Help with IP hopper
Hey, Thanks a lot for your help with the IP hopper. The editor is a long term abuser for Taiwan related topics and has been POV pushing on numerous related topics for the last few years. I and some other editors have been dealing with the editor for the past few months. This has resulted into stalking and attacks on other pages we edit. The IP hopper uses a VPN to edit pages and thus difficult to track or block. I can provide more information(list of pages affected, editor behavior) if required. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Also, the editor is back at this IP . Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Adam,
- You're welcome. It appears semi-protection of multiple pages is the only solution; obviously no range-block will work, and no edit filter I can imagine. Doesn't appear they're willing to stop. Unfortunately I am not online very often, but I'm happy to take a look at a list of affected pages and deal with them piecemeal. i got the page you listed above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a list of pages we have discovered so far: Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense, Joint Direct Attack Munition, Yun Feng, Sky Sword I, Sky Sword II, Tuo Chiang-class corvette, Hsiung Feng III, Human spaceflight, National Space Organization, Hsiung Feng II, Hsiung Feng IIE,National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Nuclear power in Taiwan, Energy in Taiwan, Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction, List of human spaceflight programs, Lunar lander, Brain size, List_of_surface-to-air_missiles#Taiwan. My suspicion is that is there are far more.
- Quoting mfb from here,
- """This seems to be part of a larger systematic effort, although I'm not sure how many users are involved and how they are related (if more than one). There is a cluster of spaceflight-related articles where various IPs consistently try to make the Taiwanese space program look good with a combination of:
- Writing claims with references, but the given references do not discuss the claims at all.
- Misleading links, giving the impression would have articles like Taiwanese manned spaceflight program or Taiwanese astronauts where the actual link goes to some other article.
- NPOV violations like "a cutting edge advanced Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) autonomous lunar lander". Example for all three points
- Not sure if related: Making politically loaded and wrong statements (single instance in 2005, but at least the IP user didn't change it while working on the article)
- Adding tons of links from and to the articles in "see also", probably to promote visibility of the articles. Example
- Namedropping. Example
- We have that pattern in National Space Organization, List of human spaceflight programs, Human spaceflight, Lunar lander, National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction, Hsiung Feng III, Tuo Chiang-class corvette, BrahMos, Brain size (connection) and potentially articles I missed. We have a few IPs doing hundreds of edits in Nuclear power in Taiwan (still needs cleanup), Energy in Taiwan (also needs cleanup), various institutions 1 (when does that person sleep?) and various institutions 2 (not sure if all got reverted), more similar edits in 2013, ... The IPs ignore RfC results, they ignore reverts, they just put their material in again a few days after they get reverted. Just based on the edit patterns, the "see also/energy" IPs could be a different user from the spaceflight articles. """
- Also pinging two other editors who are aware of this, merlinVtwelve, L3X1
- This would probably benefit from a more organized response than I'm going to be capable of. I've just been checking in a few times a day lately, and don't necessarily see that changing any time soon. I'll try to add some of these to my watchlist, but that's going to be pretty ineffective. You might consider creating a list of affected pages on a user sub-page somewhere to make it easier to bring more active admins up to speed. If nothing else that allows you to user "Related changes" to see what's been changed recently. I don't have any other brilliant ideas. Maybe ask for some admins to watchlist a bunch of these pages at ANI? Or ask them to keep an eye on the subpage you create (if you do)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks I will do that. Also, the IP hopper is back to stalking at this address . Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes this helps. I will get on this right away. Another IP address where the IP hopper is back . Disclaimer: I am currently in a content dispute with him here(on a different IP)  Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assam Rifles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages VSM and YSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- I did't really add it, it was apparently in the version I reverted to, but Done anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Very belated thanks
Hello. Sorry for the delay - I just realized, whilst sorting out newsletter subscriptions, that I never thanked you for this. So, many thanks for the useful and friendly intervention - I was getting very, very frustrated! Have a lovely Saturday, cheers, DBaK (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- No problem at all. Frustration and Wikipedia go hand in hand. You have a good weekend too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There were a rash of these reported to ANI in January and February. Just nuke, restore good versions, move to proper place, and block the undisclosed paid editor/spammer. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, you mean a rash of uses of the page move tactic? I kind of wondered whether that tactic could be considered a de facto admission of spamming. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's almost always dab pages. We got a near-unanimous approval for a tech change (and you know what a miracle that is) to help detect this. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_137#Unpatrol_moved_pages --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Jim1138:, I never replied to this, did I? Understood, a reasonable mistake, no worries. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know when you're online and have a few minutes. If you don't mind, reply on my talk page (I just want to make sure we can have a 2-way conversation; at my page I'll be able to revert any 3rd-party comments without issue). Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm online but on my phone; not conducive to an actual conversation. May be on my computer later tonight. Will post to your tall page then. -Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Joefromrandb edit wars with FreeKnowledge, refuses to explain his edits on the talk page in any meaningful fashion, and wants to blame the whole thing on me. "Completely blameless", he says. That's a hoot. The problem here isn't me, it's that Joefromrandb is very, very self-righteous and will edit-war with anybody. It's also that he judged me (wrongly) as a troll from the outset and ignored any evidence to the contrary. He's so blind towards me that he undid a minor but necessary formatting fix I made on his talk page. He's done the same thing with other editors; often cussing out people with whom he disagrees. I am one of many people who's asked him to tone down the vindictive language; he's dismissed all of us. An IBAN with me will not stop Joe from edit-warring with somebody else; and his sordid history suggests that WILL happen, and probably in the near future. The solution here is not to take me out of Joe's equation, the solution is to take Joe out of Wikipedia's equation. Permanently. Also, Joe, IBans generally aren't imposed unilaterally; you generally have to go to AN or ANI to get one. 13:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- So here's the thing. It seems that you and Joe haven't gotten along - and know you don't get along - for a while. Yet you still go to his talk page to fix something that's been like it is for a while, and tht you know will piss him off; you post on your own talk page taunting him about it, and pinging him; and you follow him to a page you've never expressed an interest in before to revert him and disagree with him. You chimed in on his talk page when he was blocked by User:El C to gravedance, even though you had nothing to do with the article involved in the edit war.
- I haven't looked further into this yet, but if it is true that he has not initiated contact with you for a while, and you are continually doing stuff like this, then you are intentionally harassing him. I don't need an AN/ANI thread to block anyone for harassing.
- If the fault is more 2-way, then a mutual IBAN makes sense, which would probably need an AN/ANI discussion if it wasn't mutually agreed. If it really 1-way, then a warning that the initiator is going to get blocked if they continue to initiate, and a reminder to the other editor that if they initate something then all bets are off, would have the same practical effect, but without the trip to the slough of despond.
- You're kind of falling into his trap, Floquenbeam. You're letting Joe dictate what you're looking in to, and you're implictly believing the claim he just posted that he "doesn't pick fights". A quick perusal of his edit summaries over he past month quickly gives the lie to that claim, as does his edit-warring. Last month, he was initially blocked by El C for edit-warring. El C unblocked him on the assumption that Joefromrandb would cease edit warring. He reverted me once and reverted Free a bunch of times here, clearly out of the spirit of El C's unblock. Since this is hardly his first rodeo (or even his first edit-warring block), he probably should have been blocked for a significant amount of time. If he or you propose an IBAN at AN or ANI, I will counter with a proposal for 1RR sanction for Joe, with escalating blocks beginning at one month. I think it should be blatantly clear to the community at this point that Joe doesn't believe in following 3RR restrictions, nor in discussing his behavior with editors he considers beneath him. 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, you really need to be harder on him on the way he treats people. I know you suggested he stop using "troll", but others have done that in the past and he's ignored them. 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and PBP's talk page.
Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked PBP for harrassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked PBP for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to PBP's hounding of JPL ealier that year; now I look thru PBP's recent contribs, and he's still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.
I'm officially warning PBP that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page PBP has not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.
I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.
This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent PBP from reporting Joe to ANEW if Joe has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But PBP cannot insert himself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article they've both edited is OK (though they both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.
In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. PBP because he is harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have rejected your IBAN proposal, Floquenbeam, as I not believe you to be a neutral arbiter. Joe is asking you to hound me because I supposedly hounded him. You've completely ignored Joe's completely abhorrent behavior and you're focusing only on "unwanted contact". Guess what? Your contact with me is no longer wanted.
22:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not an IBAN proposal, it's an explanation of what I'm going to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- And it's completely lost on you that you will have to HOUND me to enforce it, the very thing you're accusing me of doing to Joe? And that I consider what you're doing to be harassment? 22:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not an IBAN proposal, it's an explanation of what I'm going to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
While I guess most editors have their niches, I'm about as much of a nomad as one can be here. I have a few pages that I check regularly, but for the most part I just wander from place to place, making improvements where I can, while in turn always learning cool new shit along the way. The same goes for WP-space. The "Vital Articles" project has never been a big interest of mine, and the regular presence of another user there has always been all the more reason for me to stay away. Nonetheless, I have chimed in on rare occasion, in instances I deemed important. One of these times was during a very spirited debate over the proposed removal of George W.Bush. Incidentally, I believe this was my first encounter with a certain nameless user (I could be wrong). In an astounding coincidence, that user again proposed the removal of President Bush immediately after the quasi restrictions you imposed on the two of us. There could be a solid claim made that I have no business showing up there for literally any other reason. Even the other handful of times that I've opined at that page were for largely trivial issues. This, however, was a debate in which I was quite entrenched. I was going to come here yesterday to seek your guidance, but I figured I would wait a bit, and see which way the proposal was going; if there was clear consensus to retain, there would be no need for me to add a pile-on "oppose", while if there was clear consensus to remove, my "oppose" would be largely pointless. As I had expected (and like last time), it serms very evenly divided. I feel that I'm both entitled and obligated to register my opinion. I intend to sign my name to the "oppose" section, adding the following comment: "If anyone is interested in my reasoning, it can be found in the archives/history. I discussed this the last time it was proposed, and my views have not changed. For reasons of which others may or may not be aware, I will have no further comment about this, nor will I respond to ANY questions, so please don't ask me." Would this be OK? I'm not asking if it's technically permited within the boundaries that you drew - I'm assuming it is, and if I'm wrong, this whole thing is a non-starter anyway. I'm asking, rather, if you think it's "OK". In your honest opinion, am I on solid ground here? If you think that it looks like gaming/testing, or even comes close to looking like that, then I will respect that. This, I have to assume, is an anomaly. I can't think of any other situation based on my history that would necessitate my "responding" to him. I'm sure you've had more than your fill of this whole situation, so please don't think I'll be coming here regularly to ask for clarification about this or that. My intent is to stay as far away from him as possible. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Per the restrictions Floquembean laid out on my talk page, near as I can figure, if Joe brings me up anywhere except on his own talk page, the IBAN is off and it is OK for me to respond. This per Floquembean's statement.
I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initiates contact with PBP, or reverts PBP on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about PBP anywhere, or templates him, or edits PBP's talk page except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pings him unnecessarily.I'd say this counts as making derogatory comments about me somewhere, and possibly as initiating contact.
- Since my name's being mentioned and my actions called into question again by Joe, it's worth noting that about a dozen other American political leaders are also up for addition or removal at this point (and those discussions were initiated by other guys), and I make it clear that my nomination for removal of George W. Bush was predicated on those other nominations existing. I also voted in many of the discussions, and many more besides, so any claim that I edit WP:VA/E primarily to soapbox against George W. Bush is just plain wrong. I would urge Joe to read the current discussions at WT:VA/E from top to bottom before he continues to criticize my actions there.
- Joe is correct that the first time we interacted was here, with his initial comment in the discussion being to accuse me of bias rather than actually providing an explanation for Bush's significance. That hurt, for a lot of reasons, including the fact that the discussion was about swapping out one non-Democrat for another (Henry Clay, a major player in the Whig Party, the forerunner of the Republican Party). I was hurt enough by this discussion to post my grievances with Joe on his talk page for the first time (that discussion can be found here). Instead of the courtesy he affords you, and instead of actually seeking to address my concerns about him lobbing a grenade across my bow, Joe failed to address my rationale for replacement of Bush with Clay and responded with nothing but discourteous sarcastic lip. The discussion ended with Joe referring to me as a "troll", and also beginning his longstanding but completely unfounded belief that I am a troll and I don't rate actual explanations to quandaries (I might add that this has repeated itself in interactions between Joe and other editors he's disagreed or edit-warred with).
- Joe wants to comment on the removal of George W. Bush? Eh, whatever. I'm not as wedded to the interaction ban as he is. BUT, I would strongly suggest he jettison his initial rationale, which never was a good one to begin with, disparages anybody who votes to remove Bush as "biased", and isn't within the spirit of your restrictions. Instead, I strongly suggest a vote dependent on a vigorous defense of the merits of George W. Bush.
- If, as Joe claims, his intent is to stay as far from me as possible, he shouldn't be here commenting about me and it would probably be a good idea (though not a mandatory one) for him to avoid VA/E altogether, as 1) I frequent it (over 1500 edits to the page), 2) it's not a place he goes very often, and 3) it's not a place like ANI that he'd need to go to if he had a palaver. 14:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)