Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873

Resolved

This should go at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Eurodyne (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to successfully edit the picture identification (Nicholas Clérambault):00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)PLCraig3 (talk) He is composing at the harpsichord, not the piano.

This should go at the

WP:HD not here at ANI. Eurodyne (talk

) 00:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.

During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.[8][9]

I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here[10], however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not. Both involved editors informed.[11][12] Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@

harassment, and can get you blocked. Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Please take care. -- Orduin ^Discuss

22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to me, as the user has yet to supply us with his evidence, and seems to be putting this on hold. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks too - inviting me (twice) to stick my head up my arse. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that 'special' comment was added by an IP editor, but it could have been by the same person, but logged out. I removed the comment.

It does not seem to fit in with the later comment added by Richie bedfellows. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcluding the discussion on my page here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Wikipedia's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.

Hi Orduin. here is the evidence as leading to my suspicions as requested. The following conversation took place between myself and Grmytle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghmyrtle#Casual_.28subculture.29_.E2.80.8E

In between this conversation there were also intermittent contributions from Chaheel over on his talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chaheel_Riens

This conversation above also ran along side intermittent changes from Chaheel here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casual_%28subculture%29&action=history

This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before. I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They [RB's wording] made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes but neither arguments made sense. Both separate pages were posting at myself simultaneously with both pages paraphrasing each others sentiment, with both of you coming from the exact same miss-informed angle because neither of you could understand the full context of the whole piece. I explained to you about the two separate aspects, which had you understood, would have seen my edit did actually make sense, but you simply refused to acknowledge. You just simply said 'your wording now makes sense', then proceeded to argue CR'S contradictory point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem was simply that (1) you failed to see that the wording you used was illogical, and (2) two different editors saw the same thing at the same time, and responded to you the same way. You really should have dropped this argument a long time ago, to save yourself embarrassment and stop wasting others' time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "both of you" suggests that the editor now accepts that he has been dealing with two editors, not one editor and a sockpuppet. So can we expect a clear apology to both of the editors who have been falsely accused? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it. If someone is going backwards and forwards on talk page 'A', with 'A' generally failing to grasp the context and specifically passing comment about 'pissing off other editors', anyone would begin to have suspicions If suddenly, right on cue talk 'B' intervenes to seemingly 'shore up' the sentiment on what appears to be a new non archived userpage using the exact same one specific, out of context argument as user 'A'. Still, 'good will' obviously would always be shown but those suspicions would always re-surface when 'A' then clams up about 'pissing other editors off' when the irony of a fourth contributor turning up on the talkpage asking 'A' for an explanation fails to be acknowledged, but then resurfaces when B starts expressing the same sentiment about other editors over on his page. Still suspicions would be unsubstantiated, but when i then go across to respond on B's talkpage, only to find 'A' addressing that response back on his own talkpage just moments later, those suspicions would obviously become more and more prominent for anyone. Add to that 'A' seemingly allowing the accusations to then take their course while 'B' spends the next five days purposely disrupting and undermining the very process he claims takes such accusations so seriously...Then as i say, anyone would legitimately have those very same suspicions. Anyway, and again as previously stated. I'll simply wait for Orduin's decision and take it from there, for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's already been pointed out that "moments later" wasn't in fact moments later, but a good 20 minutes or so. And it's entirely reasonable for two editors - who were watching and actively involved in the page - to find the term "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well under way elsewhere at around the same time" to be a logical fallacy (how can a trend start in location "A", when it's already underway in location "B"?) and take you to task over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that such "suspicions" are wholly unreasonable. Many editors will raise similar objections over new additions. That doesn't make them sockpuppets. Editors are under no obligation to space their edits so many minutes or hours apart. Edit conflicts happen all the time. You should face up to the fact you were wrong and apologise unreservedly. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know either. I told that supporting his accusations is his own problem. He has to get, and provide the evidence. Just because Chaheel Riens put 'evidence' on my talk page does not mean it is supportive of the accusations. Richie has to support his case by himself. I can only guide him, not think for him. And trust me, I've shown him to several pages that should help him file an SPI. If there is going to be an SPI, it should have already happened. Either open one soon, or apologise now. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording doesn't make sense because there are two separate aspects to the whole article. The first aspect being Liverpool fans were the first to wear designer continental labels, the second aspect being the precursor to that 'look'. It is separately referenced within the article that Liverpool fans were involved in both aspects. Both the designer clothing aspect and the precursor. If someone writes 'it is acknowledged that Liverpool fans started the CONTINENTAL DESIGNER ASPECT but it was already well underway elsewhere',..Then that's misleading. It gives the casual reader the false impression they were involved in one but not the other. Adding 'as well as in Liverpool' redresses that misrepresentation. "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well underway elsewhere at around the same time" is just a better worded variation that was agreed with by 'G', wrongly reverted by 'CR' then strangely argued against by 'G' just '20 minutes' after his initial agreement. The original suspicions were legitimate as far as I'm concerned, Not just for editors raising similar objection, because sometimes that's to be expected. The overall suspicions being present were simply down to the overall, general pattern of events, sentiment and timings outlined above. That said, it has now become obvious to me that these two contributors are two separate people and not one and the same, as i alleged. For this i have absolutely no qualms in retracting the allegation and issuing an apology as appropriate. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, no-one was asking you to think for me, least of all myself. The reason it took so long was because CR found it appropriate to disrupt and undermine the whole process, and you seemingly found it appropriate to let him. For my part, i simply waited until he stopped thinking he was centre stage, performing to a live audience. Just to confirm they will be no SPI submission as an apology has already been issued. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I was centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What apology? Removing a few words from an old talk page post isn't an "apology". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should apologise to each of the editors personally. You don't seem to realise the distressing effect that such accusations have for some editors. But I'd not be surprised if you were sanctioned for wasting so much of people's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Could an Admin please look at this IP: 107.77.87.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With a history of only 6 edits, s/he has already vandalized an article twice (inserting Banana!!!?) and edit warred on another article to the point of exceeding

I haven't crossed the 3RR bright line yet, although I believe I am allowed to if only to remove the BLP-violating material. But there has to be a better solution to this situation. Advice, please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 259200 seconds. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Can someone do sth to make Hmei7 (talk · contribs) refraining from vandalizing WP pages?

To keep it brief:

• He vandalized even the RCU request about him [30] ;
• Removal of Copyedit template from an article written -by himself- in a challenged English ;
• Unjustified & WP:OR renaming ;
• WP:OR editing ;

Anyways, his contribs' history clearly shows that it is a case of Wikihounding. While awaiting for the RCU case to be accepted, please do sth to prevent this user's vandalism.

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop or continue (berberism, sionism and vandalism) ? Good. My contributions does not bother anyone, but you. You contribute anyhow, and you impose wherever you go. For starters, we're on the English Wikipedia and not French. While contributing in harmony with us, and do not bring your habits here lol. [31] is [32] in English. This is your contribution. I did that back! Stop hiding behind your fine words, we know you now. Out ! --Hmei7 (North Africa is Arab) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmei7 you appear to be following Omar-toons around and spamming the same message on any pafge he has edited and this is past the point of being disruptive. You do not not to comment the same block of text at SPI's here and half a dozen other pages. Make your comments about this here and please stop ebing disruptive elsewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs for above [33][34]

Accusations of Zionism. [35].

The rest of contributions seem to speak towards hounding. The last 50 edits by this user are all reverts of Omar-toons with quite unhelpful edit summaries. Amortias (T)(C) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The user Jeppiza doesn't let Israeli posters express and comment freely on the Talk page of Israel. He blames all Israelis to be the same person and bans them one by one, removing their comments and ideas. Please take care of him. That's simply bad. 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The above comment by one of DrFeldinger's many socks is related this issuer [50]. Since being blocked less than 48 hours ago, DrFeldinger has created at least 15 socks, the IP above being the latest. We really need a way to deal with this highly disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And apparently same accusation goes for NeilN who just reverted all my legit work and additions. What's their problem? Are all Israelis banned from Wikipedia for life? I don't know who is banned or not and I've seen a list of Finnish people so maybe he isn't Israeli and just made you ban Israelis on purpose? 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked, no matter how many accounts you use. That has nothing to do with Israelis (or Finns, or Koreans, or Brazilians or whatever).Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jtxxtj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been following this user's edits for a little while after I reverted an unsourced addition to an article I was watching back in November. I assumed that the user made a good-faith newbie mistake in not providing a source, and would either learn to add sources or stop editing, as most new users eventually do. However this user has developed a pattern of adding unsourced and frequently blatantly incorrect information to a random assortment of articles, sometimes inserting a reference which is not suitable (i.e. information does not appear in the reference [59] or reference doesn't exist [60]), always using the mobile editor and always incorrectly using one of the default edit summaries ("fixed grammar", "fixed typo", "adding links" are the favourites) which never actually describe the edit. The user's talk page is full of warnings about unsourced content and misleading edit summaries, and they were recently blocked (short-term, expired). I think this is a case of

I have no idea if they're a sock or not, but adding unsourced material with bogus edit summaries is disruptive on its own and they've continued after being blocked for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week but leaning on forever and ever if it's a sock. Looking into it. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)