Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
Incidents (archives, search)
954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963
964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348
349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213
214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223
Other links

Flamingoflorida is back with sockpuppets[edit]

SPI open and shut, this round to Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Flamingoflorida (talk · contribs) was blocked for WP:COI and WP:CIR. She came back as Artliker (talk · contribs). See previous ANI.

She is now editing as 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the same focus on Recanati winery and Overseas Shipholding Group Billhpike (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Billhpike, I blocked that IP for obvious block evasion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
She is now using 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think we need a rangeblock on 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:00/112 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Billhpike (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Billhpike, I also blocked that IP. I will let an administrator experienced with range blocks evaluate that part of your request. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Also using 2600:387:9:3::c1 (talk · contribs · 2600:387:9:3::c1 WHOIS). (Already blocked) Billhpike (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
What's with the shopping mall edits? [1] Different editor? --NeilN talk to me 02:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Flamingoflorida has made similar edits. [2] Billhpike (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:0/112 blocked two weeks. --NeilN talk to me 02:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in the 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:00/112 range and has been associated with Maleidys Perez (talk · contribs), who was also blocked for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maleidys Perez/Archive. I suspect Flamingoflorida is just another sockpuppet of Maleidys Perez. Billhpike (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Kinda looks like the same mangled English, too. Quack, quack. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done some digging throug edit histories. I think the following IP ranges are associated with the same vandal:

The telltale sign is an obsession with San Francisco (sans-serif typeface) and childrens TV shows. Another common behavior is requests for a direct block after an autoblock (example). Most IPs appear to be from Puerto Rico.
Some of the IP ranges overlap with those used by WP:Long-term abuse/Link Smurf and there are some behavior similarities. Since the IP ranges are broad, it could just be a coincidence. I'd appreciate inpute on whether to file a new LTA report or update the Link Smurf report?

(pinging Link Smurf experts Imzadi1979 TJH2018 ) Billhpike (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

She is now using Crazypug (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Can we just semiprotect all of Category:Recanati family? (Proposed by @Cullen328: [3]) Billhpike (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I filed for a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flamingoflorida Billhpike (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The tone of Snooganssnoogans[edit]

I have been trying to improve immigration to Sweden recently (controversial topic), things were going fine and we had a civil discussion until user:Snooganssnoogans showed up. Instead of engaging in the discussion he started edit warring, being rude on the talk page of Talk:Immigration to Sweden as well as Talk:Immigration to the United States. He does not seek to balance the article, but instead try to push on view on the subject. Furthermore if you look at his user page he actively boast about upsetting user of a different perspective and I think that is tone and attitude towards other users is not in line with community standards. Instead of trying to improve the crime section he tries to blank it with a biased text that fits his views on the subject.

He has made it clear that he is not looking to get a neutral view on the subject, by demonstrating an aversion towards Sweden Democrats and Tino Sanandaji.

P.S. There is also a dispute regarding a reference to a self published, but peer reviewed book, where should we go to settle this?

Best regards, Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the book, WP:RSN for a quick and concise answer, follow the instructions at the top. The name/location of the source, article its to be used in, the information used in the article the source is to support. -edit- Oh its Tino, I remember this. See RSN archive here under Crime in Sweden. I'm assuming the self-published work is Massutmaning. If you start a new discussion at RSN try and keep it simple as to what it is being used to source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There are three points I want to make:
(1) When User:Immunmotbluescreen says that I don't want to "seek the balance", what the user has in mind is an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The text that User:Immunmotbluescreen objects to is long-standing text from Immigration and crime that was recently imported to Immigration to Sweden. The text is extensively well-sourced (half the sources are scholarly publications and the rest are high-quality news sources).
(2) My alleged aversion towards Sweden Democrats and Tino Sanandaji is because I removed an analysis published by the Sweden Democrats (a far-right political party in Sweden) and a self-published book by Tino Sanandaji. These sources do not belong on Wikipedia, as they are not WP:RS (try imagining someone adding an analysis of immigration by the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign to pages related to American immigration).
(3) User:Immunmotbluescreen, who was reverted by three different users, has done the same revert on five occasions within 24 hrs (mass-removal of reliably sourced text) and re-introduced Tino Sanandaji's self-published books on seven occasions within 24 hrs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Immunobluescreen has now progressed to saying that Snooganssnoogans and Iryna Harpy are making "troll edits" [4], and rejecting advice from an uninvolved editor (me) with a "stop playing in my sandbox" comment [5]. Unless someone with a hammer lays a serious warning on them, I think they're heading for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by a hammer? This is a new one. (I only just worked out what canvassing is... :( ) TomBarker23 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess Beyond My Ken is referring to a banhammer... so someone wielding a hammer here would be an admin ;) –FlyingAce✈hello 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Sorry if I was being too opaque. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Well it's better than when you're being a pane in the glass. EEng 07:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Ooooooo... Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dinhio13[edit]

User:Dinhio13 is persistently removing several clubs from the career of football player Akaki Khubutia, despite them being confirmed by external sources. Said user also does not engage in any discussion, despite my advances in revert summaries (at first) and his talk page (more recently). The article in question is the only one he ever edited, and google search by his nickname suggests that he is either the player himself, or a close person, thus also violating WP:AB -BlameRuiner (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it me or is the fact the user has only edited this one page suspicious? I think we have a one-purpose account here. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Page ECP and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over archival of stale talk page[edit]

Requesting thoughts about talk:Symbol. The talk threads were all archived in 2016 by Cluebot III. This week, user:66.31.54.242 reverted the archival of threads dating back to 2004, and after having their restoring reverted by User:DanielPenfield and myself, they restored it again and started a thread at talk:Symbol#Don't arbitrarily remove talk page content -- put thought into it.. Basically a long rant against archival bots in general, which seemed a bigger issue than that one talk page, so seemed to require a broader venue - just not sure the best board for it.

I'm heading to bed and working from a cell phone with low battery, so would request someone to notify the IP for me. I'll be back in several hours, after I wake. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you editing here, Mr. President! EEng 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The admins appear to have taken the night off. AIV is pretty well backlogged. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going through the AIV backlog now. Sorry nobody was around, Bugs. With this Symbol chap, there hasn't been any edits in several hours and nobody's left him a talk page warning, so ordinarily that would not get a block via AIV. I'll keep an eye on him, though. A Traintalk 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem; when I posted here, I wasn't looking for a block. The IP appears to have a complaint about archive-bot behavior in general (although archival on that specific talk page was the current focus). I mainly had two concerns: I was hoping for someone to help point the IP to a discussion board better suited for addressing archive-bot concerns. Would the best place be User talk:ClueBot Commons, or Help talk:Archiving a talk page, or Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? I was unsure where to suggest. And second, I was heading to bed and wanted to see if someone could de-escalate the developing edit war before a 3RR block might occur (which wasn't going to help anyone).
I appreciate everyone taking a look; but does anyone have a suggestion for a board where the IP could better address their archive-bot concerns? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Since I am addressed in one thread above I noticed this one quarrel, and stopped by there too, to suggest the "minthreadsleft"-parameter. This seems to please the IP! So I think the rather aggressive tone this IP usually employs should not be mirrored by admins, talking about "chaps" on which they will have "an eye" on with the threat of a block as danaos dona ferentes. BTW, activating an archiver should also bee accorded. Was it?
... and yes, I added the template on IP's talk, too. Purgy (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Turkish air con is causing ANI trouble...[edit]

User:Turkish air con has been adding useless content to this very page. The thought of it! I still don't understand how diffs work, but all you need to do is click "edit history" right up there. The edits I've noticed have mostly been about how his car stopped working in the middle of the road. Why's that on ANI? Not to mention the swearing... Could we have an admin over here, please? TomBarker23 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I already blocked them. Looks like the same vandal that had been posting nonsense on the page previously that lead to ANI being protected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going off to support the suggestion for a new ANI filter. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if an edit filter for this LTA is even possible. I can understand hesitating to protect ANI indef, but he'll keep coming back as long as an expiry date is there. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Do we even know who it is? --Tarage (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect (X) but he at least posts pertinent stuff, as opposed to the total logical disconnect we see. There's only a very small handful of LTAs I can think of who would use an autocon-buster to troll AN/I this way. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Offensive comments on user's own talk page[edit]

This seems to be dealt with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see User talk:PBadali#North America isn't my choice! (permalink for version as of my posting: [6]) for what I took to be antisemitic comments. I (sternly) asked PBadali to remove the comments citing these concerns (and that it was outside the scope of talk pages as he wasn't talking to anyone), but he refused, claiming that this was only his opinion (user's English is a bit poor, so there could be misunderstandings in places). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted part of the comment per WP:POLEMIC, which it clearly violates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The part where he says "I don't like being under any thought" is hard to deny. But it's odd that he hasn't been blocked yet for his blatantly racist comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
He needs to make such postings to deflect the attention of the authorities in charge of monitoring Social Media and the Internet. Count Iblis (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you being rhetorical, or is there a factual basis to that claim? If so, what evidence are you basing it on? Are you claiming that if he didn't make such a claim he would suffer some official punitive actions? If that's the case, why edit en.wiki at all, since his English skills appear to not be quite up to it, why not edit the Wikipedia of his native language instead? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
To add to that, what is the meaning of "It seems my account is hacked so if you see something is wrong please ignore it!" on their user page, and when suggested that they open a new account "Thank you, but the difficulty won't be resolved and for new account the same events repeats only I can inform". Is the suggestion that the authorities in Iran are editing through his account and that they made the remark on his talk page? If any of this is true, then we should take the step of blocking his account as being compromised, and PBdali should make a new account and edit through proxies, as accounts in China must do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the editor has made no article edits whatsoever [7], their edits are to talk pages and the RefDesk. We're not a social media website, editors should be here to improve the encyclopedia, not to chat. Given that, and the fact that they admit their account is compromised, shouldn't this account be blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk)
Given the situation in Iran, it's entirely logical for someone seeking information on a way to leave the country (see his postings on the Math Ref Desk) to give some signals showing his loyalty to the current political system there so as to avoid any suspicions that he is trying to leave on improper grounds. Count Iblis (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
So the guardians of the current Iranian administration would look at his single expression of antisemitism, say to themselves "Oh, he's a good guy, he's not the droid we're looking for" and ignore his other edits where he publicly "[seeks] information on a way to leave the country"? That's a pretty non-sensical scenario even for you, Count Iblis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There seems to be quite a bit of people standing behind trees wondering why they can't see the forest around here today. I'mma go look at some articles and see what I can do and possibly common sense will return tomorrow. John from Idegon (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just adding for sanity's sake that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to get brownie points for your country, even if that is what he's doing, which it isn't. --Tarage (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I happened to notice this user already earlier on and his behaviour, possibly entrenched in his natural/nurtured/encultured background, appeared to me as somewhat r<edacted>. However, (i) changing the —maybe even on his own talk page slightly inappropriate to WP-rules— remark "I see a domination of <attribute, redacted by PP> thoughts like Google or Hollywood on the USA" to "I see a <redacted per WP:POLEMIC> on the USA", (ii) adding a new thread about this idea being "Hatespeech" and being "completely unacceptable", and (iii) even raising an WP:AN/I procedure, is a fundamental attack on "free speech" and an exaggeration of the efforts to provide a "safe space" in WP for those not apt to grown up language. I think the redaction I suggested above is the utmost possible restriction of free speech in this case. Purgy (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
BMK, there are many Iranians who are not refugees who work abroad. They are careful to not look like they're dissidents. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please don't hurt your spine while you're bending over backwards like that.
PBadali responds to my redaction:

@Beyond My Ken! please evoke the past my revision! and be a little bit honest at the limit of your intelligence!

and to the suggestion that they read WP:POLEMIC

Okay, I am waiting to see the result but it will display your courage!

It seems fairly clear that a mechanical translator is being used here, and that, at the very least, PBadali does not have the necessary competence in English to be editing English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
So far he has only been active on the Math Desk without much problems. Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Iblis, whatever point you think you're trying to make, your failing at it spectacularly. Time to stop. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to update, PBadali struck through BMK's redacted version of his comment ([8]) and readded the original. I reverted and directed him here. I'm not sure he even understands the problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Best to explain this to him in Farsi. Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is an ENGLISH WEBSITE. No. Hell no. If the editor can't edit in English, they shouldn't be here. Period. --Tarage (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm cutting the Gordian knot here and blocking indefinitely per the user's admission that their account is hacked (on their userpage), as well as the events discussed here. I'll leave it to someone else to close this section, though, in case that's a controversial move. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The editor was complaining about Google and Hollywood, but it seems to be Facebook that has the sort of a problem that he is talking about. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a point? Or are you just vomiting words? --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, you beat me to it, so IMO that's a good block. A Traintalk 21:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • PBadli obviously doesn't understand WP:POLEMIC (if they even read it), given this. Again all the signs of a mechanical translator being used ("critter"?), and the thought that Germans, and Jews and North Koreans aren't bad, but their thoughts are bad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's easier to unblock him and tell him to only stick to asking math questions as he was doing when he came here, but I guess once the decision has been taken that someone here is an enemy of the people, it's too late for that. Count Iblis (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violations on Sholam Weiss[edit]

A new user, Lexjuris has been making edits to Sholam Weiss which violate WP:BLP. He has removed information which was sourced and is adding information that is not sourced. In two instances the information he has added the ref just says "ibid" and in one place he added a blank ref tag with nothing in it. I have attempted to post on his talk page asking him to not make these edits however he continues to make them. Thanks - GalatzTalk 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted, told user to use the talk page and warned not to repeat edits. --NeilN talk to me 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If someone (patient) wants to help the user out on their talk page it would be appreciated. --NeilN talk to me 04:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I was a patient for a while, but the doctors say I'm not dangerous anymore, so would I qualify for the job? EEng 05:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
After that pun, the very least you can do is go help. --NeilN talk to me 05:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I would, seriously, but I'm just not that kind of patient, at least not today. I'll copyedit a bit, in the "home" I always found that ... soothing. EEng 06:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

MehrdadFR[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=805391898 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=796529779 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=744017864 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=743981069 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=743978458 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=741580560 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=722621053 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=721929106 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=721923207 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Iran&oldid=817097872

NB same links as above formatted as diffs:[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

This vandal is ideologically motivated, they have also been blocked from the following pages in the past: Hijab_by_country, United_Against_Nuclear_Iran, Anti-Iranian_sentiment, Irreligion_in_Iran, and Discrimination_against_atheists. As well as making unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on scores of other iran related pages (see users talk page).

12usn12 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am copying the above from here as per my offer. There may be something to look at here given MehrdadFR's past warnings and sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 14:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
12usn12 You have used 'revisions', (format: &oldid=805391898) rather than 'diffs' (format: &diff=prev&oldid=805391898). This makes it harder to see the edit changes. You may be able to amend using an external 'find-change' text editor. Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bangladeshi editor[edit]

মাখামাখি (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an editor, presumably Bangladeshi, who has been creating a vast number of new articles, many of which have no evidence of notability. He/she has been warned, for example at User_talk:মাখামাখি#Kindly stop, but continues with the same problems. Among other problems he/she was repeatedly copying within Wikipedia without attribution, despite having been warned & having the process for attribution (and for splitting where applicable) explained to him/her. He/she was also warned about trying to use IMDB as a reliable source, but again continues despite the warning. A number of editors have given warnings, but these are all ignored. I fear that a block may be necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

He is also creating new categories with only one article, so of doubtful value. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Check that I've already corrected all the language issues in the film articles and I've added Bangladeshi editor category to another article Abul Khair (actor) who earned 26th Bangladesh National Film Awards for best editing (see inside the article). I'm new here, so I made a lot of mistakes. I think you should forgive me now. মাখামাখি (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor you ought to read the advice which you have been given by more experienced editors, and take notice, rather than merely deleting the warnings. I see that you are still creating numerous new articles, most of which are considered (by various editors) not to have evidence of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Ravi Shaw, created 7 days ago, uses http://bollywoodcelebfacts.com/ravi-shaw/ as its only reference. Taken from the bottom of that page is " Note: We provided you all available detail of Ravi Shaw. All Above information is collected from different sources such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter and different news channels & big magazines so we do not liable for any inaccuracy." thats pretty much textbook bad sourcing, yet you defended the article against deletion, claiming this as a reliable source just earlier today on the talk page. Both your edits to the Abul Khair (actor) article were reverted, because you did not reference them. I started editing June last year, same as you, and I have only created one article, but there are plenty of things to do here. You need to slow down, and stop creating articles until you read, understand and follow WP:RS. Until then, you are just making work for other people to clean up. Curdle (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding interaction bans[edit]

Is linking to an edit by an editor who is party to an IBAN, which is obviously not an IBAN violation a breach of an IBAN? As in, is blatant block shopping a violation of an IBAN? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Typo fixed. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the second phrasing: I'd say "absolutely". Regarding the first, "Not necessarily, but likely so." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You know, I thought I was going to talk about dropping sticks, until I saw what's going on here. There's no obvious violation here, but I think at one point the patience will start to wear down. Alex Shih (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, DS, if you don't want to be reported for IBAN vios, you could stop editing pages immediately after CWG... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=818787054 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Still don't know what the IBAN policy is then Sarek? And I was pinged to that cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I know you were pinged to it, that's why you're not already blocked. However, most people under IBANs go out of their way not to appear to violate them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What Sarek said. Whether or not you were pinged is not the point. You cannot continue to keep commenting after them while complaining about them. This is a two-way interaction ban, and you also must exercise the same kind of sensitivity that you have been demanding. Alex Shih (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. - If you are under an IBAN and link to an edit by someone you are IBANed with, that is making reference to them. The exception would be where you are reporting what you perceive to be a violation in the correct forum. Almost all admins would also consider a request where a diff is provided as part of a 'Is this is a violation of the IBAN?' query legitimate. If said admin then said 'no' and its forumshopped until an admin says 'yes' then I would expect some form of extended discussion about it in the event of sanctions. If someone you are in an IBAN with is pinging you, it would depend on the circumstances. This is why general questions suck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(ecx2)Like I said, read the IVAN policy, you already got it wrong once. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, so looked a bit further. Someone you are in an IBAN with linking to your edits and asking an admin is not a violation. Any more than you linking to their edits if you were querying if it is a violation would be. If a third party pings you to something (because you both edit in the same area) as long as you are not directly interacting, its not a violation. The whole point of an IBAN however is that you both stay away from each other. That almost always means, do not edit directly after them if you are both editing the same article lest accusations of stalking appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I said Sarek needs to, he already blocked me once and had to unblick cos he made policy up on the fly. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, I took a look at the two interaction-banned editors in question here with the editor interaction analyser, looking only at edits made since their two-way IBAN was put in place. This was the result. It's not proof of a violation by any means, and I'm not saying a violation definitely took place, but to my uneducated eye it doesn't look like either editor has fully embraced the spirit of the IBAN. (For comparison, I also looked at five other IBAN'd editors over the same time period, and four out of five had 0 pages in common. The fifth only had large-scale discussion pages like ANI in common; no articles or article talk pages.) Marianna251TALK 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Its not particularly useful in this case due to the overlapping subject area and that one (for a significant period of their editing) was effectively a SPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough; that's why I only looked at edits since the IBAN. I wasn't aware that one editor had such a narrow focus. Marianna251TALK 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a benighted observer here, but even if there's some reason for overlapping editing, the timing of, say, the first 5-10 interactions seem instructive to me, if not dispositive. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Non-Administrative commitment: [19] @ Alex Shih I feel like someone is breathing down my neck and following my steps and right on my heels.[20] [21] P.S. I followed SarekOfVulcan (talk) to this page and this is what I wrote [22]. I only requested that I not be followed, as [23] this is tiresome, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

COI editing on Victoria Jackson page[edit]

The actress Victoria Jackson just announced on her facebook page that she edited her wikipedia page to remove "bias" and implied a desire for her fans to help out. We might want to have recent edits scrutinized and semi-protect the page. --T1980 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Recent changes by subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have temporarily blocked the account, and left the instruction for the user to confirm their identity through OTRS ticket. Alex Shih (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Glad to see the username Ukulelegal isn't being interpreted as "xxxx LEGAL" and everyone going nuts about legal threats as usual. EEng 18:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Block him! He said legal! EEng 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Uh-huh, uh-huh, he said "legal"... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This has high potential to get ugly. Political activism + entertainment/celebrity. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion[edit]

In December, Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for 3 months from Israel-related pages. WP:TBAN says:

"a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
  • weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"

Today, he removed and modified (and was reverted) several parts of the section "Views on antisemitism and Israel" in George Soros: [24], [25]. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This would certainly seem to be an up-and-down breach of the ban, but I want to hear an explanation from Avaya1 (talk · contribs) before looking at what action should be taken. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC).
I agree that this appears to be a breach of the topic ban. Drmies was the administrator who imposed the topic ban. Perhaps he has a comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
These are quite blatant. Thank you Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I was attempting to remove off-topic content about Steinmetz with this edit and Hungary. I was removing the non-Israeli content about Steinmetz and Hungary. The Israeli stuff I have left intact. The original section was written by me and is largely about Israel, this was back in May before my topic ban. There's since been added paragraphs about Steinmetz and extra parts about Hungary which is off-topic to antisemitism and Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you wrote it yourself or not, as our topic bans do not currently have a feature to physically prevent users from editing in the banned areas, this is still a breach of your topic ban. I don't believe you maliciously breached the ban, but WP:TBAN is quite explicit. I'll let other admins decide what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
In these edits, Avaya1 removed two (and modified one) pieces of text, which are directly related to Israel and contains word "Israel". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User constantly removing maintenance templates from articles without explanation[edit]

Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This editor has been removing maintenance templates from articles since last March without any explanation in edit summaries, despite numerous warnings and pleas to do so on the IP's talk page. The IP was blocked four times in the last year for doing this, but their behavior continues, most recently here, here, here, and here. It's even more frustrating because the editor has recently started using edit summaries for some of their edits (showing that they know how edit summaries work), but the IP continues to choose not to use edit summaries when they remove maintenance templates. I reported this previously to AIV but typically no action is taken because it's not blatant vandalism — can an admin here help? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually, abuse of maintenance templates is vandalism - see WP:SNEAKY. Given their previous record, I have continued the increasing block length, for 3 months this time. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response (and for the clarification that it did constitute vandalism)! Much appreciated. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Fisted Rainbow - Conflict of Interest[edit]

Promotional editing is bad. When combined with WP:OWN, personal attacks and edit warring, it is worse. When the editor concerned is interested only in a single topic where they have a vested interest, it becomes clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. I ave indefinitely blocked Fisted Rainbow. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request User Fisted Rainbow is blocked from the page Earthcore for WP:COI reasons. He has freely admitted he is the owner of the Earthcore Festival here on the article's talk page, in this section [[26]] but frequently edits the page to remove negative comments about it. The page had controversies section, which in the past, he has completely removed. He is currently trying to remove some negative press for the festival. This issue has been questioned before by a number of editors, and has been going on for some years, however, I believe it hasn't been brought to the attention of the admins. He has been editing the page to present the article in the best light. Checking his contributions, it appears to be the only page he edits. As per wikipedia policy, I have asked him if he in a COI with this page, and he has said he is not, even though he admitted it in the talk page for Earthcore, above. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the link you provided, and read the text there three times, but I don't see where Fisted Rainbow admitted to owning the festival or otherwise having a COI:

Why in your list of articles above there is not a single article you have listed that provides balance like the following one http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ amongst numerous other articles that provide balance.

You claim you are trying to be balanced yet here we are with you only posting links to one side of a story. Its clear you have a conflict of interest as you are obsessed about this topic and refusing to allow the article to have balance.
You are also using "facebook" posts and other non credible stories as "proof". At no stage can you provide a factual story that lists your claim that 32 acts did not perform let alone 32 acts not performing and not being paid. Get your facts right and show balance or admit you have a alterior motive to skwere article in one perspective. Cease starting a edit war and discuss here so we can work on a balanced article.
What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Beyond My Ken - there is a lot to read through on that page, I should have made it easier. User Fisted Rainbow writes two posts in the talk page, controversies section, (you need to open the green extended content bar to see it) [[27]] signing off as "Spiro Boursine" and "Spiz". Spiro Boursine is the owner of Earthcore, as indicated in this article [[28]] (and you can just do Google searches for Earthcore and "Spiro Boursine" to confirm that)Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(First Quote)"Here we go again. Yawn........ For starters The Sphongle tour had nothing whatsoever to do with the Earthcore festival of which the article isn't written about so therefore Cognitive's arguement trying to include something that has no relevance to the Earthcore festival is a no brainer and not even worth discussing any further. The tour (NOT EARTHCORE) he is discussing tour was cancelled and refunds were made for that "concert" and no legal action happened by any parties. If cognitive disident can provide a valid link that shows that 1. Sphongle (live) was performing at a Earthcore festival in 2008 or 2009 then by all means please show all of us. 1.5 That the article above (via the age) is not written about Earthcore in anyway. The drug overdoses DID not happen at Earthcore and therefore have no bearing on Earthcore. 2. Show any documented legal action that was taken (ie court order etc etc) in the regards to <snipped to reduce length> What really is pathetic is the fact Earthcore is no more anyway in the first place and stopped over 2 years ago. Cognitive is flogging a dead horse and getting a mental erection from it I am assuming or as I said is a rival promoter afraid that we will be re entering the market which unfortunately for him we already have and will be putting on events in his region (his market) very very shortly. Could someone with some editing skills please include the artists I have listed above be added the artists who have played at Earthcore please ? With thanks and happy new year everyone !! Spiro Boursine (See Cognitive how easy it is to put your full name behind what one says ? ):-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)"
(Second Quote)::::"Mr Anonymous - I find it rather amusing that you continue to hide your identity yet make claims that you volunteered at my events. Due to the fact you continue to not put your actual name to your claims your words mean absolutely nothing to me yet your motives present themselves as clear as a blue sky. You are a rival promoter who has vainly attempted to personally discredit me and my old festival. If you really really feel like flogging the dead horse then why not start or add a Shpongle tour wiki subject and say that we(I) failed to get them over to australia or whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy. (Removed personal contact details due to recent harassment by Cognitive Disident 60.242.37.151 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I have nothing to hide nor am I what you think I am. Cheers Spiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"
(EC)...What's more, Deathlibrarian's post on that talk page ends with "btw I'm totally not connected with this group". So we have an editor who claims to have no connection with a group despite not being asked about such, edit warring, and then falsly reporting other editors for COI? Um... boomerang? --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
...On second viewing, based on the above, there does appear to be a COI. I stand corrected. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah ... I was confused myself, but this is the main diff, I think. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd love to hear from Fisted Rainbow, since the above diff seems pretty damning. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, the section is hard to read, I should have posted the excerpt straight off to make it easier. You may note Cognitive Dissident also noted this as a COI *6 years ago*, but admins weren't notified. Better late than never, I guess!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(Quote from Earthcore talk page) - "Mr Boursine: I have no interest in "contacting you personally". why would I? I have no interest in you or your organisation. you continually trot out the line "rival promoter" yet have no evidence for it. A slanderous approach and against the rules of wikipedia.* I don't understand why you are allowed to edit the wiki page of an organisation that you started, thats conflict of interest, and, again, against the ethics of wikipedia.* I also draw exception to your intimation that i have added falicious information to this article. all i did was wikify an article that was (poorly) written in the form of a self-aggrandising personally essay. any information in the body of the article that you claim to be false has not been removed in the several months that this argument has dragged out. you are welcome to add or modify information, as you said you would, but it hasn't been forthcoming; leading me to believe that your main interest is not historical record but protection of your (as you so strongly point out, now defunct) "brand name". Also, do yoiu think I would be stupid enough to name myself when you have shown your passion for threatening litigation time and again? This is a public encyclopedia, to be edited by the public, for the public. welcome to the 21st century. (By the way: sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "rival promoter!" is not an argument, its a tantrum.)I'm curious why you have edited the rainbow serpent page when you have such a strong moral veiw on "rival promoters" editing wiki articles? Awaiting your forthcoming vitriole with baited breath :) Cognitive Dissident (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)"
  • All of the above aside, maybe I've just been on the Internet too long, but the username "Fisted Rainbow" raises my eyebrow just a little in the direction of WP:U... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It definitely has a certain odor about it, but perhaps not strong enough to justify action? Unless, of course, the phrase has some underground meaning that I'm not aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Re my username. Now you are going being paranoid. The username is what I use for playing poker and general chat on the internet and no form of bizarre conspiracy. Please cease attempting to divert from the issues presented which is very far from questioning my innocent username. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no conspiracy or paranoia. There's a name that looks a lot like it could be a violation of the username policy, so it's going to be discussed. There's a lot of usernames you can use anywhere else on the Internet that are not acceptable on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have broken no Wiki policies for starters and have attempted to put forward a balanced article which quotes two sides to a story and have been constantly threatened by Deathlibrarian to forbid this from happening. Deathlibrarian's stubborness to allow two sides of a story shows "bias". I even went as far as posting on his talk page a balanced suggestion with footnotes to the article of which he has ignored. Instead Death Librarian prefers to make threats and ignore common sense. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Fisted Rainbow responded on my talk page:

    I have done exactly that. Made suggestions on Death Librarian's talk page for a fair and balanced article. If he doesn't allow 2 sides to be submitted into the article I am sure there will be others that will also put the same forward. It's clear you are a personal friend of Deathlibrarian and therefore simply bullying me and not being impartial Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

    Also you have failed to carefully read the talk page of the article about the use of credible sources and other issues that are all in support of my suggested edits.
    Using your personal bias here is def a breach of Wiki polices so I suggest you change your path here.
    So, instead of taking my comments to heart and adjusting his own behavior, FR chose to cast more aspersions and make claims that have no validity at all. (I've never heard of Deathlibrarian before.) He appears to be heading straight for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • AN/I is a venue for discussing behavioral problems to be considered for action by admins, it is not the place to discuss content disputes. The proper place for that is on the article talk page, where a WP:CONSENSUS of editors decides what can and cannot be included in the article. Please take your arguments there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I know its not relevant here, but I've added that content on behalf of Fisted Rainbow, and noted it on the talk page for the article. Also Thanks Beyond My Ken,Tarage and Black Kite for dealing with this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Editor needs a much sterner warning than I am capable of giving. I'm out. --Tarage (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
One last thing, I encourage anyone and everyone to check out Fisted Rainbow's latest contributions which are bludgeoning at this point. This needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't help but notice that FR wrote this as their first edit. They went on to briefly edit war ([29], [30]) disparaging comments on the talk page of Boing! said Zebedee, and followed up with making personal attacks against them. Note that this was entirely within their first 24 hours on this site. Several months later, FR was involved in an ANI thread in which they issued a legal threat, which they later retracted in a logged-out edit. Another few months later, FR was back to casting aspersions on JamesBWatson. After this, FR fell quiet for several years. After beginning to edit the article again in December of 2017, they quickly found themselves back at another editor's talk page, making more personal attacks. Since then, as other have pointed out, they have been a few bludgeoning other editors with personal attacks and aspersions.
I see some common threads in here. First is the obvious battleground mentality. Second is a propensity for presuming to dictate what other people think or feel to them, or what other people mean by what they say (accepting "apologies" that were never made, expressing mock sympathy for editors feeling "pressured", etc, etc). Finally, is the on-again, off-again nature. If you read the content discussions, you will see that each time this editor stop editing for a while, they had recently gotten their way on content.
So from examining that, what I see is an editor who is only here to ensure that WP says what they want it to say about a single subject from which they profit, in the way they want it said and who does this through combative tactics including personal attacks, the casting of aspersions and even threats of legal action. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CoilerCorp and suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Cleaned up. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was created to edit an article about that company: [31], two other accounts were created to make promotional edits about that company: [32] [33] They could be active at any time, just as Blackwongpcc [34] User talk:Blackwongpcc and his PCCooler article. Pancho507 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Here's more evidence: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]Pancho507 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleted the article (it was an obvious G11 as well as being effectively unsourced, and I'm surprised it's lasted 18 months), and blocked CoilerCorp for obvious username breaches, though they haven't edited since then and I doubt they'll see it. I've left the other three accounts alone as they haven't edited since 2007, 2008 and 2015 respectively and don't have username issues. Black Kite (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wickedtuna[edit]

Blocked 1 week for disruptive editing, prior to Bbb23's suggestion but for much the same reasons. Sandstein 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wickedtuna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) started a reasonable article a Don Bosco Technical College-Cebu, Inc. but then went overboard with a staff list with childishly insulting links on the staff names Special:Permalink/818905131. The talk page shows a troubling record of disruptive editing. Brought here following AIV dicussion. Wickedtuna needs a short block to help to learn that Wikipedia isn't a playground. Cabayi (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If not a block, the user definitely needs a stern and final warning. Also, is the username an issue considering it matches the name of a TV show, Wicked Tuna? Deli nk (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The user already has two final warnings. If they're to mean anything at all "final" must actually mean "final" at some point. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The user's edits are a mixture of incompetence and vandalism with a few constructive edits thrown into the mix. They are already blocked on Commons (two weeks) for copyright violations. Here, they created a hoax article (deleted) and another article that was pretty close to an attack page, although it was deleted as an A7. I'm considering an indefinite NOTHERE block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COPYVIO after final warning[edit]

Indef’d with a note explaining how to get unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wright Lee's draft Draft:Engagement gifts was rejected by User:David.moreno72 twice on Dec 2. and 3rd for COPYVIO. It seems the page was recreated on Dec. 3 after being deleted and a final warning was issued User_talk:Wright_Lee#Copyright_violation_final_warning. I just nominated the same draft for G12 as it seems to have been recreated a third time with same COPYVIO. SeraphWiki (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Recurring incremental vandal 2[edit]

(non-admin closure) Range blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This IP range[45] was blocked for subtle vandalism of numbers, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#Recurring_incremental_vandal and appeares to be continuing after being unblocked, I have noticed more of the same kind of number changes from this IP range yesterday[46] and this morning[47].

I have been watching this range and reverting the suspicious edits, but have not given any warnings or notified them of this ANI as the vandal is constantly changing IPs. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the range again, for a week this time. There is the occasional good-faith edit from this range, but 90%+ since the previous block expired on 1 January have been vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Songs about..."[edit]

Just a heads-up that over the past couple of days, an anonymous IP has been fairly persistently making unsourced and illogical changes to various song articles, primarily but not exclusively by changing their "Songs about..." categories to things the songs definitely aren't about. By far the most common form was the addition of songs such as "Rolling in the Deep", "You Oughta Know" and "Look What You Made Me Do" to Category:Songs about domestic violence (which, er, no) — although there were other variants as well, such as adding "Since U Been Gone" to Category:Torch songs. I've temporarily editblocked the most recent incarnation and reverted most of the obvious WTFs, but as I don't have most of these songs watchlisted I only noticed it because they hit one that I did, so I just wanted to bring this to everybody else's attention as well in case it continues. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be 2601:248:C400:CF0::/64. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / removing talk page posts by User:SeraphWiki[edit]

See your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 03:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SeraphWiki deleted a talk page post I made, against Wikipedia policy (here) and once I realised he did that, I re-added my post, and added the appropriate warning template here ({{subst:uw-tpv1}}) which is for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments." The user quickly removed the re-added post and the warning template here, and added this to my talk page, and I increased the level here, and he yet again removed it here and left this on my talk page saying i misused a warning template. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Update: User:SeraphWiki has removed the template required to be posted when an account is under an incident investigation. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
R9tgokunks (yes, very confusing to have two names), did you not read and grasp the note NeilN left? And that required template is a notification, not a scarlet letter. Now hush and leave this be. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing / removing talk page posts by User:SeraphWiki (repost due to issue not being addressed)[edit]

Yes, we are done. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SeraphWiki deleted a talk page post I made, against Wikipedia policy (here) and once I realised he did that, I re-added my post, and added the appropriate warning template here ({{subst:uw-tpv1}}) which is for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments." The user quickly removed the re-added post and the warning template here, and added this to my talk page, and I increased the level here, and he yet again removed it here and left this on my talk page saying i misused a warning template. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: User:SeraphWiki has removed the template i posted to his talk page required to be posted when an account is under an incident investigation. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm --NeilN talk to me 03:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
R9tgokunks (yes, very confusing to have two names), did you not read and grasp the note NeilN left? And that required template is a notification, not a scarlet letter. Now hush and leave this be. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Consistency" in radio/TV station templates[edit]

ANI has been accused of being many things over the years, but "a place to settle content disputes" is not one of them. WP:DR and WP:3O are thataway→. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copied/pasted from my talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is actually no consistency in formatting of radio station or TV "branding" or "slogan" in the templates. Some use bold, some use italics, some use quote marks, some use combinations. But WP:MOS does not support any of these except for quote marks. See also this, which uses simple quotes for the branding. If we're going to have consistency it should be consistent with MOS. Jeh (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Then you would have to change every article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No, not at all. As for the current offenders, I've been working on that, but sometimes people keep reverting. Jeh (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
What administrator action are you requesting? This looks like a discussion that should be either on a user talk page; or the talk page of a template or related Wikiproject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yah... I'm at a loss as to what "incident' I'm apparently being accused of here. Jeh (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aroniel2[edit]

A Nazi fanboy User:Aroniel2 (106 edits since: 2009-05-09) posts raw links to Hitler speeches and vehemently racist and antisemitic blogs associated with the White Network full of articles like the "Holo Frauds & Quacks" and "the Jewish Problem and the HoloHoax". This one account better be blocked indefinitely as soon as possible. Poeticbent talk 04:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Aroniel2 (talk · contribs · count) : Gleiwitz incident: Difference between 3 revisions including [1] and [2]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/stream/AdolfHitlerReturningFireOnPolandSpeech/1939_09_01Hitlerpoland_returningFireae_djvu.txt
  2. ^ https://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction
  • Yeah, there was some undiscovered OR/SYNTH that this editor inserted, from as best I can tell, to tie fairly mainstream Catholic social teaching to Franco's National Catholicism. It looks like much of this editor's work involves a rather... unconventional view of the Church and fascism. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What you say is absolute nonsense. I post Hitler speech as EVIDENCE he did not mention the incident as excuse for his invasion or Poland. If he did mention it during his speech, please let me know. A Fact is a Fact and during his Speech he did not mention it. I say there is only one single source to the false flag theory, a man under arrest. That FACT is universally accepted, and noone else has found any other source to the theory. I mention there are historians that do not believe in the False Flag theory which is true as it is not universally accepted fact. Please let me know if Hitler used this incident in his declaration of war speech and I will erase my edit. I will be waiting. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Note: User:Aroniel2 does not know where to stop. He just sent me a email from Wikpedia with the exact copy of the above (unsigned) post, with one extra line (which isn't here) reading: "Let people see all theories and all evidence. Do not try to brainwash people in any given ideology." He says (above) "there are historians" ... but cited antisemitic, Holocaust denying and racist spooks. And now, Aroniel2 is edit-warring like there was no tomorrow. Poeticbent talk 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gleiwitz_incident&type=revision&diff=819133541&oldid=819129375

User:Ziebardt[edit]

Indeffed by NeilN. --Neutralitytalk 05:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs to be indefinitely blocked for this explicit death threat against a named living person. Edit should be revdeled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WMF emailed just in case. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

As someone who knows this sock well (to the point of silly and fruitless Twitter-stalking against me), this is yet another sock of Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs) going by how they always seem to hit the Tsarnaev ‎article in the way they do (this earlier edit is also hitting sirens; they're always attacking left/right-wing radical BLPs). Tagging appropriately, and keeping on the lookout for sleepers. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Singapore airlines vandal -- rangeblock?[edit]

Wrong dates, wrong numbers of aircraft, wrong airports... Somebody in Singapore has been using multiple IPs to vandalize airlines articles for the last seven days. Is a rangeblock possible? To me, it looks like a tight grouping. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

They're all in 183.90.36.224/27, which is small enough that a block is unlikely to cause a lot of collateral damage. I've blocked it for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Still active at a nearby IP. Binksternet (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done 183.90.37.224/27 range blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NepalMyMotherland[edit]

Since their last unblock, NepalMyMotherland has made a spurious BRFA, written a telling post at WT:RFA, created a G4, cut and pasted a draft and started approving AfC drafts against guidelines. They did manage to tag one of their moves with {{Histmerge}} when prompted, so perhaps they are not acting in bad faith, but there are chronic competency issues here and without mentoring they are a damage to the encyclopedia. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Soory I dont konw much what to do. Now i willn't repeat. NepalMyMotherland 08:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NepalMyMotherland (talk • contribs)
At the very least, your signature must include a link to your user or user talk page. See WP:SIGLINK. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure English wiki is the place for this editor....clearly English is not their fortay.--Moxy (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Nor even their forte. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing[edit]

It appears that Yessentuki4 (talk · contribs) thinks everything has Russian origins. I'm not sure if this is just WP:POINTy editing, nationalism gone amok, or some sort of misguided plot, but the editor has only made reasonably good edits to Antonov An-225 Mriya, and even those had to be reverted. There is clearly an agenda I suspect a block is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It all looks good faith to me, though nationalistic, and buying pretty much exclusively into nationality by location of birth. There's certainly not a whole lot of it either. Yessentuki4 changed Arnault Tzanck's listed nationality to Russian (Tzanck is French but was born in Russia), marked Abraham Maslow's ethnicity as Russian Jew (which is probably not incorrect given his parents were Jews from Kiev), and marked Mykola Leontovych as a Russian composer in two articles because his place of birth was then in Russia (now Ukraine). I mean, I think it's good faith even if it's pretty clearly ethnonationalistic. My experience is that we usually give warnings and time to respond. Your only warning to Yessentuki4 was immediately followed by this thread, without giving him or her any time to respond or even to make any more edits. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks good-faith to me as well. In my experience, Russians often have difficulty on the topic of Russian nationality, because the nuanced difference between "русские" and "россияне" ("ethnically or culturally Russian" and "legally Russian") doesn't translate well. ‑ Iridescent 11:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a pretty common thing with Eastern European articles, unfortunatly; sometimes it can be really hard to distinguish the good faith. It's best to try to correct first, though, before reaching for the squeaky-hammer of blocking. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the clarification. I have sternly warned the subject. Perhaps someone could go and clarify that warning in a way that the subject may understand—I would do it, but it may seem as though I'm just piling-on—and then we can close this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Stevenpanameno seemingly using draft space as a web host[edit]

The editor Stevenpanameno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has the following drafts:

  • Draft:Haylor!(web series) which they have been working on since January 2015 and has only submitted for review once, in October 2016.
  • Draft:SJL (web series) which they have been working on since June 2015 and has only submitted for review once, in October 2016.
  • Draft:Steven Panameno created in August 2017 and declined by me the when it was submitted for review on the day it was created.

Given the clear COI on all three, it appears odd to me that someone would continually edit drafts for so long but make no further attempt to have them accepted. Does this look like using draft space as a webhost? Looking at the YouTube channels, Haylor only has 74 subscribers and the most any of their videos has had is 137 views, so these are obscure subjects never likely to be accepted into mainspace as far as I can see. I don't think I can nominate them at MFD as that's not for notability issues. I left a message on their talk page 11 days ago asking them what their intention is for the drafts, but have not had a reply. WP:U5 seems to apply only to userspace, not draftspace? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could nominate it at mfd as a webhost violation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:MfD is thataway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for your advice Galobtter and Mendaliv. Nominated here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry and proxy editing for blocked users[edit]

M.A. Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse-me John from Idegon, could you explain to me what is this about, please ? I don't understand what "meatpuppetry and proxy editing" is, and you refer to your question about the use I made of "we", as I told you "we" referred to the friends who helped my collecting sources, among whom some of them have written articles on related subjects. Not any of them have ever been blocked from Wikipedia, if that's what you want to know, but blocked on Twitter, Facebook, our personnal computers, etc. And for any other question, I'll be happy to get advice and help from you and other administrators about the access to draft / sandbox about my article on Vanessa Beeley. Thank you very much !--M.A. Martin (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean Twitter, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Yes, sure, Twitter, I'll correct at once. Thank you. But could you please explain to me what is this all about ? (I'm not a native English speaker) I'm working on very controversial and complicated subjects, directly linked on propaganda, and it's quite complicated, even with reliable sources from The Guardian and several main secondary sources... M.A. Martin (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and am not involved in this issue, but from the diff provided it looks like concerns were raised about your use of the word "we", wikipedia policy requires that an account is used only by 1 person, and calling yourself "we" implies shared use. You have also been accused of meatpuppetry (recruiting a bunch of people who agree with you to sway consensus in a content dispute). Tornado chaser (talk)

Thank you very much for your reply, Tornado chaser. Yes, indeed, we are a small group, outside of Wikipedia, to work together to collect sources and help each other, but when I first tried to make an account reflecting this "Challenge propaganda group", I was explained on Wikipedia (not here, in my mother tongue), that this could be seen as a group of pressure or lobby, and that an account had to be personnal (which was the case). When I explained where did my username came from, this was good for them, and they accepted my articles and helped me. Here on English Wikipedia, this was diferent, andI had to change my username to replace it by my personnal name (which took me quite long to understand). I've understood that I needed to be the only author of the article, with responsibility on what I write. Which is the case. But I thought I could mention the people who helped me gathering sources and preparing the subject of the article without any problem, because this is not on Wikipedia, but way before I published here (for instance, someone who speaks better English than me can help me correct a sentence, but not here in Wikipedia drafts, no, at home !). As for recruiting a bunch of people who agree with me to sway consensus in a content dispute, I don't know to tell anything like this about me. Anyway, even if I had this idea (but I don't, I don't think number matters, I think facts matter), I can't because I have no friends who have an account here, I was a complete beginner not long ago and I asked for much help on Wikipedia in my mother tong ! Propaganda is really a complicated thing to deal with, but I really didn't think it would be the case here too... thank you very much for your explanations. talkM.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon I hope you can read all my explanations above and tell me wether it is a problem or not, please.M.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the concerns arose when you talked about blocked users it sounded like you were editing on behalf of others who were blocked from wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better. Thank you. Tornado chaser This is not the case. I was just trying to explain my page was not an "attack" page, I am just a human rights defender, and I don't aim at attacking anyone, even a propagandist, and I wanted to explain ths were not our methods, not our ways of thinking when we gathered information and sources, this is the way of doing of propagandists. I also spoke about insults, harassment, hacking computers... this is not on Wikipedia ! Here, I even thought I could find help to restore the truth, which an Encyclopdy does, and I still hope it will be possible !M.A. Martin (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Fisted Rainbow[edit]

Time to remove TP access yet? Guy (Help!) 18:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the unblock template for wikilawyering isn't a good sign. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Fisted Rainbow is a truly alarming username. EEng 19:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Djsasso[edit]

OP blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It might be inappropriate to question administrator behavior but Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reverted[48][49][50] my edits without any explanation (pov pushing in the last one). I restored[51][52][53][54] them explaining why they're significant. I hope you can explain why he's right and I'm not. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Did you actually discuss the matter with Djsasso (or notify him of this report)? Kleuske (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=819153030"