Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Recurring incremental vandal

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

---

We have a recurring IP vandal, primarily targeting sports' championship articles, but also a handful of movie articles as well. As my eyes start to glaze over when discussion turns to sports statistics, my examples are limited to the movie articles, but I've confirmed similar patterns in the sports articles.

(As the editor switches IPs so rapidly, I have not notified anywhere.)

Details, including an extensive list of IPs used, are available at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Cellco_vandal.

Sample behavior:

• Twister (1996 film)

Running time from 113 to 114 minutes 16:33, October 24, 2017‎

Running time from 114 to 115 minutes 16:37, October 24, 2017‎

Running time from 115 to 116 minutes‎ 14:25, November 3, 2017‎

Running time from 116 to 117 minutes 15:01, November 3, 2017‎

reverted to 115)

Running time from 115 to 116 minutes 17:17, November 3, 2017‎

(reverted to 113, per IMDb)

Running time from 113 to 115 minutes 17:42, November 3, 2017‎

The editor never uses edit summaries, ignores all talk requests and changes IPs frequently. The range of affected articles is fairly large (several dozen at a bare minimum) but most of the IPs are in a narrow range. I have not seen any unrelated edits in the addresses I've checked but I have little to no idea how to figure out how much collateral damage would come from a range block. Thoughts/suggestions? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Could be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ron liebman Billhpike (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Liebman was largely fixated on baseball player biographies. But it's been like ten years since then, so he might have branched out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This range probably be safely blocked with minimal collateral damage: 2600:1017:B024::0/40 Billhpike (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Abuse is continuing this morning. Billhpike (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And yet more [1] [2] Billhpike (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And more today. Can we get a short term range block? Billhpike (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And more [3] Billhpike (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked for a period of 72 hours. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Turkey

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

User:Khirurg and User:EtienneDolet tag-team edit warring against a recently closed RfC at Turkey.

Diffs:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Attempts to discuss on user talk

Comments by closer of second RfC on article talk: Talk:Turkey#Secularism,_unitary,_parliamentary_republic...

The add was made by User:Icewhiz here with edit summary "per RfC" [7] Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The one behaving disruptively is you [8] [9]. I think it's time you were topic banned from anything related to Turkey. Khirurg (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for three days to allow for discussion on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I made the edit in acccordance with the newly closed 2nd RfC on the matter. I do think Khirurg and EtienneDolet may have been confused due to recent editing on the article and the original RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Icewhiz: I have no doubt that you were in good faith to restore that wording, but I think the entire procedural aspect of opening up the 2nd RFC has caused more problems than it has solved. The first RFC involved 11 users, 10 of which supported the removal of all the wording (democracy, parliamentary republic, secular, and etc.) as opposed to just 1 user. That's an astounding sway of opinion to one side of the debate. And the one user, who happened to be against the other ten, was Seraphim System who kept undermining the first RFC and continuously arguing the opening of another one until the opposition just died out. What's even more problematic is that Seraphim System went to WP:ANI to void the first RFC without even bothering to ping any of the users only to reopen another RFC a day later (pinging was done by Icewhiz). All the other users probably were fed up by the time of the 2nd RFC or just considered it a farce since it was obvious that the sole user who was pushing for a second RFC wasn't just pushing an RFC, but a POV that solely belonged to that one and only user. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
      • In hindsight the ping mechanism did break around when rfc2 was opened, and Godric stayed the open (10 oct) while the ANI discussion was on going, and then reopened later (19 oct) which had the unfortunate effect of pushing this down in legbots' lists. Participation in the 2nd RfC was far from great (in some posers just myself, with comments by Seraphim System).Icewhiz (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Come to think of it, the pinging did break down around that time. I forgot about that. But regardless, at least you made the good faith effort in pinging the participants. And that ANI discussion is more of a charade than a discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request). Contrary to what Seraphim System says, s/he is the sole user who is challenging the consensus reached by the RFC with filibustering tactics that I've never seen before (s/he keeps responding to his/her own comments back to back to back to back). Just look at the comments of veteran users such as Winged Blades of Godric, Jytdog, Ealdgyth. Not one user is in support of Seraphim's tirade. This ANI discussion was an attempt by Seraphim to push a POV and to wear down his/her opponents before getting his/her way to open up a second RFC. A WP:GAMING strategy that seemed to have worked since very few participants had the energy or time to engage with the user in a second RFC or of the multiple FORUMS the user shopped at (let alone the fact that s/he didn't even bother to inform them). Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The problems with WP:OR and unsourced commentary in the first RfC were noted by several editors, it was not only one editor. Godric closed finding only a weak consensus for removal. In my opinion, the editors most likely did not respond to the second RfC because they did not have WP:RS supporting their positions. It is much easier to make disoganized, unclear arguments without WP:RS then to propose well-sourced changes. In fact, there was no source-based discussion on the talk page at all before the first RfC. RfC's are not a tool to impose unsourced editorial "opinions" "truth" and original research on the articles. At least one of the editors advancing the argument about secularism has been blocked as a sockpuppet - that same WP:OR appears on at least one other article, and I have already found WP:RS that directly contradict the editor's analysis. I'm not opposed to improving the articles and discussing them, but consensus requires source based discussion. There is nothing stopping any editor for trying to gain consensus for specific source-based changes on the article talk page.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It would help perhaps if someone could clarify exactly what happened with the last RfC. The way it's currently being discussed, its pretty hard for someone who wasnt involved to understand what actually happened. Here was what I thought was going on when I closed the second RfC: I thought Godric had closed the first RfC as no consensus because he thought that too many of the votes in the original RfC were just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rather than being policy based. He then proceeded as part of his close to make a new RfC so that people could !vote on each particular part of the sentence in question, and Icewhiz pinged all the past !voters. Is this not the full story? Brustopher (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The close was revised after I formally challenged it. At least three editors had objected to the non-sourced based "voting" in the RfC. It was also difficult to disentangle different parts of the proposal. There was clear consensus to remove democracy, but the consensus for other parts of the sentence, especially "secular" was much weaker. Godric decided to open a multi-part RfC. A lot of the issues arose from the first RfC being improperly proposed without discussion and for changes that were not supported by WP:RS, and the second RfC sought clarification. I certainly don't think the discussion should be reopened for further "voting" that is not supported by WP:RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the second RfC should be reopened and closed immediately as no consensus due to the almost complete lack of participation. I don't think it should have been used to come to any firm conclusions. Number 57 23:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think that's a good idea. Considering the fact that nine users (as opposed to one) were against all of these words being placed to the lead, it's only going to create more problems down the road since the participants of the former RFC will return to protest the words they contested in the original RFC. The article should remain locked so as to encourage discussion. The discussion should now focus on the three words that are being added to the article (Secular, unitary, parliamentary republic). And it doesn't have to be an RFC, but a simple discussion. RFCs actually make it difficult in this case because !votes will make things more complicated and confusing, especially when each word that's being added needs to be analyzed thoroughly in accordance to RSs. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The closer states that he has "taken into account arguments from the previous RfC that led to this one." so that is not a reason to reopen. He states clearly: In the previous RfC, much of the discussion on secularism was again just people giving their own opinions and arguments, rather than providing sources. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo position of describing Turkey as secular. is entirely consistent with WP:POLL. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, User:EtienneDolet has a long history of battleground behavior in WP:ARBAA2 -including a warning.[10] I have not looked into the editing pattern in detail, but the "failure to edit neutrally" may be spilling over into this topic area. His comments during the RfC were not based on WP:RS including:

• "In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy. I know the West is loving Ataturk right now since they constantly compare him to Erdogan, but Ataturk ruled with an iron fist under single-party rule. During his time, you couldn't even publicly speak any other language other than Turkish"
• " A country filled with long and extensive record of human rights violations against non-Turks, forced assimilation, forced deportations, denial of ones racial identity, the banning of languages, and then outright genocide should not be viewed as accepting of cultural diversity. That's rather obvious to me. As is the secular stuff."
• "Sure, there are RSs that might say Turkey is a de jure democracy (the Britannica source doesn't even say that by the way), much like how there are RSs that say North Korea is a Republic, but if it doesn't jive with reality, then it should not be presented as such."
• "Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves."
• "for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article"

Regarding the last part, Brustopher notes in his close There are sourced descriptions in the body of the article describing Turkey as secular in Wikipedia's voice.. For example, where are sources that languages were banned? Kurdish was not banned until the 1980s, and it had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide. Even if you are sympathetic to the views here, which I am, it does not excuse abusing the RfC process to impose unsourced person opinions and POV on the encyclopedia. The standards have to be higher. As for battleground behavior, the unsubstantiated personal attacks on the article talk pages need to stop [11] - what forum shopping? Where is the diff? I challenged the close here, at ANI, after I discussed it with the closer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Drop this--The closure of 2nd RFC is quite well.See my comments at the relevant talk page.Winged Blades^Godric 13:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:173.241.122.42

173.241.122.42 has been reverting my edits on WLBZ, claiming there are typos when they're not; he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. [12] [13] [14] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything's needed right now; this is ordinary vandalism, but we don't block for ordinary vandalism without a few more edits. If you get reverted a fourth time, feel free to report it as a 3RR violation (either at my talk page or WP:AN3); you're reverting vandalism, so your reverts are exempted, but the IP's edits aren't, and a fourth revert will make him instantly blockable. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Bill Maher rant at a unrelated article talk page

I've been reverting persistent attempts to reconfigure comments or delete them entirely here [15], but wonder if this soapboxing belongs on the PETA talk page at all. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there and it should be removed. Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxes for personal rants. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That said, the account that I reported seemed to have earned the block. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And it's back [16], so this probably will require further attention. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The inanity spreads to a blocked user's talk page [17], which I'm prevented from restoring to last good version. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a bizarre revert history and 2601, you realize you were reverting back in the material in error? I'm not sure the right editor got blocked. Pinging Widr. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I did realize after the fact, NeilN, which is why I brought the discussion here. Re: the blocked user's edits, they weren't simply removing the rant with a rational explanation, but were inserting their own editorial and satirical hooks. It was a mess either way--I certainly won't defend my rapid restoration of the diatribe. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unblocked Mr. Meseeks, who was trying to do the right thing, and got caught in the crossfire. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It was Bob Speth who posted the anti-Maher rant on December 17, in his only edit to Wikipedia. It sat their unnoticed for ten days, until hell broke loose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the manner in which they were going about it, I'd assert that they caused the crossfire: [ [18]; [19]; the edit summaries didn't help [20]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

IP is right: Mr Meseeks was definitely trolling at that page, though they did do so by replacing some forum-y BLPvios with what looks like a tongue in cheek impersonation of the original author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like there's at least three new editors being asshats on that page. Suggest warnings to all of them. --Tarage (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seems a bit fishy. I'm trusting that Cullen328 will keep an eye on Mr. Meseeks' edits. Widr (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Widr: Speaking of fishy, you've trouted yourself for treating removals of BLP vios as vandalism? And the edit request, while unlikely to be supported, is plausible. [21] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

After reading those edit summaries, I have warned Mr. Meseeks, and will watch their edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Vandalism on my talk page

Please see this, along with a spurious block notification here along with multiple insults on my talk page. A remedy would be appreciated. Scr★pIron^IV 15:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User warned for harassment, spurious warnings on ScrapIron's page removed. Some protections might be needed at the apparent source of the trouble at Bigg Boss 11. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I was tagged on Scraps talk by Broken in what was changed to tag big boss later, I'd like to point out Broken has been blocked before and to my knowledge has not contributed anymore then disruption to wiki since they joined. Just my 2 cents. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 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 [22]: "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 [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. 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)

Personal attacks and threatening behaviour surrounding "Wolf Warrior 2"

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

---

For many months, some users and IPs have been blanking mention of negative reviews of the film Wolf Warrior 2, which are reliably sourced. Some of these users/IPs were blocked last month for being the same person (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whaterss). The various usernames/IPs were used to censor a lot of reliably-sourced Wikipedia content that differed from the worldview of the Chinese government, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT.

Now a new series of IPs have appeared to blank the same content at Wolf Warriors 2, and the person behind these IPs is increasingly violating the policy at Wikipedia:Civility.

• name-calling: i.e. here
• rudeness: i.e. here, here
• threatening suggestions that we should meet up in person: here and here; latter of which includes a specific time and place in my city where I am meant to show up and be a "real man"

I have politely warned the user and linked to the civility policy (i.e. here), but the behaviour has escalated since then (with the more recent invitation to meet in Causeway Bay tomorrow). My user page was also vandalised with fake user boxes a few days ago, which I suspect is related.

I haven't seen the film and I didn't add the negative reviews in the first place. I have suggested repeatedly (i.e. here, here and here) that a more constructive approach would be to add more Chinese perspectives to the page if they feel that mentioning negative reviews of this film is "anti-Chinese", but content is still being unduly blanked. Citobun (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest semi-protection; given there's socking (or at least IP hopping) involved and the conduct appears just to be blanking with refusal to interact constructively, I think semi-protection would be a good idea here. The one IP's suggestion of a meet-up to fight over this editing dispute is somewhere between creepy and silly, but in any event shouldn't be tolerated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Semied one month. Any more creepiness from IPs and I will start blocking but if another admin wants to do the deed now please be my guest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a week for harassment, with a warning that the next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick response. Citobun (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

My block of 62.253.196.108

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

---

I just blocked User:62.253.196.108 for a week and I am potentially involved. They had just came off a 2 day block for disruptive editing. I interacted with them prior to the block. I reverted a single edit on two different articles as potential BLP violating edits, warned them about personal attacks and reported them to WP:ANEW for edit warring. Since coming back from the block they have made four edits. Warn me about edit warring on an article I have made one edit. Warn another editor about edit warring. Make a revert on an article they were edit warring on before the block. Remove edits from their talk page with an edit summary that is both a legal threat and personal attack. Submitted here for review of the block. ~ GB fan 11:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a fine block. We have no use for a person like that. --Jayron32 11:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Block's fine, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User: Cjhard Conduct

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

---

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

In trying to better work with others civilly as best as possible and submit as much quality content as possible to Wikipedia, I am finding that User: Cjhard is particularly going out of their way to "essentially" stalk me and spitefully revert edits I make to a page. Other users, while not agreeing with me on certain content, at least upon reviewing my evidence afterward, tend to accept it if correct/reliable and allow things to move along as needed. When they don't, I am forced to accept and abandon it. In the Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album) article, I noticed questionable information in the infobox. Sensing it was added by a vandal by its nature (no source/citation nor edit summary explanation provided), I removed it and restored the correct information. A user that goes by "Summer...", reverted my edit & added back the incorrect information and then sent me a warning to my page, which I did perceive as disrespectful and condescending (against my good intentions), yet somewhat understandable if one hadn't studied the page edit history, to come to the correct conclusion. I addressed my disappointment and then I opened up discussion on the talk page to showcase evidence, in which no one replied nor explained their viewpoint on the content. I restored my edit that listed 2001, under the belief that no one has provided a source for the date period of 2000-01, since it was the work of a vandal 4 years ago. Like with the TLC Creep (TLC song) (thank you User:Beyoncetan helping me out to fix it), User:Cjhard swiftly undid my contribution again at this Snowflakes page, scolding me to "Stop making unconstructive additions". Studying the contexts of my edit there, it is the very opposite. Taking issue with this, I addressed the matter at the talk page, I am tired of this user's demeanor towards me and find it to be holding a grudge. Judging by how User:Cjhard also relates to other users on Wikipedia, at times being unnecessarily snarky or condescending (see attitude towards User: EEng), they are behaving in an extremely biased manner towards me out of spite, after having randomly contributed in support of an attempt to indefinitely ban me from Wikipedia. Then subtly expressing displeasure when that didn't occur, in which I received via panicking alert (Your alerts tab) about that.

If a user is going out of their way to deliberate undo well-meaning edits of mine from an article, yet turns other cheek when another user does the same (Beyoncetan), I cannot help but think, it is a bit targeted and hardly objective at all on his part. I cannot entertain other users refusing to be objective and holding past incidents against me by fighting my contributions, to the point it can seem personal. I do not see how my contributions at diffs 1 and 2 , were worthy of reversion, especially when proof was shown of why I made the correction in this talk page diff before Cjhard's article page diff. Like I once did, User: Cjhard needs to be made aware that perhaps they need to go about things here more objectively and not merely be reverting edits, solely based on their feelings toward the user that provided it and then not doing the same with other users on the same content, out of less bias. Despite feeling offended by another user's countenance towards me over a long period of time and made similar attempts to have me blocked, I have in turn gone out of my way to make so many contributions for them and share difficult to garner research. If I am able to be that pleasant and generous, there is no reason why User: Cjhard cannot do so and strictly focus on reverting actual submission of bad content, versus edit warring and making false accusations against me, in response to me dutifully correcting invalid content submitted by vandalous IP user 63.92.231.105.--Carmaker1 (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I see two examples of Cjhard reverting edits by you. I see zero attempts by you to discuss your concerns in a reasonable manner with Cjhard before bringing this to ANI, filing a request for mediation, and reporting him to WP:ANEW. I think your concerns here are way overblown. I also think your post on his talk page is overblowing things as well and is combative. It seems to me that the way you're acting right now is part of the reason other ANI threads were opened about your conduct recently. I note that the most recent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Another_Carmaker1_report_for_NPA_and_OWN was archived without ever being closed, but it seems that there was a clear consensus there to topic ban you from commenting on others via edit summaries. only (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there was no topic ban issued on Automotive topic editing and having returned to that, I have done very well in the Automotive section and focused moderately on music. A topic ban has nothing to do with the agreed aspect of not writing usernames in edit summaries, does it? I no longer do that, but my talk page is still my talk page. Is this very matter going to be resolved, on the primary focus of what is being reverted by this user and the aspect of obviously monitoring my edit history or not? My previous ANI discussion has nothing to do with the fact incorrect information was introduced into a music article 4 years ago and how I took the effort to fix it (belatedly), then when I explained and provided proof for it after one revert, the user in question did not take the effort to read the talk page and automatically reverted. I have already proved that the IP user who introduced the information, was known for such edits that constituted vandalism and nearly banned for that vandalism after receiving warnings on providing erroneous information repeatedly. Naturally, most users will see the issue with the content fairly well and come to consensus, in caring to do the correct thing. How can we have a discussion in the first place, when the other user is not willing to review the evidence and address what should be done? Please be objective here. I expect that as a Wikipedia user, that I am allowed to bring things to my concern, without unrelated incidents being brought up in incorrect context. I did mention that, but unlike another participant, I take it this user has not moved on and isn't looking at the subject with clear eyes.--Carmaker1 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carmaker1:, looking at all your interactions with Cjhard since November 1 does not show any evidence of stalking by Cjhard. On Creep (TLC song), you changed something which you identify in the edit summary was based on personal conversations with the audio engineer. On Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album), you were reverted for making unsourced additions. Even if the information was originally added previously by another editor, you still have responsibility for its re-addition through reverting. You have been strongly counseled by many other seasoned editors about exactly this kind of behavior: making changes to articles based on personal knowledge or without identifiable sources. Cjhard is quite correct to have made those reversions. To claim that a mere two reverts is worthy of any response, let alone this level of response, is a, well, let's just call it an "idiosyncratic interpretation of collaborative editing". I seriously suggest you withdraw this report before curved aboriginal hunting implements begin flying. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you are saying in your last sentence? Thanks. I don't have much disagreement with the results of the Creep article, except where dearly respected and hardworking Beyoncetan, was able to re-add the same content establishing "1993-1994", without providing a source to support it and no interest from Cjhard, unlike my edit. After my edit was deemed unsatisfactory, the pre-existing content was removed by me in not being reliably supported either. User Beyoncetan kindly sorted that all out. Even at that, the Creep article has less concern to me than the most recent revert with Snowflakes. The Snowflakes revert is questionable because it does not have to do with original research. I was doing what should've been done on September 4, 2013, when the unsupported erroneous addition of 2000 - 01 was made, to revert it back to 2001. Summer... and I have thankfully mutually resolved it, by leaving the section empty.--Carmaker1 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carmaker1:, that last sentence was, as the esteemed EEng says, a "coy circumlocution" for WP:BOOMERANG, which you may want to read. That said, the rest of this reply is pure content dispute stuff, which is not what this page is generally used for. The conduct issue of stalking appears to have no basis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? You are not reading my points (at all). It is rather snide to convey it that my wanting to document this and have it at least brought to attention, is BOOMERANG. If I reported here about User:Beyoncetan, User: 1292simon, or User: Summer... Then I could see your point very clearly. I brought this up, because I saw a conflict of interest with his conduct. In one case, I did something mistakenly (uncited interview) and he jumps on it (understandable). Another editor adds the same content, he does nothing. One other edit I make and open discussion on talk page, he chooses to ignore it and not discuss to wrap it up. Summer later agrees and decides 2000-01 at least should be removed in being also unsourced. Problem solved independent of him. See a pattern? Does this mean any ANI discussion I may ever have to create in the future, will fall directly on "Yeah, you had an ANI on you about xxx time ago, who cares about your concerns Carmaker1...you are WP:BOOMERANG, WP:EVIL, WP:ANNOYING, WP: DEFENSIVE...etc Carmaker1". I should be fine with that appparently. Thankfully both Beyoncetan and Summer... are kind and hardworking editors, to help resolve things quickly and fairly. This discussion can be closed then, thanks to the hardwork of theirs on the content dispute. I thank them both so much.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carmaker1:, you are drawing all the wrong inferences possible from this. Just because I didn't agree with your points or directly address them does not mean I didn't read them. In fact, I did. It is because I treated your complaints seriously that I looked at your interactions with Cjhard and found your characterization of them wanting. There is no reason visible why Cjhard's conduct is or was violating any policy or guideline. Ordinary editorial disagreements should preferentially be solved through ordinary means (e.g., article and user talk pages, WP:3O, WP:DR, etc.) as in fact this one seems to have been. WP:FORUMSHOPPING to attempt to get your imagined opponent into trouble almost never works. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet again I renew my call for a moratorium on coy circumlocutions for boomerang. EEng 18:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I really could do without that, as it isn't necessary and I have not directed anything unpleasant at you. Having seen how rude Cjhard was to you once on his talk page, plus more, made me move forward with this ANI and realize this individual has their own pattern of behavior I don't want to deal with unchecked and needed to be pointed out at least once. Come on now, you are better tha .--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh? is right. I have only once interacted with Cjhard on his talk page, and there was nothing unpleasant about it – I made a joke, he got the joke and joked back. I won't even link it – it's stupefying that you are able to misinterpret things this way. (Above you refer to Cjhard's "attitude towards User: EEng", and for the avoidance of doubt I'll say I have no idea what you're talking about there either.) As for "I really could do without that", I have no idea what you're talking about: "Yet again I renew my call for a moratorium on coy circumlocutions for boomerang" hasn't anything to do with you. You seem to get everything backward if not completely mixed up. EEng 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I strenuously object to that call, and further request an aerial ligneous apparatus for the editor calling for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Your mother wears army boots. EEng 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[Scent of elderberries intensifies]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

More block evasion from Armanjarrettp

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

---

A bot archived this section without any discussion, so I have relisted it here. Cards84664 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs)

Same as before, as seen here.

• ESZCocoran426 (talk · contribs)

Poor grammar, using previously made articles to change other transit templates. Yet another sock account. Cards84664 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've started you an SPI page for this and future occasions. Probably a better response there than here regarding socks, that may be why the previous thread was so quiet. Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate behavior, edit summaries from IP 31.173.85.106

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

---

Earlier, I was cleaning up the vandalism from 31.173.85.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Rape of Belgium. They did not at all take kindly to this. [28] [29] [30] The IP kept reverting my and Abce2's cleanup until Killiondude blocked the IP for 12 hours for "Misbehaving". Cleaning up the IP's inappropriate comments led to [31], which I think qualifies as more than just misbehaving. Would it be possible to get a longer block and some RevDel on the last edit summary at least? (For obvious reasons, if someone else would make the ANI notice on the IP's talk page, I'd be much obliged.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

History of adding unsourced content to BLP articles

• Gian Felicino 6 (talk · contribs)

I suspect most of the account's edits--and there are a lot--are due for reversion. Numerous warnings have been ignored on the path to adding birthplaces and changing genres. Diffs not necessary, as you can probably pick any edit at random to see the problem. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive box busted?

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

---

I'm not seeing any content there, despite purging this page and the module page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Me either. Quite curious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. General Ization ^Talk 20:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Module:Archive list, which Module:Admin board archives depends on, was modified about six hours ago by Anomie (talk · contribs). I can't say that's what did it, but it's the first change to that code in years... and I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to code breaking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The same template is working fine on this archive page. General Ization ^Talk 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a different template; {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} vs {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}. While they both call Module:Admin board archives, they do so in slightly different ways. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Frustrating. (A) Can someone post a note on Anomie's talkpage? They don't seem to be responding. (B) Or can someone who has the user rights undo the change that Anomie made? (C) Was Centralized Discussion always on this page? I don't remember seeing it until now. Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I undid the change which seems to have fixed the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Anomie's contribs, it looks like the change to Module:Archive list was made to make this user talk archive list work properly. I think looking forward it would have been better to discuss this first. I'm still not sure why this broke the template. Also, it looks like T:CENT has been transcluded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader for some years now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, unexpected outcomes, the bane of coding. @Softlavender: - yeah, it's always been there. Have fun with your brain driving you nuts now that you've Noticed it, though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• All hail NeilN! Seems to be fixed now, if rather shorter than I remember (am I losing my mind?). I guess we can close this now? Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Credit goes to Mendaliv. I just pushed a button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Sorry I didn't reply in the whole 10 minutes you waited between your the first ping and complaining about non-response.</sarcasm>
• @everyone else: Sorry (for real) for the disruption, I overlooked a case in the module's behavior. See the module's sandbox and talk page to follow up. Anomie⚔ 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Dongbu

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

Seems to have been created by the korean conglomerate with the same name(they just changed their name), clearly using an improper, promotional username, apparently created just to upload that conglomerate's logo: [32]Pancho507 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No edits on enwiki (the upload is to Commons, and over two years ago; I have nominated it for deletion). This would presumably be declined at WP:UAA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've never understood that policy - if the name is a violation, it's a violation, no matter if it has edited or not. When names like these are turned down, it means that the editor must edit, and then someone has to pick up on that fact and report it before it can be blocked. That's just haphazard and silly and inefficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 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: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] And the IP edits: [49] [50] [51] [52] 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)

Saiph121, take 3

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

---

As previously discussed[53], Saiph121 refuses to accept the local consensus: not to include both parent and child categories in the same article (which is also the editing guideline. Having repeatedly added, restored, re-restored, re-re-restored and re-re-re-restored the same disputed categories to several articles, they suggested "that we establish a major consensus in resolving these disputed categories". Though numerous discussions and two trips to DRN established that they really either don't understand Wikipedia's use of categories, Shearonink started a discussion on the question (Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Request_for_comment_re:_categories_of_this_film), notifying Saiph121 of the discussion. Saiph121 did not participate in the discussion. The consensus was to follow the editing guideline. Saiph121 is now back to edit warring against an established consensus to include categories that they deem "important to the film".

Given their extensive history of not understanding (or choosing not to follow) the widespread consensus on categories (outlined at Wikipedia:Categorization) (see earlier discussions[54], [55]), it is my belief that Saiph121 simply either unable to understand or unwilling to follow any guideline or consensus that is contrary to what they feel "should" be in an article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we get to take 10 or so...NOT!! Look at the users talk page, talk about giving someone enough rope!! SummerPhDv2.0 has been SO patient with this user its scary. Anyways, --Malerooster (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2017‎ (UTC)

I've blocked Saiph121 for a week, with an explanation that I hope will get the point across. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Can we get some help?

Russian IP on a rampage [56]. JNW (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --Masem (t) 07:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Some users may need talk page protection. Cheers, JNW (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparent ethnic nationalist edit warrior at Chin people

• 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)

AIV very very backlogged

Just looking at it right now is enough to give one a migraine. 22 cases and I just found a vandalism sock ring. Can we get some help over there, please? Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 09:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems the bot did not change {{Noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}}. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by Velella

Velella has been reverting my constructive edits and harassing me on my talk page. Epic Floridian (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Should point out that the user (Epic Floridian) is a new account, who has gotten into hijacking this article ([57] [58] [59]) without explanation and without any discussion. Also, Velella did not harass you; he/she was warning you about disruptive editing as per the diffs I've provided. Possible WP:BOOMERANG. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Now Everymorning is doing it too. Epic Floridian (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)