Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive975

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

I think this person means well, but they really don’t seem to be getting what Wikipedia is and how it works. Their writing style is very strange, for example: Among picnics, moon hikes, and more gatherings, the staff has been prudential in safely keeping the earthen world's festschrift in its news publishing. Kathleen Doane wrote "Good Times," an article in the NewsLeaf, a charming piece journaling the nonprofit hub's years of Milfordic turns, environmental twists, and bedazzling to be the well-kept haven. And at Talk:Cincinnati#Food section, where I criticized some other weird writing that is not from this user, they first said Only a fat slob would edit that out. I pointed out that that was unhelpful, and they have now accused me of being a “neurotic freak” along with some other bizzare nonsense [1].

Since I am editorially involved here I cannot get involved as an administrator, and for whatever reason nobody else seems to be watching these pages even though one is about a major city. Asking for an uninvolved admin to step in and take whatever action they deem necessary.

Rhapsowflake has finally used an article talk page, and what they wrote is not promising:

• Writing? What should be read if your sloppy takeoffs are from Ohio., and
• There is no sense to believe it doesn't read well compared with other takeoffs. In like, mild, weather where water we knew freezes, life dealt with less neurosis than other species in warmer weather. You've never been accountable for wrong, or deserve to live somewhere faraway from Cincinnati where people think United States have no fare; neurotic freak, you!

I don't know if this is someone who cannot or will write standard English but none of this is standard English. Between that and their combative and attacking attitude, it is not clear where this can possibly go that ends with the person remaining a member of this community.

User:Rhapsowflake two questions --

1. are you capable of writing standard English and if so would you please reply here and demonstrate that?
2. are you aware that it is unacceptable to attack another editor when dealing with a content dispute? (Please see
   WP:NPA
   )?

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that they tend to make only one or two edits each session, and are not on every day, so it may take some time to get anywhere, and may need to continue on their talk page if it sits here too long without a reply from them.
  talk
  ) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this is some of the most bizarre writing I've ever seen; it's like we're talking with a machine translation. (Beeblebrox, given your comment at WP:ITN/C about the earthquake, you do live somewhere faraway from Cincinnati :-) I've removed one bizarre bit, adding {{details|Stewardship}} to the wooded-areas section of Cincinnati Nature Center (the Stewardship article doesn't provide extra details on the CNC's woodlands), and now chiming in at Talk:Cincinnati. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I grew up and spent the first part of my adult life in the Cinncinatti area, but I’ve been in Alaska for nearly 20 years now. I was pleasantly surprised to discover there was an article on the CNC, we were long time members and my dad used to take us there a lot, but then I found all this weird prose and started trimming it, and here we are... All Rhap seems to have added to the food section at the main Cincinnati article is the words “kale salad” so I’m not clear on why they are so defensive about it.

talk

) 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a good chance that

talk

) 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I initially wondered why you'd say that, but seeing that 513CG added stuff like The emigres, while having been widely discussed, never overtook settlers in population. Cincinnati has a great preservative quality which, despite fierce sugarcoating of late, piques interest throughout United States as a great city of the North, South, East, and West, I'm tending to agree. Note that this edit reverted a bunch of changes in the previous edit, which carried an accurate edit summary of "Rewrote several very awkward phrases. Many words in those phrases were not used in proper context." Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Another gem from the second editor is United States meals feature vegetal staples, like sweet potatoes, also called yams, collard greens, stewed tomatoes, okra, corn bread, mashed potatoes, cole slaw, bean salads, and broths, among more tastes. I am of the opinion that both accounts should be blocked under the theory that

competence is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we should block under WP:JUSTMESSINGWITHUS instead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s kind of the feeling I’m getting, like they think this is all very clever and the rest of us just don’t get how very clever they are. I’m glad others are now looking into this, I didn’t want to feel like I was stalking this user, but most of their contribs need to be either undone or edited to make basic sense in English.

talk

) 01:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How many admins does it take to block a troll? Blocked as

WP:NOTHERE (just the latest one).--Bbb23 (talk

) 01:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

"Trxch" is an account created on 20 January 2018. So far, literally every single one of his edits have been of a disruptive kind. Examples;

• Edit warring on the Azerbaijan page, mass removing sourced content; (rv #1, rv #2, rv #3, rv #4, rv #5)
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Tabriz page ([2])
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Template:Azerbaijan topics page;[3]
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Urmia page;[4]
• Edit warring on the Borchali page. Also removed a source and added unsourced content;[5]
• Ignoring numerous warnings;[6]
• Removes "Template:Iranian architecture and "Template:Largest cities of Iran" from the Ardabil article, an Iranian city (!), and adds the "Template:Azerbaijani population" instead; (Rv #1,Rv #2)
• Adding unsourced content on the Marneuli page; [7]
• Never providing sources to back up his claims
• Added spellings in an alphabet not used in Iran, to articles about numerous Iranian cities, towns, and districts, in order to spread a pro-Azerbaijan Republic POV.[8]-[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]-[13]
• Never using edit summaries

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user "Trxch" is on a mission. And that mission is

Hello everyone. First of all - I am not on a "mission". Second, I have already made my points clear to LouisAragon, but unless he/she ignored/did not pay attention to them, I will repeat them here:

I have already cleared up the disagreements faced with user

If in doubt, feel free to at least take a good look at the edits made and see for yourself. Nothing slanderous or otherwise malicious intended.

P.S. I consider your arguments as to the removal of Azerbaijani Latin texts from certain Iranian Azerbaijan-related articles unfounded; there are numerous articles about cities, regions, etc. inhabited by different ethnic groups in other countries where (despite the differences in alphabets) one can find the names of any toponyms given in various languages *and* alphabets. For example, there are articles about cities and other inhabited areas in Iraq which contain their Turkish and Kurdish names, written in the *Latin alphabet* (eventhough Arabic language and the Arabic script are the officially used ones). In other words, there is and should be nothing wrong when considering this.

Thank you. - User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

You can tell 1+1=3 all you want. Fact remains, you're incorrect and being highly disruptive on every ground. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Persistent as this disruptive user is in adding unsourced POV content by all means, he just rv'd once more on the Marneuli page; [14] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion and point of view, and again - nothing "disruptive on every ground" is going on. If you think that no one should edit something and it must be kept the way it was (e.g) two years ago, when it was last edited by someone whose work you did not tamper with - that's not my problem. Besides, it's best to cut on the hostile tone and rhetoric here.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

There is no "POV content", just because you lack the information on the topic of the given article doesn't mean I'm just posting "my" point of view. (*smh*)

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

In fact, some of the Latin entries you "fixed" were not even written in Azerbaijani (Latin) alphabet, but rather in Romanized Persian, and some in Romanized Azerbaijani (which, clearly, some Iranian Azerbaijani users tried their best to romanize using the English alphabet, on their own; as - despite Azerbaijani having a standardized romanization in the form of its Latin alphabet - many Iranian Azerbaijanis mainly use the Perso-Arabic script and not all of them have a profound knowledge of the Azerbaijani Latin alphabet, as there is no official education/teaching of the language (or its alphabet - Azerbaijani does not have a standardized alphabet for the Arabic script) itself.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

resolve the dispute properly. I agree that you're very well within the threshold where an edit warring block would be justified - I'd really like not to do that :-). Can you work with LouisAragon peacefully and let him try and help you? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

14:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'm not entirely sure in what I could "help" him here. Its evident that user "Trxch" is on a mission. He tried to remove reliably sourced content from the Azerbaijan page on no less than 5 occassions. He removed Iran-related templates from Iranian cities, and added Azerbaijani-population templates instead. He's edit warring on tons of pages in order to keep unsourced/ungrounded additions inside the article. He hasn't provided a single source to back up his claims so far. For example, on the Borchali page he's literally edit-warring over unsourced content. That's ridiculous. Please take a look at the other thousands of "new" accounts with similar agenda's/editorial patterns on Wiki, and tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I get that it may seem like that at a first glance, yes; however, it should be clear that none of this misunderstanding would have occured had

User:CASSIOPEIA

, but thankfully we quickly resolved our issues. None of my edits carry any malicious intents behind them; in fact, the articles are actually mostly intact and not much has been changed in them, save for added links in some words, correction of spelling errors, addition of spelling in other languages, and removal of biased/misplaced content that was clearly posted there with a particular purpose, it seems. I hope this clears it up. Feel free to take a closer look yourself!

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

LouisAragon, chill out dude, what're you on about? -_- What "reliably sourced" content is it that was removed from the Azerbaijan article? Claiming that Azerbaijan's name wasn't Azerbaijan? That is ridiculous, not what you think of it to be. As to Iran-related articles, the template removed was "Iranian architecture"; for being in non-architecture-related articles. Otherwise one wouldn't mind it. The "Azerbaijani population" template was added since the articles were about cities located in Iranian Azerbaijan - it's a sensible choice if you think about it, no need for its removal. Take it easy and don't go ballistic on it all(, seriously though -_-).

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

P.S. LouisAragon - And there is and cannot be any "pro-Azerbaijan Republic POV" via the addition of the Azerbaijani-language names of the toponyms. You base your claims based on your slightly distorted vision of what's at hand (no offense intented, I mean it), and that is unfortunate.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

The sources are written by academics. Neither mine nor your opinion means anything. We go by what the

WP:NOTHERE in every single aspect of the definition. - LouisAragon (talk

) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked for 24 hours for the ongoing edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Unfortunately, I think it was the right call. I wanted to try and help the user to avoid that, but it doesn't sound like it was going to happen. Thanks for responding to this while I was away. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks. This also to say that I do not have the time to look into the substance of their edits, so I won't comment on NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just counted; "Trxch" made a staggering 24 reverts in total, before he received the 24hr block by Drmies (a few minutes ago).

Even now after receiving the short block, "Trxch" still displays 0.0% intention to build this encyclopedia. "Trxch" also continues to display a complete lack of understanding about the disruptive nature of his edits. I quote, his response, on his own talk page;

• "My edits did not contain any sentences, or paragraphs, no entries regarding my personal opinions and views on a particular subject (...) Just because they are not well aware of (and maybe even oblivious to) the topics that are covered in the edited articles is not my problem; my problem is people like them interfering with my work on a website (...) So you can probably tell where the problem lies here; it's one-sided."

Based on my experience, I can guarantee that this

charade

will just continue after the block expires. IF admins don't review the posted evidence/concerns, that is. People shouldn't forget that this topic area is highly contentious due to 18th/19th/20th century events, so it attracts "people" like "Trxch" relatively often.

I just can't help but to repeat that I don't see any intention from "Trxch" to edit constructively. Not during his "24 revert-spree", nor after he received the 24 hr block. He's just completely and deliberately oblivious of the purpose of this project. Removing sources, adding unrelated content, adding unsourced content, ignoring warnings, etc. He basically literally admitted (see quote above) that he's just here to make others

kow-tow

to his self-interpreted unsourced/ungrounded tales. Go figure, ladies and gentlemen.

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 - He clearly has a BATTLEGROUND mentality and I have a feeling he'll revert the second that block expires, Just gonna throw this out there but preferably I'd prefer throwing him some rope and someone with more authority than me go over to his TP and make it plain as day his next revert will result in an indef block, We can only give him some rope and he can either take that rope or he can strangle himself with it .... It's up to him what move he chooses. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I say we leave the block as is and

give em a chance to prove us wrong. If the disruption continues at all after the block expires, an indef is what comes next and it's not difficult to apply. The ball is in his/her court - either the user learns from this and lets us try and help and educate them, or the status quo continues and the block is re-applied indefinitely. Their choice :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

22:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If the biography is authorized then it's not independent of the subject, so could potentially present an incorrect birthdate that the biography subject wants people to believe (people sometimes like to misrepresent their age). I don't see the issue discussed on the talk page, so it should be brought up there. IMDb is somewhat reliable (if it were total nonsense we wouldn't like to it from 1000s of movie articles) so if the birthdate discrepancy is significant then I'd want the article to show both versions, with citations. The current stated birthdate has no citation at all so it would be helpful to add one. Also, per

WP:DOB I think we're better off leaving out the day and month of the birthdate unless it's relevant to some issue in the article. I'd only worry about the IMDb discrepancy if the years are different. 173.228.123.121 (talk

) 20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking IMDb - which is a wiki, mind you - as a "further reading" is one thing. Citing it as an actual source is quite another. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing IMDb covers that in more detail. For an issue like this IMDB isn't a source we should be using for sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@173.228.123.121: Yes, the years are different. The DoB actually is directly cited in the infobox. The year is also confirmed by another citation to findmypast (one might argue that isn't a valid reference, but that's probably another argument). A previous discussion on the talk page has a post from another editor saying that they checked with the author, who confirmed that the date had come from the births and deaths register, rather than Morris himself. Nzd (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• See
  WP:Citing IMDB - IMDb cannot be used as source at all, If his DOB is incorrect then I'm sure there are means and ways of him telling us. –Davey2010^Talk
  21:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We could just remove the birthdate entirely for now until we find a

reliable source that's agreed upon that can be used to cite it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had no particular involvement in this article (other than recent reversions), but it seems to me that the current date of birth is reliably sourced, and that appears to be the consensus of editors of the article. A single user, with no previous editing history, has persistently tried to change it, citing IMDb and "Google". Having been told that these are not reliable sources and being warned not to do this unless they can provide an actual source, they have now made the same edit while logged out. It was this behaviour I was hoping to address. Nzd (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is a odd one, and just shows what a problem things like IMDB are. The 5/9/65 birthdate seems to have spread to a number of places on the web - probably from there. However, the book makes it quite clear that it's wrong. It contains, for example, interviews with people that went to university with him from 1980 to 1983 - a date that clearly backs up a 1962 birthdate and not a 1965 one - including obvious statements like "I have a photo of us (students) taken in 1980...". Ditto interviews with people that played in a band with him in 1984 after he left university, and worked at Radio Cambridgeshire, or the fact that his mother returned to work in 1974 as "he was approaching his teens". Pretty much every single date in the book up until the 1990s would have to be wrong. They're clearly not. Incidentally, the book is independent of the subject; Morris did not contribute to it, only gave permission for interviews with others about himself to be used. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• In an attempt to close this off, can I propose that an administrator drop a note onto the talk page of the editor to reiterate the points re:
  WP:CITEIMDB? I think the note placed on the IP's talk page is enough at this point with regard to socking. I'm not looking for a block or anything, but it would be useful for the editor to know that one would be a realistic outcome if such an editing pattern were to continue. Nzd (talk)
  21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the user chose to ignore their level 4 warning and change information on another article without a source, so I've blocked them for 48 hours. Not understanding that IMDb is a reliable source is forgivable, but continuing to add unsourced content after all of those warnings regarding this is exact thing is not. Anyone is free to try to assist this user, but this is pretty straightforward disruption. Swarm ♠ 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For over a month we have been trying to fix

Immigrants have been overrepresented in crime in over 25 different studies since 1974[1], with the latest being the 2005 from Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.^[2] In 2017 demands of an updated report was denied by Minister of Justice Morgan Johansson.^[3]

In the 1996 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention immigrants where showed that children of immigrants where 40 % more likely to commit crime regardless of socioeconomic status in Sweden.^[4][5]

He know perfectly well that this is new relevant information for the article that balance the current NPOV issues. He has never made any attempts to fix the various repetitions in the section and even blocked attempts to remove them[16]. The section clearly needs improvement of flow and include missing perspectives. He also lied in his first comment here on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Can you block him from editing anything related to Sweden so that we can improve the articles? He has been breaking Wikipedia:Don't lie so many times that you should even consider removing the policy if he don't gets banned this time. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it in the archive? But the last API session also received a lot of comments between different administrators saying "it would be good if someone [admin] reviewed the edits, but I don't feel like doing it myself". Maybe we could avoid this here on the third attempt.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be the last ANI incident on this topic. Is that what you are referring to? Paul August ☎ 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I did try to search the archive, but good thing you found it. As you see he lies about the edits I made there as well. Claiming they were about Sanandaji to distract the administrators from accusation. He also tried to associate me with an edit that used Sweden Democrats as a source, which is obvious less than ideal since they are a poltical party with an agenda of their own. Notice how they refuse to discuss Sno and instead ask each other if they can review my edits. There is also the NPOV Noticeboard discussion that I started after last ANI section, but it hasn't been gaining any attention. What to do now?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor --
  WP:NPOV and other policies to see if a sanction of some sort is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk
  ) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that is rather overdue. This year is a general election in Sweden, and so there is of course a risk that WP is used as a platform for alternative interpretation of fact, such as in the edit quoted above. (But Swedish politics is one area I try to stay away from on Wikipedia, so I am not going to wade through that quagmire myself. I am too fond of my shreds of sanity.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! You will not find any flaw. But that is another discussion. Start your own ANI. I started all three reports you mentioned (and they were only about Sno), but no one is willing to discuss the abuse of Sno.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to start another thread. Like all editors who bring complaints to ANI, you are subject to scrutiny for your own behavior. First, don't call other editors liars. Second, don't accuse other editors of bias. Third, the main reason you're here is because you were blocked for a year at se.wiki last month (with multiple blocks preceding the latest block), and it appears that your behavior there is similar to what it is here. You're walking on very thin ice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@

Snooganssnoogans of this thread. You'd think after so many ANIs, you'd know that such notification is required. You and Snooganssnoogans have already breached 3RR at Immigration to Sweden, and I'll block either of you if you revert again.--Bbb23 (talk

) 19:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

First and second, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith suggests that you should in fact notify administrators of lies and bias. Third, it is no secret that I don't get along with the administrators at se.wiki or anyone else who is against NPOV (it is stead on my profile page here). If I wanted to hide this I could have used a different account and IP, but I am not hiding this. You can review that story as welland see that I am without fault there as well.

Answer me this. Do you agree the article should follow NPOV? If yes, how can perspectives other than Sarnecki's be included if Sno can lock the page whenever he want it?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: That is the most wrongheaded interpretation of AGF I've seen. The proper application of AGF in this instance is to assume that Snooganssnoogans is not lying and is not biased, but rather that they simply disagree with you. And this is the last time I'll say this: stop calling editors liars.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That would in turn be the most simplistic, unproductive and outright harmful interpretation of AGF I have seen. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Dealing_with_bad_faith "Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence." I have shown you the evidence and I am now wait for administrators to be "be glad to help"--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I also would call on administrators to help, and in my opinion, the best thing they can do in this situation to help Wikipedia is to block Immunmotbluescreen indefinitely for his or her inability to follow a simple direction and not call other editors "liars". I think we can join those at Swedish Wikipedia and say that we really don't need this editor here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the other comment, this is an issue that Immunmotbluescreen is creating by their editing. They were also warned about
  WP:BOOMERANG as well last time they created a ANI on this topic. ContentEditman (talk
  ) 21:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Over the past weeks I've been observing this editor from a distance, and am convinced it is now time for an admin to do the needful. @Bbb23:, @Paul August:, anybody else? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Somebody else indefinitely blocked with instructions on how to get unblocked. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thefinalchapter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

I'm not sure how to explain this other than this user seems unable to grasp the concepts of RS and V. Edits have now crossed into pure disruption (e.g., [18], [19]). This user's edits have resulted in 2 AN3 reports, the first resulting in semi-protection and the second in EC protection (see [20] where EdJohnston commented that a block was warranted but EC seemed more prudent). The the season page under EC, the user went to the series' parent page to continue their crusade.

"are you actually being serious about this, i provided sources, you asked for sources where the CREATORS OF THE SHOW have said what i am saying to be true, IMDB should be a reliable source because a lot of people look there to find out information about movies and tv shows so you have to be wrong about that."

I know that but it says that you answered with a no can you please just accept my editing request please i am such a big fan of this show and i don't want it to end with injustice please please just accept my editing request and it also says that you reported me and that you were the one that did this to me which makes me upset because i bet you probably didn't even watch the show and I'm just saying what the creators of the show said so please just make the page unprotected and also when the page was protected the last edit was my edit so how did u get around it to change my edit AGAIN when it was PROTECTED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. Dude please just let me change it back please dude please. @EvergreenFi I am literally begging you at this point please just let me edit the season 5 plot to how it is supposed to be please I'm just asking you nicely.

Also if you would've just stopped deleting my edits in the first place there would've never been an edit war so technically this is your fault because i was editing it to what is right and you being you didn't like me doing what is right so this is your fault this would've never ever happened if you would've just left it alone

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to wait and give Thefinalchapter a chance to make a response here. I agree that the edits and diffs provided show problematic behaviors and I believe that this behavior, combined with the edits made to the articles, are becoming disruptive to the point where a clear set of expectations and a plan of action moving forward needs to be defined and laid out for Thefinalchapter, and that continuing the problematic behaviors discussed will result in being blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a classic CIR issue, but I agree with Oshwah that it would be good to hear from them and see if a path forward can be drafted out. Otherwise, a block is inevitable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay ill talk with you guys I don't want to cause any harm here to anything and I'm sorry if i did i just want to be able to edit it that is all i ask. I really do apologize for editing on evergreenfir page i just needed to talk to that person because thy didn't respond to my questions that i asked. I asked frequent questions multiple times and no one gave me an answer so then i went to the front page for tmnt so i can seek attention so I'm glad i got some attention lets just talk i won't cause any harm here i just want to talk.

Okay well i am new here thats why I probably have violated some rules without knowing and i apologize for that i just wanted to make a username to edit the tmnt season 5 page but i guess that isn't okay

Im here and ready to talk now I'm just waiting because i don't know how this works i am new here

I have blocked Thefinalchapter for a month, and have left them a talk page message with some useful advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Which the editor refuses to take. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like either gross incompetence or trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if another administrator could address their incoherent unblock request, and perhaps consider revoking talk page access. It seems that there is no realistic prospect that this editor might become productive any time soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The editor is a child. We should be redacting their instagram links. Clearly this is a case where the user doesn't have enough maturity to be editing. --Tarage (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't looked into the Instagram links beyond a glance, but looking into the account, I agree with Tarage. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have turned talk page access off - they’re just going to get increasingly frustrated if they carry on. Edits like this just aren’t what WP is about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Reporting this IP for constantly blanking sections on sports related articles. As everyone can tell by looking at the IP's talk page and contributions, this person is not going to stop blanking articles. Recently, the IP was blocked for the first time by Admin

Blocked for a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Swarm ♠ 20:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Contribs since January 1, 2018

There's been a lot of cartoon-related vandalism, unsourced edits, etc. coming from this ip range that geolocates to Libya. A brief glance suggests that 10 of the 127ish edits were not related to cartoons, suggesting minimal collateral damage.

Two addresses are already blocked:

• 41.254.2.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 41.254.8.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any disruption outside of 41.254.2.0/24 and 41.254.8.0/24, so I'll block them both for a month. Widr blocked one of them recently for a month, and this looks to be block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for block and for checking into detail of the ranges! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:Valkyrie Cain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed that this user moved their user/talk pages with redirects to the unexisting account ApolloCarmb. This could be a mistake, but I'd appreciate if an admin could take a look and/or help. I don't think that UAA is the right place for this, so I posted it here and placed a notification at User talk:ApolloCarmb#Valkyrie Cain vs ApolloCarmb. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages moved back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

At [21] 209.93.13.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) issued a personal attack after he received the only warning [22]. For level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warnings see User talk:81.3.111.10. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do I have to notify him of this topic? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: No need. The block was placed before you opened this topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I cannot google the exact procedure for the AFD process, want to propose for deletion

You'll find the AFD process at WP:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This IP is bugging several experienced users in AFD templates. He is removing them for no reason. Can you guys take a look? —Bey WHEELZ ^Let It _RIP!✉📝^Sign 16:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 16:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. —Bey WHEELZ ^Let It _RIP!✉📝^Sign 16:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The user is either a vandalism-only account or is incompetent to the point that they should not be editing Wikipedia. They edited Federal subjects of Russia today, adding renamed subjects (for example, Kamchatka Oblast was renamed to Kamchatka Krai many years ago, but they persistently added it so that both were in the table) and abolished subject (such as Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug which is not a federal subject for approximately ten years). They did it persistently and used socks. Additionally, they created Flag russia which is just a copy of Federal subjects of Russia without attribution. They never replied to anybody and probably need to be blocked indef. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

They similarly vandalized Asian Games sports today, also using socks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed I am calling this a CIR Fail although it might be a case of NOTHERE. Either way... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have sent EBR Taurus 11 messages about creating unreferenced articles but EBR Taurus refuses to communicate. Please also see User talk: EBR Taurus#April 2017 where they were threatened with a block for repeatedly adding unsourced material, yet this has continued.

This editor has ignored me, both by not responding and by not addressing the issues concerned. They have been pointed towards

They clearly know how to edit their talk page, but have done so only once, to remove this message: [23]. I would like EBR Taurus to communicate on this thread and show they understand the points raised. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Boleyn, Don't forget to notify the reported user (I have done so for you in this case). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by Cyp for 1 month on December 11 2017 for personal attacks directed towards one specific editor (User:Codename Lisa). The block expired and the behaviour has continued. The nature of the edits suggest an experienced editor with a specific vendetta. I was previously unaware of any of this and left a uw-agf1 after seeing this, which was greeted with this in response. Not convinced this person is here to do anything constructive. — Warren. ‘ talk , 20:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Airline destinations articles are being deleted and lists in airline articles are being removed based on this [24] RFC. Two FLs weere included in these ones, but seemingly they have since been restored.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit by

Taking a closer look, my best guess would be that they're using one of the absolutely-disgusting browser add-ons which adds triple parentheses to Jewish last names, and didn't turn it off while editing that article; the section in question includes a source written by a woman whose last name is "Berman," and that sent their add-on into paroxysms of nuttery. I submit that there is no good-faith explanation for editing while using a triple-parentheses add-on, and that this user should be immediately blocked as

WP:NOTHERE. Racists and anti-Semites have no place on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(

not here to build an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)