Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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

Editor using multiple profiles

PAGEOFLEGAMES (talk · contribs), Medaltables (talk · contribs), Medaltables2 (talk · contribs), Holidayof2017 (talk · contribs), OlympicsPAGE1 (talk · contribs), KABBEY (talk · contribs), ChampionshipsSthings (talk · contribs), PARACLHIANMEPBIAOLNLSSHSISPSS (talk · contribs), OlympicOverview (talk · contribs) (there are probably more) all seem to have been created by the same person. All of them have a sandbox which consists of copies/modifications of sections of wiki articles. The editing history consists largely, though not exclusively, of edits to these sandboxes. So far one has been deleted on the basis of WP:NOTWEBHOST. That would seem to apply to all the other sandboxes as well. It was also suggested in the deletion discussion that the user was a sock of a disruptive editor of the Runcorn article and that they be blocked (this did not eventuate), although that may be just coincidence. User:BIO-GRAPHY1/sandbox appears to be the same person, if so then they are 12 years old. Opinions/suggestions of appropriate action(s) welcome. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the "biography" at User:BIO-GRAPHY1/sandbox suggests they are a 12-year-old from an area near Runcorn and so it would not be unsurprising if they were editing that article. I'm going to delete the "biography" as it gives personal information of an under-age user. The other accounts all do seem to be the same user. I am guessing that they are trying to create various things in sandboxes and don't realise that they don't have to create a new username for each "thing" they create - they're using the usernames as article titles. I'm going to block all of the usernames except the oldest, and leave an informative message on each userpage. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Right, OK. I've blocked them all except User:Medaltables (I found two other accounts as well), left block messages pointing them back towards that username, moved all of their sandboxes into Medaltable's userspace (and showed them how to access them), and explained what has happened on Medaltable's userpage. Probably a big waste of time, but if they are serious about actually trying to do something useful, hopefully they will. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Black Kite, add User:TheMiscellaniousStuff to your list as well. CU, you know... Drmies (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, done. I suspect we might have a case of whack-a-mole occurring soon, but it was worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Poland article - planned POV attack

• Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United Union (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure how to initiate this issue because I've never come across such a situation, but in recent days user United Union has been edit warring on the Poland article — in short I reminded him of the 3RR rule regarding new text and asked him to initiate a discussion on the talk page. Unfortunately, my arguments were disregarded and a rather unsettling statement was made by user United Union [1]: "FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future." Based on this user's recent behavior and frequent sock-puppet problems on the Poland page, I'm concerned that this might be an organized and persistent POV attack on the article, I hope that I'm wrong, but I would request that Administrators look into this situation in order to avoid major disruption to the article. --E-960 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

E-960, please remember to notify editors you discuss here. I've done so for you this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Your words about 3RR are ironic, since United Union has not broken 3RR during this dispute, whereas you have (4 reverts between 22:46 27 Dec and 20:02 28 Dec). If you have any actual evidence of sockpuppetry, take it to SPI. Also, without any further evidence, your warnings of a massive impending POV assault sound like scaremongering. So far this seems like a standard editing dispute, and I suggest that both of you follow the usual dispute resolution procedures. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

BethNaught, I'm a bit disappointed by this response, since user United Union has been inserting this statement on the following 5 occasions [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Also, given the current political situation in the real world, when you see a editor make such a comment, and it's marginalized on the incident board, I do lose faith in the Wikipedia project, because the Poland article is in no way bias, it tries to be neutral and I myself focused on improvments related to grammar, spelling, matching relevant images to text (the article was is extremely poor shape from a quality point of view and I myself did not bother adding anything political but focused on the quality aspect over the last year), yet more and more I see editors just pop in to add something related to issues in the news or obnoxious information (I think there is a possible motive behind it). --E-960 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• For example yesterday an editor on the Krakow page change Nazi German concentration camp to Polish concentration camp on that and three other pages, so excuse me if I feel unease when someone makes such a statement on the Poland page. Or, when the Polish Prime Minister had a car accident, a user in the following days added text related to traffic fatalities in Poland and that they were highest in the EU. Now, user United Union wants to include information on EU subsidies for Poland just when there is talk in the news that the commission wants to take them away, sorry but there was time since 2004 to add such information about it, so why exactly now? The Poland article still suffers from a lack of cohesion because exactly from this, editors just adding random trivia. --E-960 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see any relevance between what some other editors did on other articles with this particular issue. This seems like a content dispute to me (along with breaking the 3RR by the OP) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 00:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree that this is a content dispute that can be settled at Talk:Poland? If the edit war prolongs, it should be noted at WP:AN3. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t really see trying to blame the Poles instead of the nazis for the Holocaust as “just a content dispute.” There’s blame to be had all around, but there is no doubt that Auschwitz was run by the Germans. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course blaming the Poles for Auschwitz is an awful, despicable thing to do, and I'd revert the Nazi apologist and submit the case to whatever board is appropriate. I agree, such edits are serious incidents, there's no doubt about it. However, the OP in this case mentions such an edit (singular) as something that happened on another Poland-related article, made by some other editor. That made them uncomfortable and on the look-out for more vandalism (fully understood, such vile things should not happen on WP). However, the edit that this AN/I is about is something different: Should it be mentioned that Poland is the largest EU net beneficiary or not? That's what I meant by content dispute. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about Tvtonightokc

Tvtonightokc has been constantly adding information to articles so that they're too long, especially Oklahoma TV station articles. I put the "very long" template on top of them but he keeps taking them down. He may also be using an IP to add irrelevant information to other articles. Can you tell him to tone it down or at least cut the articles to a reasonable length? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Also, could someone archive parts of his talk page? That's getting very long too. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, please remember to present evidence, whether as diffs or otherwise. WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered personal attacks. Also, it's easier for admins if you give us evidence, rather than us having to look for it. This is a rather easy situation to investigate, so no complaints, but any future reports will be easier for everyone if you present evidence. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, have you tried to talk with Tvtonightokc about this idea at all? Glancing through your contributions to all namespaces except mainspace, I didn't see any interaction with him. It's not particularly appropriate to sanction someone for this kind of activity unless he understands what we normally do; this isn't something like vandalism that anyone will understand to be inappropriate. If you have interacted with him anywhere except mainspace (presumably your talk page, his talk page, or one or more article talk pages), please leave a note here explaining where you've had this interaction; again, diffs would be best. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's some evidence: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] And the IP edits: [23] [24] [25] [26] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; that's what I was requesting. What about the edits from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1D80:47C0:CCA:CF5D:52F7:B249 make you suspect sockpuppetry? It appears to be someone expanding references to U.S. Communications, rather than the unreasonable expansion that Tvtonightokc has been doing. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparent ethnic nationalist edit warrior at Chin people

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

---

• Chin people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chin/Zomi articles are difficult because sources conflict and there are disputes among the various peoples over nomenclature, etc. User:ConradWalterSmith has suddenly appeared making major undiscussed changes which deleted sourced text, changed some sourced text and added unsourced text. I reverted him, went to his talk page and wrote "Please don't do that again. If you have a dispute, take it to the talk page with sources meeting WP:RS. I realise that there is a dispute over nomenclature but we don't take sides over this". His response was "here is not some simple dispute over nomenclature. Zomi is a subgroup of Chin itself. A lot of this info is factually incorrect and you are doing a huge disservice by propagating this false info. You have no idea what you're doing. Go to any Chin communities in the US and show them this page. This is outrageous and insulting to Chin people. You can't write your suppositions and guesses as facts and pat yourself on the back. By spreading these false information, you're dividing an entire ethnic group. This is essentially like saying one European ethnic group constitutes the entirety of Europe." This is in fact the dispute, see this which says "The term Chin is typically used only in reference to those living inside Burma. .. Until recently, there appeared to be a consensus that the term Chin was not an identity that any of these peoples would choose to describe themselves, and for many, it was (and is) considered derogatory. However, some Chin nationalist historians have tried to claim authority for this term as an indigenized form of self-reference....Some promote the terms Zo and Zomi, stating that they are derived from the name of the mythic common ancestor of all the Chin peoples. However, not all Chin groups accept this interpretation. There have also been concerns within the Burmese government about the development of a pan-Zo political movement, which might seek to unite “Zo Land” in Burma with Mizoram in India."

I'm providing this detail just to show that there's a dispute and that it's covered in an RS. Editors come and go on these articles trying to make them reflect their particular pov. I'm here because although this looks like an edit dispute, it isn't obvious that it can be handled the normal ways as this editor continued to make the same sort of changes with the edit summary "fuck you Doug" at one point. I really don't have the energy to deal with editors like this, who charge in and apparently don't care or even notice when they delete sourced text, etc. Maybe a word with the editor might help, but frankly I think I'd be better off just taking the page off my watchlist and leaving it a mess. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug, User:Snowded reverted the most recent disruption along with a reprimand for the uncivil edit summary. And I've placed a personal note on their talk page about edit warring and requested that they engage in a talk page discussion before any further edits. We'll see if that helps. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I believe this ANI notice has garnered the article sufficient watchers that any further inappropriate editing will be dealt with easily, and that therefore this thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender:Except that the editor’s response to User:CactusWriter jipust now was “Dear CactusWriter Go fuck yourself as well. You wiki editors can get off your genteel cyber high horses since you suck ass at sharing knowledge and only spread false info while shooting down corrections. This is why Wikipedia is a joke and less people are becoming editors. ConradWalterSmith (talk) 7:23 am, Today (UTC+0)” Doug Weller talk 07:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to review this

Looks like a fairly clear case for a block (or at the very least a final warning), at this point, as ConradWalterSmith (talk · contribs) is clearly NOTHERE, is editing disruptively and with a strong POV, is edit-warring, and is attacking good-faith editors. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please bring out the banhammer for this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Edits by User:Indie Geek

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

This user continuously makes edits to video game articles which (some possibly others definitely) violate WP:OVERLINK. These have been their only edits since they joined a few days ago; they have not acknowledged my initial efforts to remind them of the guideline. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a user warning template series for MOS violations. Since you already gave a level-1 warning, I've now given a level-2 warning. Unless this is a long-term abuse case that I'm not recognizing (and I don't know most of them), I think this is a little early for ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Report about User: SouthernResidentOreca

The user named SouthernResidentOreca supported the addition of repetitive information on the Koenigsegg Agera article and while having a discussion on the matter, used foul language. U1Quattro (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, after much searching, it looks like you're talking about this. The Moose 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We're for the most part all grown-ups here; that's not "foul language". It's on the borderline of civility, but not "foul". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes but he should've refrained from that when all that was done was a rational edit. U1Quattro (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and it can be shocking and hurtful when people are even mildly insulting about good-faith edits. On the other hand, this is the internet, and that's what happens on the internet -- people can be irritable and rude. I recommend ignoring personal comments such as that; even if they rise to the level of personal attacks or incivility. I've found that calling the person out, or taking the bait, or rising to the challenge, or fighting fire with fire, only aggravates the problem. What works best is just to completely ignore people's irritability or rudeness, and instead either let them have the last word, or, if more discussion about content needs to occur, comment only about content and edits, and do not even mention the other editor(s) or even use the word "you". Discuss edits and content, not editors or behavior. This takes discipline, but if you make it a habit, it will serve you well here. Uncivil behavior only rises to the level of noticeboard reporting if it is very repetitive, serious, and longterm. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well put. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Dumbass advice. EEng 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-respect of a one week ban by 82.132.187.242

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

---

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

Previous ip

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

This ip 82.132.240.129 contributing at Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has been banned for one week. They haven't respect the decision as they are back after only 4 days away with a different ip from the same block 82.132.240.129 . Here is the report about 82.132.240.129. Woovee (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Woovee: I've blocked the current IP, removed their comments from the RFC, and semi-protected the article for a month. The IP range is too large for a rangeblock but you can revert all their future edits on sight as it's a banned user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Copying from AIV and my talk page

Geographyinitiative Has been posting the below both on my talk page, and at AIV. This is something I have not dealt witih before. Can anyone here help? — Maile (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Posted on my talk page

There is a consistent multi-year pattern with this vandal of putting flags from European minor localities into unrelated stub class articles in Asian and African geography. Don't know how to help, but here's the list of the IP's I saw today.

121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 117.24.123.12 120.42.184.160

Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Posted at AIV

• 121.207.74.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There is a consistent pattern of vandalism where this vandal uses categories like County-level divisions of Fujian or County-level divisions of Henan and then puts flags unrelated to the subject matter into the article. This has apparently been going on since 2016. The vandal's other IPs: 121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• 117.24.123.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There is a consistent pattern of vandalism where this vandal uses categories like County-level divisions of Fujian or County-level divisions of Henan and then puts flags unrelated to the subject matter into the article. This has apparently been going on since 2016. The vandal's other IPs: 121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 117.24.123.12 Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• 120.42.184.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) There is a consistent pattern of vandalism where this vandal uses categories like County-level divisions of Fujian or County-level divisions of Henan and then puts flags unrelated to the subject matter into the article. This has apparently been going on since 2016. The vandal's other IPs: 121.205.49.126 223.104.45.102 219.133.46.12 219.133.46.78 219.133.46.9 219.133.46.8 219.133.46.7 223.104.45.100 223.104.45.104 223.104.45.99 223.104.45.97 219.133.46.74 219.133.46.75 219.133.46.73 219.133.46.70 121.207.74.55 117.24.123.12 120.42.184.160 Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: Geographyinitiative The first two have not edited since 2016, and the third one not since October 2017. There's not anything we can do here at AIV. If you have concerns about the patterns and the other IPs, you might find more of an answer by opening a discussion at WP:ANI Perhaps asking for range blocks. — Maile (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• If it'll help anyone's investigation, I have an additional data point for this kind of behavior from an IP from just a few days ago: 121.205.48.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was doing this between December 23 and 26. Reported to AIV and blocked with the comment "Long-term abuse". Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• That looks like Special:Contributions/219.133.46.0/24 and Special:Contributions/223.104.45.0/24. Those are already range blocked. The newest one looks like Special:Contributions/121.205.48.0/23, but it could be an /18. I'll block the /23 and see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Szm020730, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Szm020730 i.e. the flag vandal. Also commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Szm020730. There's an edit filter that should deal with this but it probably needs updating. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)