Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

IP's continued disruption[edit]

BLOCKED & PROTECTED
(non-admin closure) IPs blocked and both articles protected by NeilN --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:56, 16 July 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.

Resolved

Non stop disruptive overlinking. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Same editor as one I blocked a few days ago. Both IPs blocked, both articles semied. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanx Face-smile.svg Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 20:06, 16 July 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.

Administrator blocking for no reason, deleting unblock requests[edit]

OP ban evasion. Blocked by Acroterion. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:51, 17 July 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.

Is such behaviour acceptable? Reading policies and guidelines leads me to believe not. But it is happening, so perhaps the guidelines and policies are out of date and should be changed. Please advise.82.132.243.236 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you give us examples or are you just this editor. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the nice IP that left this [1] message. I think we know all that we need to asses your ability to participate here. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 16 July 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 Chronus making personal attacks against me[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Tamakukan blocked by NeilN for 1 week per WP:NPA and WP:Harassment in regards to This ANI thread.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:21, 17 July 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 think the user Chronus and the user DanielGSouza are the same guy, or they are working in meatpuppetry,Chronus send a message in Portuguese threatening me and saying "WE will work against you". "WE"?

I need to advice that this user Chronus is an dictator in the Portuguese Wiki (No exaggeration), he is known to all users of the Wiki-pt as rude and possessive, preventing all editing in articles where he touchs. Already quarreled with multiple users both Wiki-PT and even here, always wanting to impose his point of view. He is also known for extreme ideological bias (he is communist) and collusion with Wiki-PT administrators. You should kick this guy over here forever. Tamakukan (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Tamakukan blocked one week per the below. --NeilN talk to me 23:26, 16 July 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.

Serious personal attacks against me (again)[edit]

Socks all put away by Mike V --NeilN talk to me 02:47, 17 July 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 editor Tamakukan (see above, a sock puppet from Bazaira account - see previous request) again utter serious personal attacks against me in portuguese (see here, here, here, above and below). Chronus (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And you are a dictator in Wiki-PT, wants to be a Hugo Chavez here too? You and your dictator friend Teles destroyed the Wiki-PT. You should shut up. Tamakukan (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You are communist and have serioous mental problems, your "wiki pt team" decides everything out of the Wiki-PT place, in real life. You ban who you don't like, you don't follow any rule. Tamakukan (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And keeps going... Chronus (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, in Wiki-PT you're an big asshole because Teles and the administrators protect you like a baby. Tamakukan (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Tamakukan blocked one week. Chronus, is Bazaira an alternate account of Tamakukan or are they two different people? --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: Yes, Bazaira is an alternate account of Tamakukan. The editor is a well-known creator of puppets accounts in pt.wiki (see here). Chronus (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Chronus, can you open a WP:SPI, supply the appropriate diffs (and translations) as evidence, and request a checkuser? --NeilN talk to me 23:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: Done! Chronus (talk) 00:06, 17 July 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.

Administrator removing unblock requests[edit]

Appears to be Best Known for IP, in which case WP:DENY applies here, as it does with the block itself.
Softlavender (talk) 23:11, 18 July 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.

I was blocked earlier on today by an administrator who clearly violated the blocking policy, first by deleting my subsequent unblock request themselves, and then by threatening to block even talk page access if I removed certain threatening messages they had left me.Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings clearly allows anyone to remove messages that they have seen, and does not permit administrators to block anyone for removing messages from their talk page.

Despite this, the user made good on their threat, leaving an immature taunting message with their policy violating block.

I assume that other users would regard this behaviour as problematic. If that is indeed so, then what can be done about it? 195.69.54.210 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you give us some context, please? Where were these messages, and who are you talking about here? -- The Anome (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I can, but having seen that complaints about administrators always result in attacks and harassment from them and their friends that go on literally for years, I'm not going to until there has been some comment on the substance of what I've described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.54.210 (talkcontribs)
@195.69.54.210: I am not an administrator, but I am interested in your case. However, there is not much else that can be said without knowing who you are talking about. Yes, editors are allowed to remove most content from their talkpage and it sounds like you are right there. Regarding your unblock request it completely depends on how it was written, or example if it contained some sort of personal attack or if you did not adress the reason for the block something. More information is required. Qed237 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
195.69.54.210, without further context, there's nothing to go on. This noticeboard is for specific incidents, not general rules discussions. -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I do believe they mean 82.214.239.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), AKA the Best Known for IP. They did another thread like this recently, see here. Sro23 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Without further detail, it's impossible to verify what you're saying. For instance, removing messages from your talk page is allowed per WP:BLANKING, but that same page says removing declined unblock requests is not. Furthermore, talk page access can be revoked if there are numerous disruptive unblock requests. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 18 July 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.

A Conflict[edit]

While I haven't been directly involved in many of the events that led to this filing, I'll try to give the short version. User:Kamel Tebaast made several edits in a short amount of time, possibly to be able to edit WP:30/500-protected articles. After several edits of his were reverted by two editors (User:Zero0000 and User:Sepsis II), one of them posted about it on his talk page. Kamel emailed me for help in the matter, but, because of the private nature of email, I'm not sure if mentioning that conversation's specifics would be considered outing or not. (I will say he didn't follow my advice, other than some bad advice about meatpuppetry that I gave him before I could dig further into the conversation.) Anyway, that conversation got nowhere (other than incivility) and, after a while, one editor posted on the Arbitration Enforcement talk page for 30/500 here. After that, Kamel made a rather uncivil edit to his user page titled "Wikiwashing". I'll admit that I haven't kept up with the other two editors as well as I have with Kamel. I am notifying all three editors via the required ANI template. What should be done? -- Gestrid (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I just realized that Kamel knew about WP:30/500, as he made note of it on his talk page under the section July 2016. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like this belongs at AE to me. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I came here mainly because of the incivility involved, not because if the 30/500 issues. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Users have a fairly liberal free range on their own userpages. I view that userpage as a Wikipedia commentary, probably within the bounds of legitimate Wiki-criticism, and in my opinion not really to the level of WP:POLEMIC or a WP:CIVILity breach. It just looks like a personal opinion to me. On the other score, I recommend never engaging a new user via email -- always keep your advice and interactions on Wikipedia. There's really no reason for anyone to be emailing anyone anyway, unless it's just social. Looks like your other concern is being addressed at the AE link you provided. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll just let the AE play out, then. -- Gestrid (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This user's page is pretty much talking about me and other users. When he wroted "whitewash unfavorable views by redirecting, consolidating, deleting, and renaming articles...redirecting nearly all articles dealing with Israelis as victims of Palestinian terrorism to List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 2016 2015, 2014, 2013…" He reffered to an AfD discussion I started. When he saw the discussion, he changed his user page and blamed those who disagree with him for what he calls "wikiwashing" which is his name for WP:CENSOR, WP:POV and probably WP:IDONTLIKEIT combined.
He was also engaged is some edit conflicts in what is seen by me as his POV pushing, where he modified a legitimate sentence to remove information he didn't like and refered to what he changed as "Self-serving propaganda". After the edit was reverted by another user, he made the edit again some days later, without any explaination or making any discussion about it, and the edit was reverted again, until he made the edit again a day later, with a strong POV edit summery: "It's the Security Fence, not "separation barrier; no relevance to piece, propaganda". He then self reverted himself, probably because he realised he broke 1RR rule, only for making the same edit two days later.
He was also involved in a similar debacle in Palestinian Liberation Organization article, there he made an edit, realised he broke 1RR and reverted himself, only to re-make the same edit two days later.
All of these are from the last 1-2 weeks, I didn't go deeper into this user's contributions. He needs either a warning or a temporary block in my opinion, his behavior is completely unacceptable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Moves by User:Ykvach[edit]

Continued undiscussed moves of articles about Ukrainian cities though the moves are controversial. First, he moved Donbass cities remained by the Ukrainian parliament, though Ukraine has currently no authorities over these cities. I warned him twice. Today, he moved Kirovohrad, though this is a big city, and discussion is needed. A block would probably be in order. The user does not disagree that moves are controversial, he agrees and continues to move. I also had a similar incident with him on Wikidata, where he was changing English labels even though articles were not moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's bizarre. They are an experienced editor with years of tenure. Muffled Pocketed 13:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes it happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Adding User:Yulia Romero to this request: He just moved it back providing the explanation that the city "was named by a regime which murdered millions of people" [2]. He is aware of the fact that this rationale is not based on our policies [3]. I am somehow starting feeling like in a mental institution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I care more about undoing the honouring of people (Sergey Kirov) who don't deserve this (by people who don't deserve us doing them favours (Stalin)) then Wikipedia policies. But in my mind this is not a bad thing.... Besides 1 only moved the page one time because I was angered by Ymblanter unwillingness to open a discussion on the talk page of the Wikipedia-page of the city about a name change. I would like to know why Ymblanter did not do so because it seems very logic to do so.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question- what the heck has Stalin got to do with it??? Muffled Pocketed 14:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In 1934, after the assassination of Sergei Kirov the city was renamed to Kirovograd as part of a Stalin propaganda campaign. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent demonstration of applied history, cheers Yulia Romero. Muffled Pocketed 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not my responsibility to open a move discussion. IMO, any person who wants to move the page should do it, like e.g. it was done in Talk:Dnipropetrovsk (which did not succeed) or Talk:Myrnohrad where it did.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to open this discussion... Hence in my move my edit summary was "Pending discussion". But before I could do this I found my name on this Administrators' noticeboard.... I just did do make this request. "Pending discussion" I was intended to keep the page named Kropyvnytskyi because I care more about undoing a Stalin propaganda campaign then Wikipedia rules.... (I still do not see this (placing undoing a Stalin propaganda campaign above Wikipedia rules) a bad thing.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, Ymblanter! But could you explain me, please, what is the problem with this move? the city is renamed today. Whats the problem? What is the discussion need? You are trying to organasie same situation as with Dnipropetrovsk, when the title of the article is not connected to the current name of the city. I can find only one explanation: you just do not like these changes. But if you will entitle the articles cv the actual names of the cities, it is distructive policy. And this is a problem of yours, not mine! Because my changes is in accordance with currant names of the cities. Teh, I can agree with you in the case of cities on the territories, occupied by Russia, because Ukrainian law doesnt not force there. But, it is not related the city you call Kirovograd! In most of cases, when the city were renamed in Ukraine, the articles were renamed in wiki: Horishni Plavni, Varash, Chornomorsk, Podilsk. What's a problem with, particularly Kropyvnytskyi? --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What you say has absolutely nothing to do with our policies. In addition, it is written in bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Honest question: if the city has been officially renamed, shouldn't it be a fairly open and shut issue of WP:COMMONNAME, and preference for post-name change sources per WP:NAMECHANGES? Why should a discussion really be needed? TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We see that recently Dnipropetrovsk was not moved (I did not vote, for the record), because RM was closed as no consensus. Kirovohrad is a regional center as well, not exactly the same size as Dnipropetrovsk, but one can reasonably expect that there could be some objections to move it. It is much safer to wait for a week and move it as an RM result, that move it now without discussion and then get move warring between people who have strong opinions about the name of the city. We even run a RM for smaller cities, and they were moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw your changes in Dnipropetrovsk, so dont be surprised on bad faith! I also did not voited there. I am making accent on the fact, that my changes are not cv the rules of wiki. I also hate this stupid new name of this city, same as in the case of Dnipro. But this is not related to the names of the articles in wiki. Both cities have no traditional names in English. If anyone will say that Dnipropetrivsk or Kirovohrad, are traditional English names of these cities, I will laugh! So, I cannot find any explanation, why did you revert the name of the article to Kirovohrad! "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city" is not an explanation is the case of the article title. I cannot find in the wikirules "People who have strong opinions about the name of the city". The name of the article must be connected to official name of the city, this is mandatory! The strong opinion of people you can add in the text. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
No, you completely misunderstand the policies. First, if you do not assume good faith, you should not be editing Wikipedia but should enjoy an indefinite block. Second, we do not have a policy that the name of the article about the city should be an official name of the city. In fact, we have plenty of examples where the name does not correspond to the official name. Third, uncontroversial moves are ok as soon as nobody objects. If somebody objects, or if one can reasonably assume that there are users objecting, an RM should be filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ykvach and Yulia Romero, do you both now understand that controversial moves and contested moves require a WP:RM? If you do not understand this, you are facing a move-ban or a block. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes; and I learned my lesson. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor[edit]

Editing at: Black Sea campaigns (1941–44)

I also suspect that these IP addresses belong to the same editor who is avoiding a block:

Please also see discussion with the editor at: Talk:Black_Sea_campaigns_(1941–44)#IP_edits, where the editor would not answer my questions on whether they have been blocked, and whether these addresses belong to them. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • What's also concerning is that some of these addresses have been creating articles on non-notable subjects. Some of them I've nominated for speedy deletion:
    • Romanian gunboat V12
    • Battle of the Chilia Branch
    • Battle of Sulina. There are possibly more. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It may just be me, but non-notable does not meet WP:CSD. Perhaps an AfD nomination might be preferable. Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
      • P.S. The articles were created by an anon who has never been blocked and went through the WP:AfC procedure. It seems to me the onus probandi is on you to show that the above IP's are (probably) one and the same person. I suggest WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
        • For the record, the IPs are all socks of the indeffed user User:Romanian-and-proud. Ed, Sturmvogel, and I have been dealing with this individual for some time now (see for instance the threads here). Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Let me look into a rangeblock. Katietalk 13:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Clear block evasion. These ranges all geolocate to the same Romanian city, have no contributions other than the blocked editor's since May 1, and have been blocked for one month:
  • 82.79.46.0/24
  • 86.123.120.0/22
  • 79.113.133.0/24
The two IPs outside these ranges, 79.113.130.4 and 79.113.130.255, make that last rangeblock too big and would catch too much collateral damage. They're stale right now, so they'll need to be blocked individually if they return. Katietalk 13:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies and KrakatoaKatie. We've been dealing with this IP for quite awhile. He or she unfortunately can't seem to get the points we're making. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Still socking, just blocked User:82.79.45.82. Doug Weller talk 05:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way: Romanian-and-proud = Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). GABgab 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Back again as User:86.123.126.231. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Whois is coming back with "Romania Targu Jiu Rcs & Rds Residential" with all of these IPs, and in the same location (as KrakatoaKatie has already pointed out above). I agree that a rangeblock would be huge, in that many IPs would be caught in the net and become potential collateral damage. The connection with the ISP and the location (not to mention the articles created) definitely speak that there's a connection and that these IP edits are (very likely) the same person. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As I said, the rangeblocks I placed had zero constructive edits in the last 60 days, which is unusual. I almost always find a few good edits in there, but not this time. The larger ranges, a /20 if I recall correctly, did have lots of edits about football and sports, so there's somebody else using that ISP who's here to contribute. If we give our sockmaster enough rope, he'll give us more info for a narrower block. Katietalk 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For the past couple of months, this IP has been pestering me at Talk:Galați shipyard‎ to move his drafts into the mainspace. I thought it strange he refused to get an account, and said so on several occasions, but grudgingly went along. Now that I've found out the true nature of the situation, I obviously have no intention to continue doing his bidding. The individual in question has taken to dumping drafts into the mainspace - see Galați shipyard‎ and the page history. - Biruitorul Talk 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits as Special:Contributions/86.123.126.231. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, can I say something? First of: I'm not disruptive. I may be blocked, but the overwhelming majority of my edits are constructive. The fact that I'm blocked doesn't change it. Second of: Do you really think you'll get what you want if you keep destroying my work? Look, I get it that I'm banned. I don't intend to avoid it forever, it's just that I got some work to do. The sooner I finish, the sooner I will start my 6-months hiatus. I don't want stupid pointless wars, just let me do my part and I go. Finally, all I ask is to stop deleting my edits just because it's /me/ who makes them, because you deprive the Wiki of genuine informational value that I bet no one else is willing to provide, and please, just give me a week or so to finish my projects. Give me a few days, stop destroying my work, and I will take my block for all it's worth. 86.123.126.231 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Not so sure. He's pretty determined, and he may be back in another range, but others may feel differently. Katietalk 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not really familiar enough with the situation. But I agree with Katie, looks like this editor is very determined and won't give up, like another we had to range block a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Back as Special:Contributions/79.118.113.18. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Blocked one week. --NeilN talk to me 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Verbal abuse[edit]

User:Ambeinghari has made an extreme verbal abuse against User:Cyphoidbomb (diff) while editing on Kasaba (2016 film). The personal attack was without any provocative response from Cyphoidbomb or the result of an edit war. The user has not apologized or responded on the issue. Later, he again made a personal remark about Cyphoidbomb on Hammersoft's talk page (diff). This indicate that he has no regrets on his profanity. Behaviors like this is a bad influence on other editors. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I came here from the Kasaba (2016 film) article; and would've lodged this if CT hadn't got here first. I recommend Propose a short break from the project to alllow User:Ambeinghari the opportunity to calm down. Muffled Pocketed 18:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The user was previously implicated as a sock of WillShowU, a temperamental editor who was known for abusive ramblings. The CU results were confusing to me, ranging from unlikely to possible. Not sure what that's about, but this sort of antagonistic editing, jumping quickly to calling someone a "motherfucking idiot" is consistent with sockpuppetry. Mike V, Bbb23, any of you sockthumpers got any thoughts on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked the user for 48 hours for the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There's not much to go on, since the technical evidence for WillShowU is stale. Based on the geolocation, it could be  Possible. I'd recommend any extended block be based upon behavior. Mike VTalk 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Charles Turing, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, thanks, by the way, for being considerate of your fellow Wikipedians (i.e. me in this instance). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A 48 block seems a little lenient for such clearly abusive behaviour and will not dissuade the individual in question from doing so again in future. Propose one month block on Ambeinghari (as a minimum). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

racist rant again[edit]

RANGE BLOCK
(non-admin closure) Range blocked by Mike V --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:13, 18 July 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 posting at 19:36 17 July 2016 at History of African Americans in Los Angeles for a repeat of racist rant summary of 20:48 10 July 2016. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All set. Also, the /64 IPv6 range received a much needed 3 month hard block. Mike VTalk 04:26, 18 July 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.

VPP disruption[edit]

Not a RFC, OP blocked as a sock (usual harassment of Ricky81682 --NeilN talk to me 09:53, 18 July 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.

Isn't intentionally hosting RFCs that you know will fail disruptive? I think a warning is needed to prevent further disruption here. Hiyahoo1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No. Kleuske (talk) 09:09, 18 July 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.

Pandit Rathod[edit]

Blocked --NeilN talk to me 11:37, 18 July 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:Pandit Rathod continues to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for self promotion,[4][5][6][7][8] ignores warnings.[9][10] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 18 July 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.

Strange spamming attack[edit]

RESOLVED
(non-admin closure) CU ran by Bbb23 additional socks were found and blocked. Domains were black listed by MER-C that should be that. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:37, 18 July 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 seen several spamlink additions by new users today to articles about travel destinations, all very similar format, all adding a link to wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com.xx (where xx varies - two cases of .br and one of .jp). The URLs redirect to www.123malikoki.info/, which doesn't actually include any of the article destinations spammed today, so it seems pretty incompetent. Two of the edit summaries are fakes of the form "Undid revision x by 2602:306:3357:BA0:8085:1A7D:CD7B:339B". They seem to make a few white space changes too, presumably to try to hide it. The three I have found and reverted are...

Now that I've realized there's an organized spamming effort here, I've indef blocked all three. A Google search doesn't find any other occurrences, but there might be some that have not been indexed yet. Any thoughts? Blacklist wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com and the 123malikoki.info destination? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I caught this identical post from Davidmio the other day. Dawnseeker2000 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - they look like they're one-off throwaway accounts, but I've indef blocked that one too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's a sneaky one by Titpaveli (talk · contribs); there's no such edit being reverted. Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, they're mostly like that - the "reverts" are completely bogus. Thanks for the ones you've found and blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit more Google-fu and I also found...

Spam URLs include wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.co.uk, mywikipediatravel.blogspot.in, wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com, wikitravelguidesnow.blogspot.hr, mywikipediatravel.blogspot.jp, mywikipediatravel.blogspot.com.br, mywikipediatravel.blogspot.ca, mywikipediatravel.blogspot.rs, wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.kr, wikipediatraveltoday.blogspot.com.au.

All single-use throwaway accounts, all now blocked (some by me, some by User:Mackensen). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • PS: I'm not posting ANI notices on all these dozens of user talks, for obvious reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) There's an insane amount of quacking, here. Could it be a duck farm? Seriously, this seems to scream for a sockpuppet investigation. Kleuske (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Domains blacklisted. MER-C 01:51, 18 July 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.

Mllturro[edit]

User has been unblocked, apparently via IP-block exemption.
Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 18 July 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.

Mllturro (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. S/he is not blocked directly; instead, the block was placed by Elockid (talk · contribs) on an IP address belonging to OVH, an ISP in France (I believe). Now, the particular IP address, 151.80.113.194, reverses to a block described as "Dedicated Servers". Mllturro believes s/he is not connecting through a dedicated server (for example, not connecting through a VPN), but it's certainly possible there's a problem with Mllturro's network configuration. Given the amount of spam I routinely get from OVH (I'm located in Canada, not France) and the complete unwillingness of their customer support and network administrators to fix that problem, it's quite plausible to me that OVH has their DNS records screwed up. That is, their netblock may not actually be used for dedicated servers after all. If so, we should soften the block on 151.80.0.0/17 to allow logged in users. Or perhaps, replace the single block with multiple blocks, if we can identify for ourselves which are dedicated servers and which are regular home users. I will inform both users of this discussion momentarily. Note that I may not have much access to the Internet for the next week, so I may have to leave it to other admins to take appropriate action here. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I see nothing wrong with the block; it's quite possible OVH has changed their configuration since the block was placed. And that's even assuming the IP address in question isn't actually a dedicated server. My point here is to figure out whether or not the block should be softened or tweaked. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggested an IP block exemption request, and Mllturro (talk · contribs) has made that request, though admittedly not in the form prescribed for this. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, yes?
So: IP block exemption? Any objections to this?
Piet van Nieuw Holland aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I had forgotten about that possibility. I've dealt with the request. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 16 July 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.

Editor impersonating others / misusing templates[edit]

MasterPiece2016 indef blocked by Boing! said Zebedee. SPI is ongoing.
Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 18 July 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.

A suspicion of socking has also been raised; but this behaviour alone, I suggest, is sufficiently abusive of, and disruptive to, the system to warrant an immediate block. Muffled Pocketed 12:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the editor is initially just copy-pasting warnings given to them. I will reinforce the need to explain themselves here. --NeilN talk to me 12:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep: the SPI result will frame Neil's thoughts above. In the meantime, see here for a so-called asdmission that he also controls the Nepali account. Which is either a bizarre confession, or an attempt at implicating an innocent editor with whom he has already edit-warred. Muffled Pocketed 13:18, 16 July 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.

Battleground editing and personal attacks by IP 62.168.13.98[edit]

IP blocked for one week by Bbb23 19:58, 18 July 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.

62.168.13.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in battleground mentality and edit warring on the Czechs article. Moreover, he has made repeated personal attacks [11] [12] (I don't read Czech, but translate says he's calling me an idiot), asked or demanded I give my real name [13] (again in Czech, so a little unclear on the context), repeatedly called me a liar [14] [15] and "holy warrior" (not sure how to take that last one). He's been repeatedly warned, but persists in his behavior. Obviously I can't take an action of my own, as I seem to be his favorite target. Seems likely he is somebody's bad hand sock.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

* To idiot: I asked Mojo hand, why delete the word Czechia? If it's only lack of information or intention? He didn't answer.
* To holy warior: Mojo Hand, Doremo, Yopie, Dan Polansky, Mewulwe, Khajidha, -jkb- and Cimmerian praetor systematically and more then 10 years translate Česko (=Czechia) wrong as "Czech Republic" (=Česká republika) or "Czech lands" (= České země) and they delete every mention about "Czechia". I think it is regular "Holy War against the word Czechia". So any lack of information, but phanatic intention.
* To lie: Mojo hand again delete Czechia and wrote, that this word didn't exist in 1939. But here are sources http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=czechia#panel=search&search=1 or here https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Czechia&year_start=1830&year_end=2010&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CCzechia%3B%2Cc0 So I think it's a standard lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yopie 2016:

Doremo 2016

Dan Polansky

...


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.

That Poppy: Info being deleted w/o explanation[edit]

User has been warned. Please report at WP:ANEW rather than ANI if they persist.
(non-admin closure)
Softlavender (talk) 21:28, 18 July 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.

A user by the name of GabrielMarx89 has been removing a large amount of information from the page That Poppy without much explanation, and when users have reverted his edits, explaining why he must explain the removal of content, he simply does it again. I have tried to start a discussion with him on the talk page of the article but he has not responded, and a myriad of editors who reverted his edits (Adog104, Sro23, C.Fred) have tried t discuss the matter with him on his talk page, but he has not responded to any of them. On top of this, the only edits he has made throughout the entirety of being on Wikipedia have been removals of content on the same exact page; that is, the That Poppy page. If someone could handle this situation accordingly, that would be much obliged. Benmite (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Gave them an edit warring warning. We'll see what they do. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 17 July 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.

Undisclosed paid editing[edit]

Not undisclosed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 19 July 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 was recently involved in an AfD discussion in which I'm Tony Ahn seemed extremely distraught with the fact he would have to refund his client for a failed discussion resulting in deletion. I subsequently went through some of his contributions and found this undisclosed paid edit promoting that same individual - there are plenty more dubious edits with no disclosures but this one's confirmed. I am of course assuming good faith, but given the recent history of paid editing gone awry on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if this user turns out to have a much more extensive history of such behaviour. Now, I couldn't find any disclosure as to who's paying for what: not on the articles' talk pages, edit summaries, or the user's own page. I'd be relieved to be pointed in the right direction, otherwise an extensive review of this user's practices seems to be in prompt order. Regards,