Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780

The individual using the IPs 198.228.228.147 (Special:Contributions/198.228.228.147), 190.211.255.12 (Special:Contributions/190.211.255.12), 198.228.228.157 (Special:Contributions/198.228.228.157) and 190.211.255.20 (Special:Contributions/190.211.255.20) has used those IPs almost exclusively for disruptive POV edits, vandalism and threatening personal attacks. It's possible that the abuser may also be using other IP addresses.Spylab (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

After closing the above AFD as "delete", my talk page and the talk page of Explicit (talk · contribs) who had previously deleted it because of a prod have been spammed and vandalized repeatedly by multiple IPs (we are the only admins showing up in the deletion log for this title). The vandalism has all been reverted and the first IP was blocked, but successive IPs were merely given warnings by editors who I think weren't admins and probably also didn't realize that these were continuing harassment, and the vandalism in turn just spread to not only those editors' talk pages but also to other editor's pages and project pages (all since reverted). I've blocked the other two IPs and I'm thinking about semi-protecting my talk page for awhile. Below are the three IPs so far; the post-AFD vandalism is the only contribution history for all of them. Perhaps a range block can prevent future whack-a-mole? Beyond my technical know-how. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• 118.103.228.136 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.231.226 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.230.12 (talk · contribs)

Note also another IP in the same range 118.103.224.4 (talk · contribs) had only made edits related to the AFD, none yet postdating its close. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New IP, different range, only contributions are attempts at vulgar insults about this deletion on five different user talk pages and several project pages: 111.119.164.72 (talk · contribs). All reverted and blocked now, but this is getting tiresome. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Range-blocked 118.103.224.0/20 for 36 hours; that should at least get those in the 118.* block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Explicit and I got hit again by a new IP: 115.42.70.200 (talk · contribs). Blocked and I've semi-protected my talk page. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Recently, the mentioned user have being aggressive toward me:

• First, he mockingly questioned my ability to understand English
• justified that stating It's apparent English is not your first
• called me stubborn and refuses to discuss

Also, notice how he uses bold and capitals letters to justify his moves and refusal to discuss. --

P.S. consider

One more thing. The user seems to get nervous for writing on his talk page and calls it "vandalism" ([1], [2]. Even when I notified him of this discussion, which is a rule clearly stated in a red box at the top of this page. An admin should also consider teaching him the basic rules of Wiki.--

• User vandalizes page by reverting my constructive edits.
• Continues to remain stubborn and not comprehend that justices, military, and law enforcement are not politicians.
• Reverts pages within one minute if he doesn't hear from me.
• I have provided points in Talk Page on article
  List of Armenian American politicians
  about steps to follow when posting entries on list since August 2012. He refuses to even read or comply with these simple requests. Please see talk page discussion to see my posts.
• Has vandalized my Talk Page after I have warned him not to write on it.

Please provide guidance on how to deal with an unstable, uncooperative rogue editor who doesn't comprehend the U.S. political system, Wikipedia article formatting, or English grammar.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From

WP:VANDALISM

:

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (emphasis added)

Inserting "Penis" or "I love Mary" into an article is vandalism. Disagreeing with you isn't, necessarily.

Have you tried discussing your disagreements with Yerevanci?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to hear a statement about his aggressive behavior.--

_{ասելիք կա՞}

06:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content dispute, which is outside my sphere of knowledge although Gtwfan52 has made a point on the talk page. Please avoid calling edits "vandalism" if they are not blatant vandalism. Yerevanci's notification post on your talk page is required per the instructions when posting an ANI about another user. These are not vandalism and calling them such is a personal attack and continued use of this term is blockable. You can ask Yerevanci not to post on your talk page in future and by common courtesy Yerevanci should cease doing so. And Yerevanci, for your information, when XLR8TION removed the notices from their talk page it is considered that they have read acknowledged the notice so further posting isn't necessary.

There has been general combatativeness from both of you and really it's time to calm the hell down. XLR8TION please refrain from using caps, particularly bold caps, as it usually means you're shouting at the other party. If you're intending to emphasise a point without shouting, italics or bold italics would be preferable and is less inflammatory. Also, in [3] edit your comment overwrote Gtwfan52's hence their comment that you reverted their talk page comment. Yerevanci has posted a compromise on the talk page so here are a couple of

trouts for making such a mountain out of a mole hill and back to the talk page you go. Blackmane (talk

) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been general combatativeness from both of you isn't quite accurate if you think about it. What languages I speak and what languages I don't speak isn't a discussion topic, at least, it wasn't last time I checked

_{ասելիք կա՞}

06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly a content dispute, and I have suggested to them that they go to

talk

) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I was off on Saturday due to employment. I have reverted the edits and have renamed the page. User Yeravanci has reverted all my constructive edits even though this is an active dispute. I have posted discussion on the article's talk page and that should be discussed. If I don't reply in a few hours or a day, it should not interpret that the dispute has been closed.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• See also below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Do you understand the word "stop"? I have told you only to discuss topic on article talk page. That is why each article has one? Why did you vandalize my page when I have told you numerous times to stop?--XLR8TION (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have constantly informed user
  ^talk not to discuss topic discussion on my page. He disrespects me and continues to vandalize my page. I have numerous historical links I can show that I have asked him to ONLY discuss on article talk page. I only use my Talk page to discuss bot-related changes and personal messages that I relay to other users first, and nothing else. Please stop dsisrepcting my talk page. I have told you numerous times stop vandalizing my page.--XLR8TION (talk
  ) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear XLR8TION, it had been stated several times (including by

^talk

17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have told you numerous times whether good or bad faith edits, DO NOT write on my Talk page? Why did you disrespect my talk page?
  • • Dec 27[4]
    • Dec 27 (second Time)[5]
    • Dec 29 - [6]

Why didn't you comply with these requests?--XLR8TION (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• A user's talk page should be respected. If I tell you to stop, it means stop. What if you warn a vandal to stop vandalizing your page? Do they have the right to edit your page after you tell them to stop? The answer is no. Your edits are considered vandalism. I have provided you numerous warnings to stop.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth time - DO NOT WRITE ON MY TALK PAGE! Only write on article talk page. It's my talk page. STOP!--XLR8TION (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, per

WP:NOBAN, you may request that users not edit pages in your userspace, however the policy also states that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to" thus preventing you from outright banning people from contacting you and making their edits not vandalism. Best, Mifter (talk

) 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• See also above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Yerevanci: If XLR8TION has asked you to not post on his page, you should not do so unless required to do so. After the required post, stop. If XLR8TION deletes the notice, it's taken as an indication that he has read it - except for active block notices, there's no requirement that he leave the notice on the page. Do not try to repost it or comment on his removal, it's none of your business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified him that I will report him for edit warring. It is a mandatory step I have to make according to the 3RR guidelines. Also, when did I repost anything? --

^talk

18:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But then you yourself edit-warred to keep that notice on the page. Don't do that. Users are granted a certain amount of control over their talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, this (by another editor) seems to me like an abuse of that privilege. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

you don't seem to have a point. --

^talk

19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at his talk page history where do you see edit warring by me? I simply notified him of the cases he's involved in and he simply removed them.--

^talk

18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I have struck that comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that an administrator merge this section below the line into the section above titled "User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci", as the discussion below the line is much more related to that.

talk

) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be thankful. --

^talk

18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! This is my first time doing this, so I hope I'm doing this properly!<3 ^_^ I'm a very casual wikipedia(er?) who occasionally edits various election pages with new polling data. Recently User:Nick.mon has taken over the "Italian general election, 2013" page and has deleted a large amount of polling data (which was sourced and linked and everything) and reformatted the entire article. He left no explanation, and did not discuss his edit with anyone on "Talk" before hand. I attempted to reach out to him several times, but he reverts anyone who attempts to change the article, refuses to offer an explanation, and won't talk about his edits on the "Talk" page.

I realized I don't actually know what wikipedia's policy was, and did some research and his behavior seems to violate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

I got the link to this page from the article on dealing with disruptive editors. I hope this is the right place to report this, and if not, could someone please explain to me what I should do? Thanks for your time. ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4idaho (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that all the links in that page must be reduced because in view of the following election all that data are useless, it only takes an half. I apologize with everyone who have tried to formatted the page, but I'm not very expert of Wikipedia and its Talk Page. Excuse me and thank you for your suggestions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.mon (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.244.160.5
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.245.105.62

--

They stopped editing a while ago, so there's not much point in blocking them now. For a faster response next time, you might want to report them to

WP:AIV. ​—DoRD (talk

)​ 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the same user falsifying review scores on video games. I've left them warnings and notice of this discussion, but DoRD is right, if they make more such edits, AIV is the place to go. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm quite confused. Not a single edit you reverted here was substantive. That is, Novaseminary made some cosmetic changes to the article, fixing some grammar and the format of some references, but made no substantive changes to the article's content, and it appears you just reverted them wholesale with no actual reason. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Confused? Yeah me too. Sorry I thought he was continuing to be an ass but not yet at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Look further back in the edit history and see Talk:Elizabeth Maconchy#Novaseminary unnecessary removal of material, Jayron32. We're clearly looking at things like this edit, where Novaseminary removes Maconchy's daughters from the article, and this edit where Novaseminary removes all mention of the daughters, studying under Wood and Vaughan Williams, OBE and DBE, Bartók, marriage, tuberculosis, string quartet, and choral and vocal works.

    Not only is it the case that the LeFanu information is supported by the source that was cross-linked to the prose, which I've just read page 348 of and seen in the supporting source, but additional sources confirming this and all of the other information can be found in about 10 seconds with almost no effort at all. I found several without breathing hard. Maconchy has full length biographies in several encyclopaedias and dictionaries of biography, as indeed does LeFanu. Their mother-daughter relationship is amply verifiable. Maconchy's first daughter is in her encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of World Biography, which also has an entire section headed "Suffered from Tuberculosis", confirming the information about contracting tuberculosis that Novaseminary removed for being supposedly completely unverifiable. The marriage, husband, compositions, OBE, DBE, choral work, and other information is verifiable from places ranging from a composer profile at the BBC by Andrew Burn to the several page biography in Pendle's Women & Music.

    Yet these 10 seconds are effort that Novaseminary has not expended in eight months, preferring instead to grossly misapply the verifiability policy and remove encyclopaedic content (which is in encyclopaedias) that xe clearly hasn't bothered to check. It is understandable that 86.129.242.193 is peeved at eight months of such destructive and lazy "work" by Novaseminary. It is understandable that not reading what is right in front of xem leads one person to consider Novaseminary's "work" incompetent. This is not how one writes and behaves when there are biographies of and encyclopaedia articles on the subject coming out the ears that one can collaboratively check and cite in order to improve the article, and where the information repeatedly excised for supposedly being unverifiable was right there in the cited sources cross-linked to the prose.

    The venue for this, however, is, as was pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior by Blackmane, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This isn't an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is a months-long pattern of destruction of patently encyclopaedic content, unhelpfulness, lack of collaboration, and blatant mirepresentation and misapplication of content policy that obviously requires stronger negative feedback from the editor/writer community at large to the person exhibiting it. Content writers know that this is not how one writes collaboratively.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe North8000 will need to be taken up on their offer to spend the time to gather the evidence for a RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember an offer like that but I'm the Wikipedian most familiar with the editor. The 30,000 foot view is that some guidance for them in problematic areas is in order, (although they might have already have improved.) And that this will not be apparent to someone at first glance /not fully familiar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me, I misread "it would take 20hours" for "would take the 20 hours" ie that you would undertake the gathering of material. This was in the previous ANI on Novaseminary that Uncle G linked to above. Blackmane (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can say that as of a year and 2 years ago ago there were exhibiting very destructive obsessive battling behavior, and in a way that was clever enough that the casually involved would not be able to "see" it. I imagined a prize in my mind for the person who gotten the most editors to leave Wikipedia. I have not watched closely over the last year (though I did see a second ANI by someone else). My general impression / guess is their actions have improved or dialed back at least some since then. With respect to myself, they have 99% disengaged.....the remaining 1% has exhibited the same tendencies but has not done any harm. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of this until alerted by North8000. The IP never got why I was doing what I was doing and, despite me trying to engage him/her constructively, made rather unbecoming notes on my talk page (

RSs. I had removed it along with some POV language that the IP inexplicably (other than calling it vandalism) reinserted. Regardless, the article now has many good sources that can serve as the basis to grow it with proper citations. It looks like the IP made this posting in error (mistaking my referece cleanup for vandalism... further displaying he/she is less famiiar with how things work than one would expect before casting sones) and has moved on. (I am not sure why Uncle G has a bee in his bonnet.) I see nothing more here. Novaseminary (talk

) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

NovaSkola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Non-consensual article edits ([7], [8]). Insists that the Facebook and unknown dubious Lithuanian web-site - reliable sources ([9]). On the talk page does not respond. Congratulate him on the New Year, grant him furlough. Divot (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not Russian Wikipedia, and we have a different mechanism for conflict resolution. You should really talk to the user on their user page, otherwise no action will be taken, since they are unlikely to be aware of the problem. The user also should have been notified of this thread, but this I will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Divot, never been even talked to me, as far I know, he was previously banned for his biased reverts, and ignores other users' views by acting that he is always right, then makes instant attack like this without warning this users. I demand from moders to take action for such fake allegations against him. Furthermore please check out his sarcasm "Congratulate him on the New Year, grant him furlough. " this is personal attack on me --NovaSkola (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling that a personal attack just undermined the credibility of the rest of your reply. So was "demanding". Well done. (

BWilkins←✎

) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also issued and logged an AA2 warning with NovaSkola. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This user has just come off an unblock for editwarring. He has resumed his disruptive editing, twice moving List of Syrian Civil War slogans to the title List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans in violation of NPOV. We also have this defaming/bigoted/vilifying/propagandising slogans whose tolerated presence make a joke of WP:NPOV) And accusing editors of dishonesty[10] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And he has just moved it again for the third time.[11] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor blocked for a fortnight. I admit the temptation to just indef for tendentious editing was rather strong... I may still succumb to it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Steady. "Proaganda" is not a bad word - though it can be argued that this editor thinks it is. On the headings, I wonder how we would feel about labelling days "Friday of Crushing Rebels" for example? The editor simply needs to be made to respect BRD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Moved from

• But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”
• I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg )

I'm neither a Turkish nor a fascist. Moreover I don't hate Kurds. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be

Je vous invite à me parler

) 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a hand-typed only warning for NPA. Also reiterated that they review copyright/IUP. I cannot see them as 3 separate personal attacks, it's exact same one 3 times - normally, I would indeed block due to the nationalist/racist connotations. Maybe I'm giddy over the upcoming calendar change, but I'm hoping that a stern warning will be sufficient to stop future similar behaviour (

BWilkins←✎

) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried to give context to the copyright issue; BWilkins, Sagapane is having the (perfectly legitimate) problem of not understanding our licensing in the sense of "Wikipedia is non-commercial, the map says it can be used non-commercially, so we can use the map". You know why this is an issue, I know why this is an issue, but it isn't as apparent to a newcomer. I've tried to explain why our licensing doesn't allow for this content: in future I would request people give more nuanced copyright explanations rather than pointing people to a 27,000-character policy that may not actually address the point of confusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also offered what little advice I can on my talk page, having becoming involved from commenting on Doug Weller’s. I ignored the attack and unfair accusation of vandalism there because I was uncertain about the etiquette of confronting someone ‘out of the blue’ on an admin’s talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sagapane has also been leaving messages on my talk, complaining about fascist Turkish users. If he continues on his current course he is probably headed into Arbitration enforcement anyway, due the fierceness of his national views. It might be a useful step for an admin to get him to agree to stop with the 'turkish fascist' language as an alternative to an immediate block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The "fascist" comment on your talk page was before Bwilkins' warning (a fact I failed to notice before I blocked - and subsequently unblocked), so no further action or further warnings are needed unless it is repeated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)