please report at WP:ANEW if destructive edits continue. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This IP user is spamming stuff about apes around Wikipedia. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Four edits total, has been warned; house ain't burning yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully no more monkey business from them. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • apes around Wikipedia – At this point I don't think we can afford to turn anyone away as long as they're here in good faith to build a collaborative encyclopedia. EEng 18:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

User talk:[edit]

It appears that the decision about this complaint is to remove the {{WHOIS}} tag from the IP editor's talk page. No further action needed at this time. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I would say no, and in doing so would ask two questions: what does this add that's so important that we should remove talk page access, and also, who thought it's a shared IP? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I can answer the second question: Alexf. And in my view, which appears to be the same as yours, it shouldn't have been added, so our vandalizing IP has done us all a service by removing it, no doubt with the worst of intentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Whatever. I added it some time ago to show who owns it (certainly not the user), and to let them know what it says (they can be reported at some point). is it shared? Maybe, don't know for sure. ATT addresses are not static. They do change. -- Alexf(talk) 22:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The standard language for an IP Talk page says that the IP may be "shared" by others. The template you added is generally helpful for "schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots..." (see WP:BLANKING). AT&T Corp. is not even the name of one of AT&T's many ISPs. This particular one is AT&T U-verse.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Technically, the several users have only been adding or restoring a {{whois}} template :p The documentation describes this as mainly for "Non-shared static IPs". -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that the template that's used for schools, etc., or is there another one? (I don't pay much attention to these things, but I found the template that was added in this instance to be unhelpful.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That's {{Shared IP}}; this is {{WHOIS}}. They're similar. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Does it matter which one we use, again with respect to schools, etc., where I most frequently see them (one of them, anyway)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Schools should use {{Shared IP edu}}, other public places should use {{Shared IP address (public)}}. The full list of templates is here. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Ooh, I like the list. Now if there were only a way for me to remember it exists... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the list is transcluded on the template help pages e.g. Template:Whois or click any of the above templates. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Objection to premature closure of SNC-Lavalin Affair discussion[edit]

Close endorsed by multiple administrators. Nothing further to do here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

I think you forgot the header! El_C 01:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I did. Hopefully now fixed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned, the entire discussion was open for a full month — adding further subsections to it does not appear to advance resolution. Fact is outside editors are clearly shying away from it — I don't think we'd be seeing substantial difference between 3 days or 7 days, or another month, for that matter. I sense that we've had enough of SNC-Lavalin Affair on the admin boards, for now. El_C 01:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I haven't called for J. Johnson's banning from the topic—I called for yours, Legacypac's, and Darryl Kerrigan's. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the misidentification. I've been away from the debate for the last week due to issues with moving apartments. Safrolic (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, if I wasn't clear — I am more interested in what outside editors think. El_C 01:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see you specifically express interest what anyone thought. I was addressing my support to the general group of editors reading this discussion. Safrolic (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much point in re-opening it. I should state that had I not been busy over the weekend, I would have opposed the ABAN proposal as well. I take a staunch view that parties in dispute with one another should not be initiating sanctions discussions against each other. The whole thread became tit-for-tat bickering that went nowhere. I commend El_C for closing it. --Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Many complaints get archived without a definitive action. I can unarchive the complaint (as anyone can) if you sincerely think there is a possibility of resolution. But if we are at a stalemate (at the moment) then there is no point in prolonging the discussion. So are the parties willing to work together?
By the way, I have never understood that complaints at ANI have to stay open for 7 days. Complaints are often closed in a matter of hours after they've been opened. I don't think that this is correct. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone can recite the policy to back up their point of view and prove me wrong. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, the discussion was open for a full month — this latest subsection was open for three days. El_C 02:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you propose we do? I'm honestly asking. We have an uncivil and disruptive editor treating the article like a battleground. Should we just try to work around it and ignore him? Do we just have to keep responding to the reams of text he puts out mixing arguments both spurious and specifically addressed with aspersions and personal attacks? Do we give up, walk away, and let him delete whatever sources or text he wants? I know I'm new, and I'd appreciate the direction; I just don't see the alternative solution here myself. Safrolic (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The proposed ABAN wasn't about "deleting whatever sources and text he wants"—whipping out this accusation from thin air should be setting alarms off for people. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Approaching this by adding to a month-long discussion was the wrong call. If I thought there was a good chance that evidence regarding this could be compiled and presented in a concise manner, I might suggest that. But I get the sense that is less-than-likely. El_C 03:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There was nothing premature about the closure. That thread dragged on and on with no clear consensus for any action. Re-re-re-arguing about the same stuff a day later will not help.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Good close, time to drop it and move on. There's absolutely no such "7 day rule" as is claimed here, and shutting down a discussion as ultimately unproductive is a valid admin response. Attempting to start a new thread and further drag out something that has already gone on for a month is not a good look. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Eyes, please, on Talk:Glyphosate[edit]

Editors, admin and non-admin, are encouraged to keep eyes on Glyphosate and its talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Different pages of Wikipedia have very different rules of engagement it would appear. This strikes me as much more worthy of toxin-patrol vigilance than anything on the glyphosate page. SashiRolls t · c 23:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls: Elsewhere he was casting aspersion against me [4]. Ishbiliyya needs to take care of the words he uses. --Mhhossein talk 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from Kansas Bear[edit]

This discussion has been running for a little more than a week. There is unanimous consensus for a 6-month topic ban against John Francis Templeson on topics related to the Middle East, Caucasus region, Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples, broadly construed. Furthermore, the editor is also banned from creating new sections at WP:ANI, WP:3O and requests for comments for a period of 6 months. This ban can be appealed anytime to the community, via posting an appeal to the Administrators' Noticeboard. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t c) 18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

While Kansas Bear isn't being particularly polite, they're well within their remit to remove anything they want from their own talk page. I suggest dropping the matter before you risk a Boomerang. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I will drop with a great pleasure, if someone will finally explain me, what the hell is going here, since I am already thinking that there is a sort of anarchy in English Wikipedia. Administrator threatens me with ban just after I asked an innocent question related to the conflict resolution procedury and very vaguely accuses me in nationalism, then he claims that I am a sock-puppet, whereas I am not and it is easy to check — you have special noticeboard, I mean. Then one of the editors delete my very polite notification in a very rude form, makes an accusation without any proof and thus violates the basic Wikipedia rules, and then you threaten me with boomerang. What the hell is going on here? Editor makes an evident violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA and that is just OK, but for some reasons, that only God would know, boomerang should hit me. Okay, I don't mind that, but only if you will find out something contradicting to Wikipedia in my very friendly notification about WP:DRN. I am not fan of conspiracy theories, but it looks like everyone wants me to leave the Wikipedia. Or just the rules don't work and are overshadowed by the influence of well-established users. Sorry, for a little harshness in my words, I just got a little nervous. I don't want to insult someone. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You returned from a two year wikibreak by almost immediately resuming the same dispute from two years ago. Your conduct at the time [6][7] was unproductive, and continuing it now is unlikely to be productive. Rivselis (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Soo, how should I understand it? I cannot add peer-reviewed sources, because two years ago my conduct not that well? Or it means that if I have returned to the same discussion, because at that time I couldn't finish it, Kansas Bear have a right to insult me? Just please explain how does it works. Because I don't think that "I think you did somewhere wrong, so he can do wrong with you" logic is OK. Don't think that I try to troll you with such questions, I just try to understand rules of this Wiki, as in Russian Wiki, where I am pretty well-established, the things don't go like this. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You also failed to properly notify Kansas Bear that you've started this discussion, which I've gone ahead and done for you. Rivselis (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I barely see a need to write him something on his talk page, since he deletes my messages. But I thought that he will be notified from the user "template" that I've used (it results in notification in Russian Wikipedia, at least), so there is just a little misunderstanding. I didn't have a wish to leave him unnotified. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment John Francis Templeson has been editing this encyclopedia for about 2,5 years, however, i checked his contribs and, to be honest, it's hard to find out how this editor has been a net positive for the project. Many of his contributions are comments on talk pages and his main space edits include some controversial changes like this, this, this or this. The common point between all the previous edits ? Removal of sourced content (often a Persian ethnicity/language/identity) replaced with some unsourced/poorly sourced pro Turkish POV. This editor has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an irredentist/Pan-turk agenda, thus, When he disagrees with an established user like Kansas Bear who is not driven by any bias and a real net positive for this project, he comes here to open such an irrelevant case. I would support WP:BOOMERANG and some strong admin action to put an end to the disruption from this editor.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I replied already on this. I was new and young and easily got involved into the conflict. What wrong you can find in my contribution of this year? See Talk:Qizilbash and Talk:Iraqi Turkman, discussions of 2019. What is wrong? You will see well-sourced arguments, polite style of conversation. And I repeat: If my conduct two years ago wasn't that well, it means that now anyone can insult me in a very rude form? Two years ago and know, feel the difference. I acknowledge my previous mistakes. Now, as you see I try to be very nice, but some editors just don't understand it. And yes, I have mentioned in my page, that my main field is Russian Wikipedia, and I come to English Wikipedia, when I see disagreement between the latter and former. And I try to discuss it, of course not just because my opinion is such, but because I have plenty of sources. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
"What is wrong" : Coming here to open such an irrelevant report is wrong. "anyone can insult me in a very rude form" : I don't see any insult toward you in a very rude form. On my end, i see an editor, you, trying to WP:GAME the system while playing a straw man here. I repeat what i said above : you have been editing this encyclopedia for 2,5 years and i don't see how you helped this project. In other words, don't feel offended, but you sound like a WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user. Think we're done here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If you don't know, accusing someone in sock-puppetry without proofs is a personal attack. If it will be proved that I am sock-puppet, ban me. But I am not. I am basing only on the WP rules. If you don't mind I will wait for the opinion of administrator and I hope he will understand me why my report is irrelevant. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I didn't edit for 2.5 years. 2.5 years ago I made a list of edits, which I admit to be disruptive to some extent and regret them. Now, month ago, I returned and want to start from a new scratch. I try to be very polite, do everything according to the Wikipedia procedures, but face only accusations in sock-puppetry. But anyway I am tending to improve this encyclopedia. I already showed good conduct in Talk:Iraqi Turkmen. My flowless edit log in Russian Wikipedia, where I am editing for 3 years [8] should assume my good faith and the fact that I never use sock puppets. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering he posted this link with the deletion and note to stay off his talk page due to SOMEONE ELSE'S assertion that you were both disruptive and possibly a ban evading sock puppet. I think it may be necessary to break out the Australian throwing stick here. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
How should I understand it. Sorry, maybe I am not that acquainted with such terminology. I should wait for boomerang? John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


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

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

Look on this edit. It is well-sourced and does not make pov-pushing (as you see I represented several opinions on the laguage of Nader). So I have a question: why this edit is disruptive. How I can understand this limitation to add well-sourced information? User HistoryofIran doesn't agree with my edit — well, for such cases we have a talk page. I don't understand why you so hesitate to discuss good-faith edits. John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
See my edits on Iraqi Turkmen article. I have brought several academic sources, these were deleted, because, according to the Selçuk Denizli they are not academic. Well, I showed the contrary and the 3O supported me. Now, I have proceeded to DRN. What is disruptive in my contribution, can you explain? If you consider this as disruptive as well, then I can say that I have already a topic-ban, as all my good-faith edit are seen as disruptive by some community members. Louis Aragon, in Russian Wikipedia I was never been accused in pov-pushing. I am established user, I have over 3300 edits, several articles created, one of them has good article status and one more is nominated to the selected articles. I collaborate with Russian, Azeri, Armenian colleagues and never face such accusations (I have several blocks two years ago, since then I was not experienced, but now I improved my conduct). John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I previously expressed my concerns on this users pan-Turkist edits, specifically pushing for Azerification on the Iraqi Turkmen article. It is reassuring to see that other users have also taken notice. But, if this user is simply continuing with the same attitude they had two years ago, I question how effective a 6 month ban will be. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I have to notice that it is place for discussion, not for ill-motivated revenge. You questioned reliability of several sources, including Iranica and Gerhard Doerfer, and even the 3O couln't make you give up such uncompromising conduct. I have to ask other editors, isn't it WP:DIS. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For administrator: Let me once more clarify my intentions. I will talk about my recent edits, not the ones from 2017. Two years ago I was unexperienced and I acknowledge that my conduct was bad and I regret it. Now, let's talk about my last edits. I am not a warlike one. But I perfectly know that consensus can be described as flowchart: Make an edit — Someone reverted? — If no, then cool; if yes, then discuss and if the discussions fails, appeal for 3O, RfC and so on. And I tried to stick to this formula, extensively discussed the issues on talk page and when they failed I called for the conflict resolution procedure (see for example Iraqi Turkmen talk page). If the latter supports me, I would be happy, if not — well, I will let it go. And this is what I want. Unfortunately, some editors for some reasons don't accept my right to use this procedure and I don't know why. This all would be unnecessary if my colleagues allowed the discussion to go with its normal pace, but my notifications were deleted with some rude comments, clearly violating WP:PA. I hope, this will be taken into account. And I don't know why resist me, because if they did not, the problem would be resolved. Third-party user would express his opinion and that would be over. I hope, I was clear. If there was minor violations in my contribution, I ask to explain me and I won't repeat them. Thanks. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am about 97% certain that "John Francis Templeson" is a sockpuppet account, evading a block on an earlier account. If I were 98% certain I would block. I have seen editors blocked on evidence far less certain than what there is in this case. The more he attracts attention to himself by such means as starting this thread, the more likely it is that eventually he will slip up and provide that extra 1% of certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, I am not. Call for sock puppet investigation, call for CheckUser, I don't care, because I am not. Just stop accusing me, I don't have any other account in English Wikipedia and already two investigation have proven that. Maybe I don't understand some rules, maybe you can consider my edits as disruptive (though, I do not agree), but I am not a sock puppet. John Francis Templeson (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: The only account I can think of that may be tied into this would be RoslynSKP (talk · contribs), who hasn't editing since December 2014, but had been topic banned for Ottoman/Turkey related disruption following community discussion which was logged here (if you care to look). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I was 14 at that time and didn't even know that it is possible to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, you can check. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81: Definitely not RoslynSKP. I've crossed swords with her before. JFT doesn't have the same combative style as she did. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is any chance at all that John Francis Templeson and RoslynSKP are the same person. There are numerous ways in which the two accounts are not even remotely similar, indeed so much so that I am surprised that anyone would even consider it as a possibility. However, there is another account which has numerous similarities to John Francis Templeson, and, contrary to what John Francis Templeson claims, the relevant sockpuppet investigation did not prove that it was not a sockpuppet: it left the question open, and nobody could reasonably read it differently. This is in line with John Francis Templeson's misrepresentation of his editing history on Russian Wikipedia as "flowless" (presumably "flawless"?), carefully ignoring the history of 7 blocks, various warnings, continual conflict with other editors, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, flawless. Sometimes, I misspell the words. About Russian Wikipedia: Last time I was blocked on the 2nd of October, 2017. I don't know, how it is in English Wikipedia, but in Russian Wikipedia the current situation is the one, that is considered, not the one, that was 2.5 years ago. And I ask you. Isn't it possible that someone that way blocked for 10 days 2.5 years ago, makes positive contribution? Or you think that being banned is indelible sin, whenver it was made? We don't conflict, we discuss. I am still waiting someone to start this sockpuppet investigation, because I am tired of this psychological pressure, that surrounds me here. I hope this investigation will be conducted properly. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI case (archive)[edit]

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

@Wario-Man: In both cases John Francis Templeson was accused on being a sockpuppeter; both cases were unfounded, or at least unproven. ——SerialNumber54129 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but it was second sock puppet investigation, that involves me, and both showed that I am not a sock puppet. I think here everyone should stop accusing me — or start another investigation, which will be surely in vain. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, for clarity, you are not a sockpuppet, you are a person, but the account you are using to edit Wikipedia may well be a sockpuppet. Contrary to what you say, neither sockpuppet investigation showed that your current account is not a sock puppet; one of them merely established that there was no technical evidence of connection to one of the other accounts mentioned, which is not at all the same as showing that there is no connection; in the other investigation nobody even suggested any reason for thinking that sockpuppetry was not taking place, and the closing administrator explicitly stated that he was leaving the question open, with an invitation to editors to provide further evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No implication of anyone being a sockpuppet but the way it works is that we will use technical evidence to correct our suspicions. If a link is blatantly obvious, blocks can be made on behaviour alone. Having technical proof on top of that is a sureshot ID. If the behavioural case is weak and technical link is not established, then it acts an impedipent to our behavioural case but it's not a double jeopardy situation, you are certainly innocent for the time being, it does not exonerate you (or anyone else) — since sockpuppetry is a dynamic, in-the-present evasion. There have been many cases of sockpuppetry where the account holder was a reputed editor on enwiki but got caught via surprise checks on suspicions (Ricky, T13, et al.). --qedk (t c) 13:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: @JamesBWatson: There's also this SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qara xan/Archive - LouisAragon (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Yes. When I first saw that message from you I thought you had come up with another one I had forgotten, but then I realised it was one of those I was referring to above. I have also seen other evidence not mentioned in that investigation, which pushes me to virtual certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Coincidentally, a little further down you'll find a similar thread concerning the behavior of one 89MsHm (talk · contribs), whose editing pattern also seems to bear some resemblance to this. I'd make no assumptions, but it may be worth considering page protections or such for affected articles. Just a thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I ran a check in March against JFT. I found that he was unrelated to the users listed. He edits from a different country and the other technical data does not match, either. I should also say that if I had seen any evidence in my check that JFT was using another account, I would have stated so. However, I can't comment on users I've never checked. Although behavior can trump technical evidence, I find it unfair to sanction a user for socking when the user(s) to which he is behaviorally connected are completely unrelated. Finally, JFT has been editing from the same country since at least 2017.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


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

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

Misuse of Undo on revisions User:Itchyjunk[edit]

Closing discussion. See individual closing notes for information. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The reported user wasn't appropriately educated and talked to about their use of 'undo', and their definition of what is and is not vandalism before a discussion was filed here. As Jayron32 said below, ANI is the last step of escalation when it comes to addressing concerns and properly resolving disputes. Because of this, we need to treat Itchyjunk's edits with the assumption of good faith and help educate and mentor them so that they can learn, improve, and feel like they're part of the community. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

What were the results of the prior conversation you had with ItchyJunk? --Jayron32 17:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Also I must say that I'm not seeing these complaints about them misusing Undo on other pages, am I missing something? They seem to have just done one, ill advised, revert to an earlier version to undo some vandlaism and your edits were in there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, there will probably be a complaint when someone watching Scooby-Doo notices 16 edits by experienced editors reverted to a 12 Apr 19 version with the claim of vandalism. (edit to add) I think ItchyJunk is just eager and inexperienced, maybe a bit too zealous about calling things "vandalism". Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Zoinks! I restored the previous version of the article and incorporated the most recent edit. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
On their talk page at the bottom there is a complaint from another user. I am not sure if I am reading the talk page correctly but it looks like they have already been banned from editing? I apologize if this is not the forum for this but I just followed the link from the other complaint lodged against them. I spent 11 hours watching Murder, She Wrote and writing original short summaries for the episodes to have them deleted for supposed vandalism. There was no merit for the deletion and no reason given. It leads me to believe that the user was simply making edits to complete quests in The Wikipedia Adventure game they seemed to be a part of. --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at many of this user's recent reverts, they do seem to be using a rather loose definition of vandalism. However, the previous ANI notice on their talk page seems to be unrelated. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Repeated_misuse_of_undo_accusations_by_an_IP. I do see that the user has been active recently on IRC, hopefully they will be able to explain how these confusing reverts happened. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Deusexmechanicus: You shouldn't believe anything until you talk to them. ANI is NOT The first thing you do when you have a dispute, it should be the last. You've short circuited about 5 steps in the dispute resolution process before coming straight here. Step 1 is always "Start a cordial conversation with the other person to try to understand their point of view, and to get them to understand your point of view, and to hopefully reach some sort of compromise or consensus on how to proceed". You haven't even done that! --Jayron32 14:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I left a message for Itchyjunk detailing what vandalism is and isn't and encouraged them to respond here. They haven't edit since yesterday, and I don't want them pilloried for good-faith attempts to edit. We don't want to bite, but inform. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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


As pointed out by Primefac, the original RFCN discussion closed with the consensus to allow the username and not consider it a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy. As most have commented and said in this discussion, yes... the username is definitely in very bad taste. He/She will definitely have issues or additional hardship down the line regarding community trust and their overall growth and the outcome of certain requests, such as their ability to hold certain user rights or be trusted with tools. They'll have to demonstrate a higher amount of trust, experience, the overall ability to use the tools or user rights properly, and will still face some opposition due to their username. But, if the user accepts this and contributes positively to the encyclopedia, there's really nothing more that we can say or do about it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Why would it be "obviously not appropriate" when a discussion between experienced editors already has decided that it is acceptable? Isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? That discussion closed less than one month ago, so while CCC, it rarely does this rapidly. Fram (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
In other aspects of the project, there are forums (such as DRV or MR, or a renewed nomination) to revisit a discussion that has reached a patently ridiculous result. I think that albeit in a different context, this is such an instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Then start a new RfC for it. That's what we do with other RfCs when they don't give the expected result. An AN discussion about a username which has just been decided in an RfC is not warranted, this is not a serious enough problem and not something specifically for admins to decide. You give the example of DRV, but DRV is for when a closer has judged the consensus incorrectly, not for when you simply disagree with the result. Are you claiming that the RfC was closed incorrectly, and have you raised this with the closer? Fram (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's legitimate to raise it here given that we are discussing the editor already, and there is a limit to how much process for its own sake we need to engage in to maintain some degree of decorum. And I don't actually know whether WP:UAA allows for reopening of an RfC or a second RfC on the same name, hence my question. You are right, though, that I should alert @Primefac: to this discussion, which I've now done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not legitimate to raise an unrelated issue which had been resolved contrary to your liking, in a section about the same editor but about completely unrelated issues. Fram (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I too, as a relatively new wikipedian, see the name as offensive and it certainly doesn't help carve perception of someone here to help. If the first thing that comes to mind when you see the name is something offensive, then it is an offensive name. The name is vulgar when presented without context. The fact he has already refused to change it indicates a NOTHERE viewpoint. The reckless editing also tips the scales of NOTHERE. There is correlation with someone with a vulgar name and their actions --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Some people probably find your username offensive as it's implying there's more than one god which is contrary to some people's strongly held beliefs of the universe and is taking the name of god in vain. Would you be willing to change it because of that? I personally don't see anything offensive in ItchyJunk's username as junk is an incredibly mild schoolyard term that I personally can't see is in anyway offensive. I guess we could ask them to change it to ItchyScrotum since that would then be more accurate and less colloquial. Finding it offensive isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I read it, I find it humourous actually. Just because you think something is offensive doesn't mean it's offensive. You have a right to choose to be offended, but being offended doesn't give you rights. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Meh. --Jayron32 14:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Brad. Usernames that connote poor genital hygiene or genital affliction (whether venereal, dermatological, or otherwise) should not be permitted. Levivich 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is inappropriate. Who knows what junk they are talking about? It's childish, but not inappropriate. I don't think they would ever win a request for adminship or something with a name like that, but meh, it's not that bad. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinged/closing admin note: the original RFCN discussion was closed based on a 6/2 majority opining that the username was "not in good taste" but not offensive enough to force a change. I see no problems with re-examining the issue, but it should be done at WP:RFC/N and not here if only to keep the behaviour and username aspects separate and not derail either conversation. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

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

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

No bots sandbox[edit]

Editors are encouraged not to worry about Wikipedia's takes care of itself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier today an user placed the no bots template in sandbox at which is supposed to block bots and the sandbox wouldn’t be automatically cleared. Sonicfan200530 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sonicfan200530, We'd have to ask Cyberpower678 to be sure, but it doesn't look like Cyberbot I's sandbot task supports nobots. It certainly looks like other sandbox bots don't. SQLQuery me! 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, interesting... Certainly not something I've seen before. Sandboxes, however, are supposed to be cleared and reset periodically - so I wouldn't be surprised if the bots ignore the template on those pages or ignore them completely. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp[edit]

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

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

Concerns have also been raised at WT:FOOTBALL here.

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

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

For the record, most of my edits follow WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore I don't see a need for WP:RM in those cases. I think GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) has different definitions of what is uncontroversial than I do. And I think it's easy to highlight the errors I have made, because I don't delete them from my page. I think generally my moves are informed, justified, and follow the rules; I am running through Category:Spanish footballers, and previously Category:Portuguese footballers because a lot of the page titles don't follow convention. For example, GiantSnowman reverted made undid this move reverted, on an uncontroversial page move (all sources and external links use my recommended page name, as opposed to the one GS reverted them to). I'd also like to highlight that I don't accept those moves as "bad". José Díaz (footballer) to José Díaz (Argentine footballer) was done because i realized he wasn't the only footballer with the name (see José Díaz (Spanish footballer)). Then, when i edited Jose Diaz to add José Díaz (Spanish footballer), I realized there were two Argentine footballers by the name of José Díaz, and moved them to José Díaz (footballer, born 1938) and José Luis (footballer, born 1974) as per naming conventions. The same process happened with Antonio Díaz (footballer)] - originally I thought he was one of many footballers with the name until I moved moved Antonio Díaz Gil (which GiantSnowman unjustifiably redirected). I think GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) is overstepping his boundaries, and urging me to use WP:RM in cases that it isn't necessarily required. I accept that I have made the rare error, but am also quick to learn and undo those errors. Let me know what you think.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
But numerous editors have raised numerous concerns about your page moves, clearly showing that you are not following COMMONNAME, as you don't understand it! GiantSnowman 13:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
In the list above, March 5threpeated those concerns is your error - I tried disambiguating Joel Silva (footballer) because he's not the only footballer with the name, that you reverted. And the other one's are not the same kinds of mistakes, and part of a normal learning curve when moving pages - for overtly disambiguating, creating a disambig page when not required reverted, and yes, admittedly some errors that I myself reverted. I understand your concerns, but I think it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
If there are multiple footballers called 'Joel Silva', which did Joel Silva (footballer) remain a redirect to Joel Silva (footballer, born 1989) and not a redirect to redirect to a disambiguation page (ie rendering the move pointless, hence my revert)? Why didn't you then use RM to move the page? GiantSnowman 14:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, given the large number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted your page moves, have you never thought to stop and start using RM? GiantSnowman 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Bingo. Numberous editors have reverted, and yet he still doesn't get it - hence why the topic ban is neccessary. GiantSnowman 15:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety[edit]

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

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

  • Actually, that other Rfc was for the Taiwan Project as a whole. The Taiwan article does have consensus as shown back in July 2018 when this editor was using two other aliases. It is at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_28#Spelling. The article was overwhelmingly done in American English before his changing 100s of Taiwan articles. We had to have an administrator step in to stop his disruptions, and it took us months to revert all his changes. He was the one sole against the consensus. This particular article was overwhelmingly done in American English through the years. You can see the chart breakdown under the archive. With that consensus (which did not include American style dates by the way), based on article usage, American English taught in Taiwanese schools, and now in 2019 Taiwan will make English one of its two official languages, I'm at a loss why Ythlev alias Szqecs, alias Szqecs1 is here. He was disruptive then but I was hoping that was in the past. Any advice on how to proceed would be much welcomed by me. I don't know where a compromise lies but if one can be found I'm all ears. Editor BushelCandle appears reasonable on the issue, but I've been following the 2018 consensus on this particular article. This consensus does not apply to other Taiwan related articles as a later general RfC said. Off now but I'll check back in 12 hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Consensus is not permanent and can change (WP:CCC). The February 2019 RfC, which you participated, is more recent and the results were added to the article guidelines. where a compromise lies. Oxford spelling is a compromise by using non-British -ize, which neither I nor BushelCandle prefer. Yet you do not accept the compromise. Ythlev (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    If everyone were to just stop reverting, this would resolve itself. What does it matter what variety of English that the article uses? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    If only it were that easy. I don't much care which way the spelling goes (I use some fairly idiosyncratic spelling rules, myself :-)). It is sort of annoying when users who haven't learned our arcane rules "correct" the spelling or date formats in articles, but arguing over which variety of English applies in an article is low priority for me. - Donald Albury 15:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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


Now being discussed by ArbCom, who will presumably handle this with more skill and class than the denizens of ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Wow. That's a whole truckload of garbage. The edit to WP:DAB mentioned above seems to almost be asking for a CIR block. I think we should comply with that request asap. Indef for CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And I thought my edit summaries were bad! Anyway, I've given the user one last chance. El_C 07:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Before anyone adds any more snark, realize that JerzyA is claiming to be admin Jerzy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I knew the username sounded familiar: User_talk:WJBscribe#This_will_either_make,_or_ruin,_your_day. El_C 07:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Having a quick look at Jerzy's contributions, they seem similar enough that I wouldn't be surprised if they were the same person. Both seem to be spouting nonsense most of the time. But since Jerzy is an admin, this thread just turned into something I didn't expect and I'm unsure how to proceed. Isa (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
   What a bunch of amateurs. I was invited to become an admin after most of you were born. I pooh-poohed the idea to Angela; i dunno whether she's either scrubbed herself off the Web by now, but my guess is that she would respect her own role enuf to not severely extend such scrubbing to the project itself. My guess is she may still have a presence in Wikia, but i don't assume any she holds trivial sentimentality about the early years. (I stopped myself from the conventional hyperbole of "early days", but if you'll do research you'll see that both "recent" and, even however figuratively, "medieval" are inapplicable on the timescale in question.)
   Well, it's four AM here, and i intended to taper off around midnite, but my indignation contempt is fading as i type, and i'm not going to use the f-b word bcz i'm most likely as much in the dark about what range you-all spread thru, as you are about me. And i'm satisfied to harbor a suspicion about how many of those active in this discussion would scuttle away into the shadows and marshes if i shared my picturesque resume here.
   Turning to what's relevant, i trust you can see i'm neither drug-addled nor incoherant, and that i am quite able to curb my ironism and my awareness of human absurdity when and to the degree that i see reason to. If there's a medical or psychological professional among you, i welcome -- despite their no doubt appopriate reservations about the sparseness of the evidence that can pass thru this narrow portal -- their assessment of that claim.
   Go review the behavior guidelines, and perhaps our equivalent of legislatve history, and listen to your peers. Oh, and go take your sense of the irony of the universe (Oh, yes, that) out for a nice walk.
-- (talk) JerzyA  • 09:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I became an admin in 2005, so that won't work on me, sir. El_C 09:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, see, i forgot: "Jerzy is an admin". Well, "no", and "so what"?
   Any of you who are quailing
(hmm, as in "quailing and quaking" -- not synonyms, but a complementary -- nnnh, what must be described at complement (logic), complement (mathematics), and perhaps even wikt:complement would be too specific (the spelling of "the mot jus", i'm guessing, is outside my competance, and i won't even pretend to recall the French definite article that is) ... a propos... (similar regret))-- to "quake" is, on reflection, more of a counterpoint than a synonym for "quail": surely any quivering by terrified birds of that species or genus is irrelevant in that -- hhmm -- "commonplace" is the mot just (surely English phonetisation is off-base and the "t" is silent, or elided, or whatever the frogs would call it. So surely "quailing and quaking" is not a pair of -- front-rhyming ? ah, no, alliterative, i think -- not synonyms (both seemingly of "shaking") but rather an alliterative pair of conceptually (even if not behaviorally) compatible fear-induced behaviors: quaking/shivering/shaking motion, and "quailing" vocalizations, not like chirping, but much like cooing by pigeons, perhaps in both cases serving to calm/reassure nestlings and perhaps to induce a nearby predator to attend away from a parent in the nest, and toward a more agile and mobile parent (father especially? -- whose primary role in propagating the species has been fulfilled, making him less critical than the mother, who should logically be more valuable in hiding chicks, and putting food directly into their beaks or gullets). Ok, its more than an hour later, and i am detremined to sleep. Having finished that small, but surprisingly elaborate, thot.
-- (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Jerzy or their I-forgot-my-password alias being an admin should make no difference to this issue whatsoever. Neither text notes nor edit summaries are intended as platforms for someone to get off on what they apparently consider erudite banter. This stuff is so convoluted, it's almost in code. Any factual content is not only obscured, but obscured in an aggravating fashion. Knock it off please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what point they are trying to make, if any. It is perhaps fortunate they have mislaid the password to their admin account, and that account can be retired quietly without issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I checked JerzyA because it was possible that they were an impersonator account. Without checking as thoroughly as is my usual wont because I don't like checking administrator accounts (Jerzy), I am satisfied that the two accounts are operated by the same person. My recommendation is that ArbCom be contacted, especially if anyone is considering blocking Jerzy (I'm not sure what "retired" just above means). I'll ping a few arbs as this is already public anyway: @KrakatoaKatie, BU Rob13, and GorillaWarfare:.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • They are indeed operated by the same person. We've begun a discussion about this. Katietalk 15:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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


Blocked x 24 hrs per WP:NPA. Their failure to respond here, on their talk page or at WanderingWanda's... or even to acknowledge this issue for more than 24hrs, leaves no reasonable interpretation other than that this was a deliberate insult. If there is any repetition the next block is likely going to be long if not indefinite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

My reply:

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

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

I left the user a warning. That is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. El_C 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Recommend looking at the user's contributions. All of them. -- (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know if I'm gonna get a chance to do that, but if there is something specific you want me to look at, please feel free to bring it here. El_C 20:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
[[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][20]]. They only have one page worth of edits. Draw your own conclusions based on every single edit they've made and what topic it relates to and what POV those edits push. -- (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of the overarching tendency, I meant do you have anything else actionable. I see some soapboxing, the rest seems like standard pov pushing. El_C 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I assume the IP's point isn't that the other diffs are necessarily actionable in themselves, but that they provide context which makes clear the edit wasn't a typo or autocorrect glitch. That said, the last diff is page-blanking, which certainly also does seem actionable, in combination with the edit in question. Grandpallama (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

Another account that is likely them for future actions:

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

I have give this editor a one week block for their aggressive, harassing and hateful edit summaries. The fourth diff is racist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
He's got a bunch of sock puppets, and he's already evading a long-term block. I've upped it to an indef CU block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection request[edit]

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

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

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

ISIS edits and socking, Part 2[edit]

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

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

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