Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Question about when I searched on Google.[edit]

Not something admins are able to handle. WP:VPT might be able to figure out why the result comes up as so. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today on Google, i typed in a search for Julian Knight. The first search was for the article, but at the end, it had the term - "melbourne" attached to it. This image. Its a bug but why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.19.88 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not affiliated with Google, so we really can't tell you about anything that happens on their end. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was just able to repeat this. Even if it's not necessarily on our end, it's certainly odd. If it's actually an error there's usually a feedback button somewhere we can hit to report it. Anyway, I suspect it has something to do with Wikidata entries for the articles on the two subjects: Julian Knight and Hoddle Street massacre. What is interesting is that Julian Knight (politician) has no location next to it in the Google results. I'd be interested if this is repeatable with any other topics. I can't think of any test searches at the moment, though. Anyway this isn't an ANI issue, but it's something that probably should be escalated somewhere. Even if it's not a bug, it would be helpful to know why Google is displaying that since it would be helpful in editing biography articles and Wikidata entries in the future. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming - resumed[edit]

IP range block has been extended. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See previous March 18, 2016, report by EvergreenFir at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming. Result was this range block by KrakatoaKatie. Range block has expired and editor has resumed as

basically same edits as before. Request that the range block be reinstated and extended. It appears that his editor is the only one using this /64 IPv6 range so there will be no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it's the same range. An admin should be around to re-apply the block soon. You can also report this to AIV and include the range so that it can be handled by someone there. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Did just that. A lot of admins are uncomfortable doing range blocks even with IPv6s where most of the /64 ranges are the same person. ANI may flush out admins who are willing to range block but don't see transient AIV reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Administrators: The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I just realized that a link to the previous block log was posted with the range already calculated. Haha, sorry. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A longer history of the abuse can be found here. This range doesn't have much (any?) block collateral damage from what I can tell. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • An IPv6 /64 subnet is almost never shared but it's always good to check. :) In this instance, it's obvious that there is only the one user. As they have continued where they left off and as this has been going on for so long, I have blocked the /64 range for three months for disruptive editing.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User "contributions" from user:2001:569:79B7:F000:213:2FF:FEB2:CF4C[edit]

"Contributions" expunged. (non-admin closure) GABgab 22:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user in question basically went on a racist temper-tantrum before being blocked. All of his edits have been removed except one Could one of you wipe the slate clean? HalfShadow 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. But in the future it is best to email oversight or contact an admin privately rather than calling attention to the problem on a high visibility page such as this. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant Face-wink.svg you're from Canada and you called that racist? You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet !!! Muffled Pocketed 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

When a template is repeatedly removed[edit]

Users involved have been reminded to follow the proper channels and processes to resolve the concerns raised here. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Predict_1990&diff=723349111&oldid=723340669

  • Two questions: is the source, a blog, reliable?
Bredehoft, John E. (2010-02-22). "Jim Morrison's Grave (the Steve Taylor song) and Kurt Cobain". Empoprise-MU. Retrieved 2016-05-31. --evrik (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Should the tag be removed or restored with impunity? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The URL in the reference citation (here) is returning a blogspot page that says that nothing exists here. So I'd say that it's definitely unreliable from my perspective. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Try this: http://empoprise-mu.blogspot.com/2010/02/jim-morrisons-grave-steve-taylor-song.html --evrik (talk)
"Is the empoprise-mu.blogspot.com blog a reliable source for describing "Jim Morrison's Grave" as "a reflection on the cult of personality""? Don't think so, but there's bound to be a better source floating around such as an Allmusic review. "Should the tag be removed or restored with impunity?" No, not only is edit-warring over an "unreliable source" tag not exempt from WP:3RR, it's a silly thing to get in a lather about. Go and discuss it on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Take it to the talk page. --evrik (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Jumping on the "agree" bus. Work it out between you two and shake hands on an appropriate action plan. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Violetnese redux[edit]

Nonadmin close.Handled by Iridescent. Kleuske (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • (We might wait 15 minutes or so before archiving closed discussions). Someone who knows what they're doing should probably nominated File:Violetnese New.jpg for deletion as having no encyclopedic value. I'm about to nom her other picture on Commons, but the procedure here is too complicated for me. BMK (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • IAR deleted under WP:G6. Since Violetnese shows that she's posted the same photo to what appears to be every site on the internet, it's not like we're deleting her only copy or depriving someone who has a potential use for it of being able to find it. ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Product username and promotional userpage[edit]

Westmalle Trappist Beer.jpg
Consensus is that there is no complaint here, particularly as the user has had almost 10 years' standing without any issue. And for gawd's sake, go and drink something decent like Westmalle, all of you.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, unfortunately I'm showing up here as my effort to solve this on user:Beck's talk page got no reply, while the user contiued editing. As far as I understand our policies there are the following issues:

In my understanding it would be appropriate to ask the user to change their username and signature and to change or delete their userpage. What do you think? --Trofobi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) The username policy forbids names which "unambiguously" represent product or company names. "Beck's" is not unambiguous. Google search
(2) The green "Beck's" letter on the user's page looks nothing at all like the Beck's logo you reference. The only thing they seem to have in color is the color green and the letters BECKS and an apostrophe.
(3) Even the Beck's logo was very similar to the lettering on user Beck's page, such a logo would not be copyrightable, as it doesn't reach the threshhold of originality
(4) If the user was editing Beck's Brewery, or even beer articles in general, you might have the germ of a complaint, but I don't see a single edit in that area in the editor's contributions
(5) If I were User:Beck's, and you came to my talk page with such a ridiculous complaint, I'd be sorely tempted to ignore you as well, and to delete your comment
(6) In short, this is a problem of your own making, spun by your own imagination, and there is really nothing for admins to do in regard to it, in my opinion. I would suggest you drop it, go about editing the encyclopedia, and stop creating problems where none exist. BMK (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of problems where none exist, just wait until someone innocently asks, "Gee, are you sure Beck's can't sue Wikipedia about this?", and gets a swift block from The NLT Bulwark of Anti-Intimidators. EEng 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So, the substance of the complaint is that this account supposedly edited the beer company article 8 years ago? That's it? Astounding. No administrator action required. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, besides, Becks is good beer! (j/k) The user doesn't appear to be editing the Becks article , nor any other beer article, so they may be calling themselves "Becks" in honor of their favorite beer. Further, they're not especially new. I agree that no admin action is needed here. KoshVorlon 11:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Another range block requested for an LTA vandal[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Range verified by Oshwah and range blocked by TParis--Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've got another requested range block for a prolific LTA vandal. Yes, I'm tired of dealing with this, too. Previous range block discussions occurred here and here. There are more details at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, including a list of active range blocks and more evidence.

The requested range is 2602:30A:2C95:8C0::/64. You can see that all the edits from this range follow the established patterns of the vandal: the composer is usually changed to James Horner, Liam Neeson is usually added to the cast list, and the same articles – usually animated children's films – are repeatedly targeted. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There are no constructive edits from this range to date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't understand IPv6 as well as I'd like, can I AGF that you know what you're talking about and I'm not about to block an entire continent?--v/r - TP 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
TParis - Let me check the range. One sec... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Checks out. The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2602:30a:2c95:8c0::/64 ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Oshwah, blocked.--v/r - TP 06:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Are they targeting anything specifically or are these target of opportunity vandals? HalfShadow 06:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the LTA report (which it isn't oddly enough) it seems they specifically target celebrities. More specifically Actors/Actresses and Films. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh crap; well that's not as helpful as I'd hoped. I was hoping it'd be something more narrow than that. 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@TParis: Yeah, it should be safe. You can see the range contribs here if you've got the range contribs gadget enabled in your prefs (under Gadgets→Advanced→Allow /16...). The activity on this /64 block consists entirely of 15 IP addresses who have done nothing but vandalize cartoons. According to the WHOIS data, this is a small chunk of a regional AT&T Wireless provider. But if you don't feel comfortable, that's alright; I'm sure someone will be around shortly. Yes, the LTA report is in my user space, but if people want to complain about that, I'll move it to WP:LTA. The targets are animated children's films and BLPs, in which hoax credits are added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope, I'm perfectly willing to AGF here. I imagine if I've goof'd up that I'd just get a slap on the wrist and won't do it again.--v/r - TP 06:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrators bypassing SPI to pursue a vendetta[edit]

SPI is a formal admin board for admins and CUs. ANI is an informal admin board for discussions by the community. If you have actual evidence (rather than vague claims) that an admin is abusing their bit, file at WP:AN, not ANI. And for the record, geography isn't evidence of innocence. Dennis Brown - 08:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In these edits Elockid (talk · contribs) reverts two editors - 86.191.126.192 (talk · contribs) in Norwich [6] and 78.145.23.96 (talk · contribs) in London. The Norwich editor has been reverted five times. No administrator should be blocking geographically distant editors as socks of the same master without giving both of them an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion. As a London editor (along with ten million other people) I have been blocked on numerous occasions and never once been given the opportunity to make representations [7]. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no obligation to notify any account that they are the subject of a SPI for "an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion". SPI isn't AN/I, where parties must be notified. Doc talk 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The SPI page has a section for the "accused" and "third parties" to give evidence. Why should they be prevented from doing so? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No one is required to notify any accused party of a SPI. Period. Doc talk 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement to prevent any person giving evidence in an SPI case, and if that happens a reasonable inference is that the administrator is pursuing a vendetta, which is the subject of this thread. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a reasonable inference. You're a blocked editor, wasting our time. Thanks fer stoppin' by! Doc talk 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This is why I removed the user's first report here earlier... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Smallbones in violation of ArbCom warning[edit]

OP checkuser rangeblocked. I don't think anything will come of leaving this open. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Jimmy Wales' Talk page, @Smallbones: has engaged in numerous defamatory falsehoods against an editor, which are delineated here. ArbCom, with an 8-0-1 ruling, has warned Smallbones not to engage in needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. Yet he's doing it once again. At what point is a stop put to him? - 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's establish some facts, such as "Who are you when you're not editing as an IP?" BMK (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You also need to inform a user when you file an AN/I complaint. I have done so, but next time you log on and want to file an AN/I complaint try to remember to notify the user. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You were banned in October 2006, and aside from a three month unblock in 2009 (and a 1 day unblock in 2007) remained blocked throughout (unjustly in my opinion, but the fact of the block isn't in question). Yes, technically "more than 10 years" is a falsehood, but "nine years five months in total" is near enough that it isn't worth fighting over. There are serious issues with Wikipedia which need addressing, but "some people on a talkpage which has always been frequented by melodramatic goofballs are acting like melodramatic goofballs" is not a cause worth fighting over. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure math errors (which I make too) necessarily qualify as "needlessly defammatory falsehoods" as per that ruling. Having said that, the comments do seem to perhaps be excessive. The exact phrasing of the warning to Smallbones says further misconduct may (emphasis added) result in sanctions. I guess the question here is whether the comments are sufficient to invoke sanctions of a kind Smallbones was warned he might face in the future. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that, given the nature of the page in question, the answer might be "No," although, under the circumstances, I suppose it might be possible that he be given some form of "final warning" and told that any further similar comments in the future will result in sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Relevant link: Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation Goldenshimmer|ze/zer|😹|T|✝️|C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Meat puppetry at Faanya Rose / Talk:Faanya Rose[edit]

Editor mistakenly copied a template and it's now been removed. Editor was uninformed on meat/sock policies, has since read them, and agrees to comply.--v/r - TP 06:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On a recently created article, Faanya Rose, there have been incidents of different users (and one IP, FWIW...) who have contested the article deletion. The following accounts and their roles within the editing of the article are:

Thanks. Vensco (T | C) 02:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now I'm seeing a {{sockpuppet|Winterysteppe|confirmed}} template on User:Lynda Roy's talk-page, would WP:SPI be preferable for this...? Vensco (T | C) 03:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

They placed it themselves. This is bizarre. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Vensco (T | C) 03:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears that they clicked on User:Etimena's signature link and that led them to the sockpuppetry template. They didn't understand the template, and copied it to their page. That's all it was.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
--This is as said above new editor confusion about sock puppetry from Etimena's post on my talk page for speedy deletion. Just read policy. Apologies all. Lynda Roy (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
that is, I didn't understand why a user marked as a sock puppet was allowed to mark my article for speedy delete Lynda Roy (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lynda Roy: Hi! It appears that User:Etimena wasn't blocked as a sock puppet when they nominated your page for speedy deletion. They nominated your page for deletion at 12.14UTC on 20 May 2016, and weren't blocked as a sockpuppet until 23.59UTC the same day. I hope this helps! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It would certainly be much easier if sockpuppets owned up as esily as that! Muffled Pocketed 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Goldenshimmer: Thanks Goldenshimmer. Appreciate the coaching. Hard to be new, and absorb everything. Lynda Roy (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lynda Roy: it appears that several brand new accounts have been created just recently for the sole purpose of arguing against deletion of the article that you created, which nobody else has edited at all. We consider this highly suspicious behaviour. It is against our multiple accounts policy to operate more than one account to imitate false support on the site, including editing while logged out for this purpose so as to appear anonymous. Editors who violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Please disclose any other accounts that you have used, and only use this account from now on. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector:I do apologize for the support of friends and colleagues who are anxious for the Faanya Rose article to remain. Their loyalty to this project, of posting a well-researched piece about the first woman to be president of the Explorers Club is getting me into trouble with a new community I wish to remain in, in good standing. Alive2Dive is an explorer. Not sure about those IP's, but probably someone who helped in my research. laceyflint is an archivist who advised on sources for me. If there are others, I cannot see them. None of these are sock puppets. If anything they are caught up in my passion for wanting to be a historian on Wikipedia. If this causes me to be banned or blocked I understand. Love Wikipedia! Want it to be available and reliable for all. Lynda Roy (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
From what I'm seeing here, I don't think this matter is of any huge concern, but since Lynda Roy has supposedly read and understood WP:SOCK + WP:MEAT, I'm hoping that this behavior won't happen in the future. As a matter of fact, I do end up seeing these situations quite often with new articles, and all of the users involved end up blocked (usually a check-user block) for abusing multiple accounts. Lynda Roy, with that said though, you do not have to be in control of all the accounts involved in order for them to be considered socks. If you have friends and/or colleagues who are all contesting the article's deletion on your behalf, this is considered meat puppetry, and is also in violation of Wikipedia policy. Though, you seem to be civil and honest with the community, which is one of the best ways to handle a situation like this, and it also seems as if this was out of good faith. Whether the other involved accounts/IP's do have correlation with you or not, just know that any sort of behavior regarding new accounts/IP's editing and/or contesting a new article's deletion is seen as extremely suspicious on Wikipedia, as said by Ivanvector as it is seen as dishonest, deceiving and downright malicious, which is considered as bad-faith editing/socking. (Although this specific case seems to be out of good faith and a general misunderstanding of the policies). Regards, Vensco (T | C) 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Lynda Roy, glad to be of help. :) I'm not an administrator, so I'm not in a position to make any decisions, but in my opinion since you seem to want to contribute positively to Wikipedia, there isn't any reason to block you at this time. To avoid further drama, I suggest that you familiarise yourself thoroughly with the contents of the following policies:
I hope this helps out, and I wish you the best of luck in a pleasurable and productive experience at Wikipedia! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Indentation fixed Goldenshimmer (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC))
Also all, including the article creator, feel free to comment here: [8]. Vensco (T | C) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I posted an ANI notice template at User:TJH2018's talkpage, as they were one of the initial article deletion nominees. (That was not indef-sock blocked). Vensco (T | C) 17:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I seem to be encountering a lot of articles like this lately. It seems as though we may need to clarify the WP:COI notice. Everything seems to be taken care of. I'm quite late to the party...TJH2018talk 21:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you all for these comments and advices. Good to know that so many good people are watchful and keeping Wikipedia the valued asset it is. I have lots to learn, and welcome the opportunity to do so. Cordially, Lynda Roy (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by Pizzaandchips11, Violation of 3RR[edit]

Here are links to the edits: [9] [10] [11] [12]

Hey Weweremarshall, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since you are a relatively new user, there's a few things I want to point out to you. When you initiate a discussion with a user on the administrators' noticeboard, we ask that you leave a talk page message to let the user know about the conversation. That way they can have the opportunity to respond. Also, we have a dedicated page to report edit warring. Finally, it's a minor point, but we consider the two edits on May 29th to be one "revert" under the 3 revert rule. So the user has come close but hasn't crossed it yet. That being said, I do agree that there is some edit warring going on here and the user should engage in discussion with editors before making another revert. @Pizzaandchips11: Could you do that? Otherwise, I would have to agree with Weweremarshall that a block would be appropriate. Mike VTalk 18:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:AN3 or WP:AIV; not here in either case. Muffled Pocketed 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You are right, Mike V, I am a little new here, especially to reporting people. I did however, leave a notice on the users talk page. I will make a note of the other things you pointed out, thank you very much for the assistance! The user in question has a tendency to completely ignore other users as most of his edits include no summary and most of the notices left on his talk page go unanswered. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you as well, Muffled Pocketed. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Spyker120- Compromised account?[edit]

On my talk page, Spyker120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claimed that "his little brother" made some bad edits to various spelling bee pages. Feinoha Talk 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the same acount (whichever editor!) made similar edits last June. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably shouldn't be considered "compromised" in the "block the account because we can't know who's using it" sense because the claim just isn't credible for one. And even if true there's no indication that it's compromised versus just left logged in on a family-use computer. If the account's making inappropriate edits and the editor refuses to address the issue, then we probably have recourse on that basis. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:BROTHER... if the behavior continues, block is warranted. User is responsible for actions taken on account, even if by a sibling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot is malfunctioning[edit]

When I clear the sandbox, a bot just insert a secound one, Any comments on that? KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd... I've removed the second one and let the bot operator know about this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Inserts a second what now? I'm confused. Do you have a diff? I'm on mobile at the moment, but I'll be happy to take a look if I can... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: OP was talking about this edit from the bot. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm in a xbox one editing here via Microsoft Edge where I cant copy paste diffs. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Made it over the pass! Still gonna be on mobile for awhile (excuse my delayed slow poke replies). Sounds awful, CitiesGamer66. Lol :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Both edits were within the same minute. Could it have been an edit conflict where the bot saw the header needed replaced and added it, and CG66 did it roughly the same time? —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it did not cause edit conflict for me. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting... I saw something similar happen back in March, except it was on Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and happened after cyberbot I had reinserted the sandbox header template. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I suspect it was simply a coincidence. One of the functions of Lowercase sigmabot is to replace the sandbox header when it is removed and both KGirlTrucker87 and Lowercase sigmabot did that at almost the same moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Years ago, people would contact the bot operator or not even complain at all when a non-harmful infrequent error on a non-critical page that regularly receives much worse edits was made, instead of immediately reporting to ANI. Times seem to have changed.

The sandbot does not keep logs, as its task is trivial and only limited to a set of relatively unimportant pages. So my best guess would be that for some unknown reason the bot failed to retrieve the list of templates on the sandbox from the API for some reason or another. In situations such as these, it is designed to add the sandbox header anyway, as it has.

Σσς(Sigma) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pizzaandchips11, Violation of 3RR[edit]

Here are links to the edits: [13] [14] [15] [16]

Hey Weweremarshall, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since you are a relatively new user, there's a few things I want to point out to you. When you initiate a discussion with a user on the administrators' noticeboard, we ask that you leave a talk page message to let the user know about the conversation. That way they can have the opportunity to respond. Also, we have a dedicated page to report edit warring. Finally, it's a minor point, but we consider the two edits on May 29th to be one "revert" under the 3 revert rule. So the user has come close but hasn't crossed it yet. That being said, I do agree that there is some edit warring going on here and the user should engage in discussion with editors before making another revert. @Pizzaandchips11: Could you do that? Otherwise, I would have to agree with Weweremarshall that a block would be appropriate. Mike VTalk 18:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:AN3 or WP:AIV; not here in either case. Muffled Pocketed 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You are right, Mike V, I am a little new here, especially to reporting people. I did however, leave a notice on the users talk page. I will make a note of the other things you pointed out, thank you very much for the assistance! The user in question has a tendency to completely ignore other users as most of his edits include no summary and most of the notices left on his talk page go unanswered. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you as well, Muffled Pocketed. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Spyker120- Compromised account?[edit]

On my talk page, Spyker120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claimed that "his little brother" made some bad edits to various spelling bee pages. Feinoha Talk 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the same acount (whichever editor!) made similar edits last June. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably shouldn't be considered "compromised" in the "block the account because we can't know who's using it" sense because the claim just isn't credible for one. And even if true there's no indication that it's compromised versus just left logged in on a family-use computer. If the account's making inappropriate edits and the editor refuses to address the issue, then we probably have recourse on that basis. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:BROTHER... if the behavior continues, block is warranted. User is responsible for actions taken on account, even if by a sibling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot is malfunctioning[edit]

When I clear the sandbox, a bot just insert a secound one, Any comments on that? KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd... I've removed the second one and let the bot operator know about this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Inserts a second what now? I'm confused. Do you have a diff? I'm on mobile at the moment, but I'll be happy to take a look if I can... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: OP was talking about this edit from the bot. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm in a xbox one editing here via Microsoft Edge where I cant copy paste diffs. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Made it over the pass! Still gonna be on mobile for awhile (excuse my delayed slow poke replies). Sounds awful, CitiesGamer66. Lol :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Both edits were within the same minute. Could it have been an edit conflict where the bot saw the header needed replaced and added it, and CG66 did it roughly the same time? —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it did not cause edit conflict for me. KGirlTrucker87 talk what I'm been doing 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting... I saw something similar happen back in March, except it was on Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and happened after cyberbot I had reinserted the sandbox header template. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I suspect it was simply a coincidence. One of the functions of Lowercase sigmabot is to replace the sandbox header when it is removed and both KGirlTrucker87 and Lowercase sigmabot did that at almost the same moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Years ago, people would contact the bot operator or not even complain at all when a non-harmful infrequent error on a non-critical page that regularly receives much worse edits was made, instead of immediately reporting to ANI. Times seem to have changed.

The sandbot does not keep logs, as its task is trivial and only limited to a set of relatively unimportant pages. So my best guess would be that for some unknown reason the bot failed to retrieve the list of templates on the sandbox from the API for some reason or another. In situations such as these, it is designed to add the sandbox header anyway, as it has.

Σσς(Sigma) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hello, User:Bbb23 has recently blocked the accounts of User:Ranyaa.a, User:Sshalhout, User:Nrmeen404, User:Hadeel1005, and User:Alaimusleh as sockpuppets of User:Ranyaa.a. They are in fact all collaborating for a classroom assignment for a microbiology course. I've notified User:Bbb23 on his/her talkpage, but am reposting here in due to the time sensitivity of the issue. Can someone please restore their accounts so they can resume? Best Regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this hardly is an appropriate venue for class assignments. Could you change the curriculum so that it's not presented through Wikipedia? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 10:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Another administrator may not unblock these accounts. Only I or another CheckUser is permitted to do so. Fjmustak is not a course instructor. Nor are they an experienced editor based on the account's stats (I don't know what they did before creating an account). There was no transparency to this "classroom assignment". There were no posts on the various user pages indicating that they were participating in an exercise, the scope of that exercise, or the duration of the exercise. I still don't know any of these things. Meanwhile, they have wasted valuable community resources needlessly and been disruptive, even if not intentionally, in doing so. I see no basis for unblocking the accounts at this point, although I welcome additional input on the issue. Classroom exercises, course instruction, etc., is a procedural quagmire that often presents problems at SPI when those procedures aren't followed, and that's even when the activity is more legitimate than it is here. Speaking of procedure, Fjmustak failed to notify me of this thread as required. I'm here because I did receive the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Bbb23. I did send you a message on your talk page. I was not sure what the best venue for reversing an indefinite block was (If moving this discussion back to your talk page is preferable, please let me know), and really hope this can be resolved before the end of the semester (next week). In any case, these students may have added large blocks of content that was reverted, but they are certainly not the same person, and whatever their transgression is, sockpuppetry is not one. I had asked them to rewrite their content so that it is not such blatant copyright violation. I apologize for taking up your time, and certainly hope they can resume their assignment as soon as possible. Best regards --Fjmustak (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The message you left on Bb's talk page was insufficient. You merely asked him the same question as what you are asking others here. You are required to tell him you are talking about him: this was not done. Muffled Pocketed 16:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, you left a message on my Talk page but mentioned nothing about ANI. How many students are there? What's your involvement? Are some of them using the same computer? What is the purpose of this assignment?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Again User:Bbb23, I apologize for not following procedure on notifying you about this ANI. I am the coordinator for the Wikipedia Education Program in Palestine (meta:User:Fjmustak. Currently, Birzeit University is the only university participating. This is the second semester in the program. The language of instruction in sciences is English, but the mother tongue of most students is Arabic. This semester there are four sections of a Microbiology course participating (about 70 students). Their assignment is to write a Wikipedia article about a microbiology topic (selected by their two professors). Most of the students edited in Arabic, while ten chose to write in English, including the five editing the article on minimum inhibitory concentration. Due to the main language being Arabic, the course page (which unfortunately does not support multi-project courses) is hosted on the Arabic Wikipedia (here), where the students are listed. The five students working on the MIC article that were blocked may have very well worked on the same computer, or at the very least in the same computer lab. I had encouraged them to each add their own contributions so that 1) they can learn how to edit Wikipedia, and 2) so that they could get credit for their work. For the upcoming semesters, I will make sure that students editing in the English Wikipedia clearly mark their user pages, and will warn them specifically about sockpuppetry. I hope I answered your questions. Regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fjmustak: Thanks, much more helpful information. I have one more question. Then I have a set of conditions for you and the students (through you) to agree to, and I should be able to unblock. Of the six accounts I blocked, I'm assuming that Alaimusleh (talk · contribs · count) and Alaimusleh95 (talk · contribs · count) are truly the same person. Is that correct? If so, which one should be unblocked because there's no sense in a student having two. The conditions. Before the students do any more substantive editing at en-wiki, they have to post messages on their user pages about what they're doing and how long it will last and mention you as the coordinator. You also have to post a message on your user page that you are the coordinator, what's going on, the duration of the assignment, and the accounts of the five students. If we can agree on all that, I will let them back loose on Wikipedia. Hopefully, you or someone else will monitor their edits to make sure any disruption is transient and corrected quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @Bbb23:. Alaimusleh (talk · contribs · count) is in fact the same as Alaimusleh95 (talk · contribs · count) (no idea why she created two, I will also make sure to remind them not to do that)... Alaimusleh is the one that should be unblocked. As for the conditions, I'm on it. I'll add info to my userpage about the course (I hope the explanation I gave here is sufficient). I will also ask all the students editing in English to add information to their user pages before making any more edits. Cheers --Fjmustak (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Good. The comments below, particularly the one by BrownHairedGirl, would add more procedural hurdles for you. I'm not condoning your not doing those things, but from my limited point of view as a checker and blocker of socks, I just need enough transparency so I know what's going on without having to dig. Therefore, I'm going to unblock as I promised, but you may wish to think about the procedural requirements for the future, and I can't promise that action won't be taken against you if you fail to do so. You appear to be a very reasonable and civil person, which I personally value. Your English is better than some native speakers I know. Best of luck to you, and let me know if you need more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Umm, Bbb23, I did not intend to add procedural hurdles in the path of an unblock, and am surprised that my comments appeared that way. I just wanted to point to the existing guidance written about this type of activity, because it provides helpful explanations of the pitfalls and did not appear to have been linked so far.
I am glad that you feel able to unblock Fjmustak's students, since it does seem that everyone has acted in good faith and Fjmustak has been very civil and straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm glad we're all in agreement, and the link is useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23 and BrownHairedGirl, Thank you both (and everyone else involved) for turning this misunderstanding into a learning experience, while keeping the discourse civil. Procedures are important, and I've actually started to put together a handbook for next semester, and will definitely incorporate more of the suggestions in BrownHairedGirl's link. I think the main source of misunderstanding is that the course page is in Arabic, and it is much easier to manage students in a "small" Wikipedia, than in the English Wikipedia where procedures do matter. Thanks again. --Fjmustak (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that 100% percent. Or in the instructor's sandbox. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog. I saw this via the post on ENB; I really don't have much to add. It got me thinking about course pages - while there wasn't one on en, I noticed that there appears to have been one on ar. I wonder whether there might be some way to more easily provide cross-wiki notifications about courses. (Double signing since I've often posted here with my main account} Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Ian (Wiki Ed), WMF is working on internationalizing the Wiki Ed dashboard, which I cannot wait to use, since it's supposed to allow cross-project assignments. Fingers crossed. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Fjmustak - Yes, I know; I was wondering if this is something that is part of the plan for the Dashboard. (I need to find out.) Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd stuff at Musahiban[edit]

Could someone please take a look T the edit I just reverted and the IP edit at my talk page? Article needs rebuilding but from trainable sources. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Good revert. Threats by another IP (sock/meat puppet). I suggest blocking both (or at least the latter) per WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR (if you do not understand that threats are not done, you're blatantly incompetent). Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. There seems to be a lot of IP-hopping going on, here and WP:NPOV seems an unfamiliar concept. Kleuske (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Mohammadzai has been edited by Doug's IP editor, and appears entirely unsourced. Just sayin' -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to name me.[edit]

It is nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff in this, and now it's attracting driveby comments from people with less than 3 dozen edits. And replies to those editors. Plus it's been festering here for weeks. So I'm going to do the best I can here, and close this, even if the close is imperfect and annoys everyone. User:YuHuw, if I understand correctly, the main point of contention is that you want the edit where User:Неполканов refered to you by what he assumes is your first name oversighted. Everything else seems to stem from that. I don't believe that edit meets the requirements for revdel or oversight; WP:OUTING requires an attempt to link you to a specific person in real life. Use of an assumed first name doesn't do that. So, as an Oversighter, I'm declining your request for oversight. However, I will let Неполканов and User:Toddy1 know that from now on, they should not refer to you by anything except "YuHuw", and make no insinuations that you are a sockpuppet of anyone unless it is in an SPI, backed up with evidence. Doing so in the future might be considered harassment. In return, please resume editing using your account; there in now no benefit to editing from this IP, and several costs. You could resort to WP:CLEANSTART, but then you would not be allowed to edit the contentious areas you are editing now. Finally, if in the future there is something that you want oversighted, contact an oversighter privately, or contact the oversighters using User:Oversight; don't publicize the problem on the most-watched page on the project. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The same person who forced me to use my IP to edit rather than my Username because he was telling everyone I am someone from the UK is trying to name me here. Are there no policies about not trying to dig private information up about Editors here? I am not a public figure, I am a private individual and I am entirely unknown to User:Неполканов and his meatpuppets who have an obsessive compulsive fixation on trying to identify who I am and getting me to reveal private information about myself by irritating me to pieces calling me names of different people. The only piece of info I volunteer about myself (because I wish to assert that I am not someone that my harassers once said I am) is that I am an Israeli. Everything else is my own business and I do not want anyone to try naming me here on Wikipedia. please do something about it. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [17] [18] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [19] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [20]), why do you edit as an anonymous IP editor? Also, why do you feel the need to make abusive comments about other editors? For example in your post of 11:31, 14 May 2016:
  • You described one editor (currently blocked) as "a rather repulsive person from the UK".[21]
  • You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[22]
Suggest block as WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clpo13 please. Toddy1 is some kind of User:Неполканов puppet. I notified User:Неполканов but Toddy1 responds. This is his typical behavior pattern. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) This harassment has been going on for 5 months now already. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Неполканов himself is the one who led me to believe that the UK editor was repulsive in the first place by saying he is a pedophile. Then they called me that person. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Toddy1's responses here (and his anon IP edits on my talk page) are a perfect example of how he buzzes around people who have issues with User:Неполканов, almost like he is a paid bodyguard or something. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he called Vaz as well? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
<personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:Bbb23 and User:Someguy1221, as this appears to be a continuation of an SPI that failed to result in a block for YuHuw some months back. If the IP claims Toddy1 and Неполканов are still making accusations of sockpuppetry against him/her months after their TL;RD sockpuppet imvestigation didn't go the way they wanted, then this needs to be looked into. Note that I'm not endorsing YuHuw's side in the various edit wars these users have engaged each other in. The only user I have seen in looking through it who in my experience generally behaves in a reasonable manner is User:Ian.thomson, and he agreed with Toddy1 on the content (although I have only briefly examined the dispute at Karaite). Whoever is right on the content, edit-warring is never good, placing the blame for edit wars solely on the side one disagrees with for the sole reason that one disagrees with them is even worse than edit-warring, engaging in a vindictive war of attrition against someone who embarrassed you months ago by not being the sockpuppet you wanted them to be is worse still, and trying to dox users one disagrees with is the worst of all. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat/Archive. As you can see above, YuHuw is still accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being puppets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
So both sides have been throwing bad sockpuppet allegations at each other for months -- so what? In this thread the OP doesn't appear to have accused you of being a sockpuppet, but rather a meatpuppet/"paid bodyguard". Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
If people are accusing other me of making sock puppet allegations after the closing the of the SPI in late March 2016, they should provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You said, without evidence, that you were accused of sockpuppetry in this thread. You appear to be also attempting to link the OP to one or more named accounts, and defending several rev-del-ed doxxing attempts. I'm not calling anyone here a sockpuppet, so the burden of proof is not on me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the burden is on both of the IPs who have, for the past several months failed to prove that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone. Since this is the case, I would suggest that if none of them can drop the stick, they should be blocked for harassment. As it stands however, 94.119.64.0/24 has an oversight block. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI: 87.69.184.128 no one is making you edit under an IP. You should not be forced to reveal this information. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
If I do not edit using my IP they will call me a sock of that UK based editor which they do one way or another almost every single time I tried to edit any article since January. I am not accusing anyone here of being a sockpuppet I am not even calling for anyone to be blocked. I am simply asking that the edits of the editor I named whenever he tries to post a name which he hopes might identify me that those posts be redacted please. In fact I would appreciate the same being done to any editor who has tried/will try to do something similar. Wikipedia should be about content not about facing personal attacks. But some editors don't seem to have a clue on how to respond to content challenges except to harass those who challenge them. I have been harassed for far too long. Indeed I have lost my temper on a couple of occaisions over the months but I have always tried to make amends afterwards. But the constand hounding and attempts to identify who I am in real life are more than anyone should be expected to endure. I think I deserve at least one administrator to take my side and give me the benefit of the doubt once. Best regards. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It was more 'Not Proven.' Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my request to have all attempts to try and guess my identity redacted by someone with oversight privileges. No one should suffer this sort of harassment. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. Voidwalker, this [23] is an example of the countless sort of cruel and baseless edit summary insults which forced me to use my IP to edit instead of my Username. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to guess your real-life identity, but I do want to know your WP identity. Are you YuHuw or not? Yes or no, please. If no, please explain this edit [24]. EEng 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
This talk page section probably puts that connection in context. Blackmane (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes sir, I am YuHuw. YuHuw (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
And you have self-identified as YuHuw in the links I and Blackmane have given. You should be editing as YuHuw, and if someone's giving you a hard time, that will be dealt with. This has nothing to do with your anonymity. EEng 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to me that if wiki-abusers are claiming all sorts of IP addresses as me then the only way I can prove that I am not UK based is to edit from my regular IP. When I edit as YuHuw they try to guess my name and you can see from the redactions on my own talk page they have been pretty abusive to me there too. I do not know how many real life people they are but at least I would like someone to redact the places where they have tried to name me please. I understand it is my right according to wiki outing policies isn't it? After that I would like my own edits which reveal personal info about me (e.g. my IP edits) to be courtesy blanked and I will return to editing as YuHuw not to be tricked again by such people. This is all I am asking. If the harassment still continues after that I hope thew same measures will be taken to protect my identity from those obsessive compulsive trolls. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry that I mistakenly thought that this edit by an IP editor was an edit by you. Please accept my apology. I wish you would only edit logged-in as User:YuHuw. When you edit as an IP people get you confused with another editor who edits in the same area as you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It is easy to say sorry, it is not easy to clean up the fall-out of your **FIVE MONTHS** bad-mouthing. BUT in light of your apology I am certain that you will have no objection to having all of your edit summaries and talk page comments which try to portray me as someone else (or as based outside Israel when you knew from the beginning where I am) such as these ones [25] [26] redacted. Let's not forget Toddy1 that you used [27] as a base to WP:CANVASS calling me Kaz countless times so that people who have had no interaction with me before whatsoever were influenced by your badmouthing me. You set out from the start in discussion with your employer (I am not saying money exchanged hands but this is clear employment) from the outset only had one objective and that was to convince everyone that I am someone I am not. Nevertheless, if you are indeed willing to DROP THE STICK and go for a NEW START along with having your comments redacted then I am very happy to accept your apology. I do not bare grudges and have been willing to start over with you countless times. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Provided you have no active sanctions, then WP:CLEANSTART is an option. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:CLEANSTART would be an excellent idea to apply to all those who have been abusing WP as a by harassing me. Meanwhile my request to have those edits by people who have been trying to name or identify me in some way all redacted please. I am asking this in line with WP:OUTING. I can not speak for those accounts who have been harassing me, but if I understand what you mean by sanctions then I can confirm that I personally have never had any sanctions against me. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When someone who has an account deliberately chooses to edit as an anonymous IP editor, then he/she must take some responsibility for the consequences. It looks like sock-puppetry. I accept that User:YuHuw did not mean it as sock-puppetry. It has helped that he/she has made clear which IPs were him/her. If you edit as an IP editor, people will wonder which user you are. And some of the time, they will get it wrong.
I advise against a WP:CLEANSTART. It is sometimes very hard to distinguish between YuHuw's edits and Kaz' edits. I honestly thought they were the same person. However, there has been a sock puppet investigation, which cleared YuHuw, and established that they are apparently different people. If all the edits by the Israeli IPs that we believe to have been by YuHuw were by YuHuw, and none of the very similar UK IP edits were by YuHuw, one has to wonder who that person was.
YuHuw, please carry on editing - but please do so logged in as YuHuw, so we know it is you, not Kaz. And stop calling me a "meat puppet".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It has been demonstrated above that you knew from the start I am not that UK based editor but tried everything in your power to portay me as him. You say one has to wonder who those non Israeli IPs were but perhaps some of them were from your team. You have not been cleared of meatpuppetry yet. Your continued stepping in to help the accusef only adds to the substantial evidence against you. As demonstrated above, you and your team (especially the person you always step in to fight for including here) continued to attempt to portray me as that editor until long after I started editing exclusively with my IP which is my right by the way and is easy to identify me as I always make clear this is me YuHuw. I am well within my rights to edit as YuHuw exposing my IP and will continue to do so until the redactions begin.

I will try again to get back to the topic of my complaint. Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Where in that diff is there any sign of them naming, well, anyone? Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

THE VERY FIRST WORD!!! YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If there is no one here competent enough to deal with this, is there a place to post to get the attention of genuine/real administrators who deal with WP:OUTING swiftly and effectively. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See User_talk:YuHuw#Accusations. User:Liz who posted the message there, is an admin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1's comment ^ is completely irrelevant. The association between my IP and YuHuw ID has never been hidden, see [28] long before the most recent WP:OUTING attempt which should under wiki guidelines have been redacted as soon as I requested it a dozen days ago. Even if I had only ever been editing with an anon IP and had no user account, attempted-outing is still attempted-outing and should be dealt with as all other outing attempts are dealt with whether the attempt is accurate or not. I am requesting Oversight admin to redact this edit in line with the WP:OUTING policy without any further delay please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING: "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." For help requesting oversight, see WP:Requests_for_oversight. Or read the pink box at the top of this page when editing. Mysticdan (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I have written but I don't think that email address is working and the irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-revdel link is dead too. Since I do not know any administrators I can ask privately I am asking any other administrator to delete the revisions (including those pertaining to it in this ANI request) in the meantime. YuHuw (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw can check the list of admins in wp and ping as many active ones as possible because outing is serious business that should be deleted with outers banned for months, if not indefiniteFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You just appeared 5 days ago and tried to create a Request for Admin. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Please don't stray off topic. You can talk to FAMASFREENODE about your concerns about him on his wall not here.

FAMASFREENODE if you have any idea about pinging oversighters please ping them all. The fact that these outing incidents have not been dealt with by any oversight team now for more than half a month severely undermines the notion that there are serious admins watching this board or even the oversight inbox. the WP:OUTING policy is clear, but the supposed avenues provided are also apparently dead. YuHuw 87.69.184.128 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


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

William L. Uanna[edit]

No consensus for a topic ban or other sanction at this stage.
After a prolonged history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this discusion has led to CIC7 giving assurances[29][30] of future good conduct, including a commitment not to edit the article William L. Uanna in which CIC7 has a COI. However, the COI editing and other related misconduct has been going on for several years, and CIC7 has been warned before. So if these assurances are not upheld, it will be hard to view this as anything other than a WP:NOTHERE case ... so prompt sanctions will be likely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User with declared conflict of interest (son of subject) is edit-warring over original research/trivia/puffery in article in William L. Uanna. See [31] [32] [33]. We've been down this road before both here at ANi and on article talk page, going back literally years, and editor is deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-land. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the edit logs and I believe I have a reasonably clear picture. This user, as noble as their intentions may be, is not relenting and insisting on imparting their own intimate knowledge. As they have good intentions but won't heed, I propose a topic ban. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Seconded.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Two reverts within the past hour, which may or may not put this editor in breach of 3RR. Five reverts in the past 24 hours. This editor has been granted a great deal of slack because the editors on that page uniformly admire the subject and are intrigued by this editor's claimed personal history. But he has taken that as a green light for carte blanche. Last year he was pushing some kind of conspiracy theory concerning his dad's death. now it's puffery plucked from an FOI request. It's not ending and the "pretty please abide by Wikipedia rules" phase is behind us. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 23:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. This isn't meant as a comment on the topic ban idea; please continue to offer opinions on that suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Let it be clear that my proposition of having a topic ban is what I consider to not only be the most ideal solution, but the minimum in this case. I don't want to see them indefinitely or extensively blocked, (at least not yet), but I feel as though it is prudent to prevent them from touching this topic until they have time to get a hold of themselves. They could use the restriction to focus on learning about and improving other Wikipedia content. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The block was purely for edit-warring, not for COI editing or anything like that. Given the existence of this discussion, it would be disruptive if any admin issued a short-term block on such grounds without heeding the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Would this be a good case for COIN to take up? It seems like they'd be better quipped than ANI, since COI-related POV seems to be the issue here.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so, as the problem is disruptive and POV editing by an SPA, so the COI guideline, while applicable, is secondary. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I posted some comments on the earlier ANI thread. I think you guys are being too bitey. I oppose the topic ban for now. We haven't engaged CIC7 all that constructively earlier or now, so we still have room to do so. COIN seems like overkill. Figureofnine also is edit warring in my opinion, reverting 3x in less than a day[34][35][36] and seems to be wp:owning the article to some extent over its history. Figureofnine, could you ease up a bit? CIC7 seems to have some good resources to bring to the article, and we should accomodate him to the extent we can, working with him to fix issues with his contributions that are incompatible with our approach to content. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me. "Bitey"? You've got to be kidding. CIC7 has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have. He has been editing Wikipedia for six years. His sole and entire focus has been to edit the article on the man he says his father (I believe him, though it is not verifiable), which in the main is the addition of original research, conspiracy theories, and, most recently, material that is both original research and outright puffery. He knows the rules, he doesn't give a damn and never has. He has been treated with the utmost courtesy and knows perfectly well what WP:OR is because it has been pointed out to him multiple times. In the most recent situation I raised the issue on the talk page and he ignored it. The other editors on that page are not trying to add negative content; on the contrary, we are all interested in the Manhattan Project and rather admire Uanna and have worked to build it up to GA status. He has been given extra-gentle consideration because of his claimed family connection but enough is enough.
I favor a topic ban for now but only as it applies to the article itself, not to the article talk page. It's his behavior in the article proper that is objectionable. Lastly I agree with the IP that there is an WP:OWN situation. CIC7 created the article and has dominated the editing of it. The last two of his five reverts yesterday were reinstatement of unsourced trivia removed by another editor[37][38]] including "One piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was 'Keep him out of the sun, he turns black.' " I think that after six years this editor is aware that such material is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it's late here and I can't stay long right now, but I'd be interested in seeing some diffs of CIC7 being treated with the utmost courtesy, especially by yourself. Hawkeye7 made some constructive suggestions on CIC7's user talk page, and Jytdog left a note about COI that looked like copypasta but was at least polite. But the remarks I've seen directed to him from you looked at best pretty brusque. He has contributed a lot of content to the article, some parts of which had problems and got reverted, but other parts of which are perfectly good and are in the article. So the article has benefited from his participation, which speaks in his favor. Yes he's been around for a number of years without yet having gotten the hang of editing neutrally, but he has a total of 180 edits which is definitely still in the newbie phase. So I think this can be handled more gracefully than what's been going on here on ANI so far. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
We can handle it "gracefully" by invoking WP:COI, enforcing it, and keeping him off the article and on the talk page. Simple, despite your efforts to complicate it. Done here. Over and out. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the problem with the first Kennedy diff above (I didn't check the second one). It looks like it restored some reasonable content about a well documented issue at the time (whether Kennedy's Catholicism would divide his loyalty between the Church and the US). It mentioned a speech that Kennedy intended to give at the Dallas Trade Mart, and quoted from a civil rights announcement. Those could have used citations--is that the issue? It took about 2 seconds to verify each with web searches[39][40] so I don't see it as a basis for banning.

    Does Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) have anything to say about this? Hawkeye7 has made substantial contributions to the Uanna article so I'd assign more weight to their view than to the others in figuring out what to do about this. Figureofnine has made a number of edits to the Uanna article, but they're all reversions, tagging, and a few minor copyedits as far as I can tell (if I missed something, I'd appreciate diffs). Coretheapple has made around 7k edits in article space to over 2000 articles, but almost all of those edits are reverts, and zero of the edits are to the Uanna article. So this seems emblematic of the bureaucracy that's given Wikipedia a bad name in recent years.

    If CIC7 is causing hardship to other people writing the article, I'd like to hear that from the writers themselves, i.e. those who have added substantial informative text rather than only reverting or rearranging, before going forward with a ban. CIC7's editing is far from perfect, but he has obviously contributed more value to the article than Figureofnine or Coretheapple, so if we're going to ban anyone we might be bett