Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Topic ban evasion

In December, Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for 3 months from Israel-related pages. WP:TBAN says:

"a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"

Today, he removed and modified (and was reverted) several parts of the section "Views on antisemitism and Israel" in George Soros: [1], [2]. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This would certainly seem to be an up-and-down breach of the ban, but I want to hear an explanation from Avaya1 (talk · contribs) before looking at what action should be taken. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

I agree that this appears to be a breach of the topic ban. Drmies was the administrator who imposed the topic ban. Perhaps he has a comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

These are quite blatant. Thank you Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a vio of the topic ban, but I'm not sure what the correct next step is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I was attempting to remove off-topic content about Steinmetz with this edit and Hungary. I was removing the non-Israeli content about Steinmetz and Hungary. The Israeli stuff I have left intact. The original section was written by me and is largely about Israel, this was back in May before my topic ban. There's since been added paragraphs about Steinmetz and extra parts about Hungary which is off-topic to antisemitism and Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you wrote it yourself or not, as our topic bans do not currently have a feature to physically prevent users from editing in the banned areas, this is still a breach of your topic ban. I don't believe you maliciously breached the ban, but WP:TBAN is quite explicit. I'll let other admins decide what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In these edits, Avaya1 removed two (and modified one) pieces of text, which are directly related to Israel and contains word "Israel". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lankiveil, Cullen328, Drmies, and Kudpung: What are the next steps? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, we could block! But it's been a few days, and they haven't done it again, so that would really be punitive, even if a pattern had been established, that this wasn't just a one-off. Or we could give Avaya1 a stern warning and say "if you do that again we will certainly block you". Cullen? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Since I've been pinged: I also think the stern warning would be appropriate. Just because we can block doesn't mean we have to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think at this point a block would not be preventative. That being said, this violation should certainly be noted and logged so that it can be factored into the sanction for any future breaches. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

I have warned Avaya1 that any further violation of their topic ban will result in a block. Avaya1 has not edited in recent days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Addition of Unsourced Material to List of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

• List of Bible verses not included in modern translations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Our issue here is the repeated insertion of unsourced claims by Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:V, which states, among other things, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sussberman continues to ignore WP:V despite various reminders over a period now a month long of weeks.

A Timeline

At 12:51 17 December 2017, User:Sussmanbern was told by User:Dimadick about the importance of making sure that all new additions to the article have proper inline citations, in order to avoid having the material deleted. (There had been earlier conflicts, among other parties, over the addition of unsourced material to this article, which can easily be seen at the talk page). Here is the diff of Dimadick's statement: [3].

Sussberman asked for a summary of the earlier conflicts, "so tI know what to avoid doing." [4]

Reiterating Dimadick's point, I told Sussmanberg that the thing to avoid doing was the addition of unsourced material to the page: [5] (31 December).

Sussmanberg assured me that they "can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations." [6].

At 04:18, 7 January 2018, I took a look at the article and found it to be filled with uncited claims. I removed a number of them: [7]

At 19:50, 7 January 2018, Sussberman left a notice at my talk page announcing his ownership of the Wikipedia page, and that I am not allowed to interfere with anything he writes, "until Feb 14, 2018 . . . PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING."

At 19:54, Sussberman complained that their Second Amendment rights were being violated at the talk page: [8].

At 20:22, Sussberman posted a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP directly in the article text itself: [9].

At 20:28, I replied at my talk page, notifying Sussberman about the contents of policy pages WP:OWN and WP:V. [10]

Sussberman ignored my reply.

At 20:35, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [11].

At 1:01, 8 January 2018, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [12].

At 1:22, Sussberman reverted my previous edit, restoring a great deal of unsourced content despite the previous repeated reminders about this: [13].

At 1:36, I wrote a second reminder, this time on the talk page: [14].

In the interests of avoiding an editing war, I asked Sussberman whether they were now willing to abide by WP:V, or whether I should seek dispute resolution. I have received no reply, and Sussberman continues editing away.

I request that administrators take some kind of action — it doesn't matter to me exactly what — to ensure that the addition of unsourced material to this article does not continue. I do not want to edit-war here, so I can't just keep removing the stuff myself. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Having received Alephb's comments, I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even within the last few hours, even as I was adding citations, Alephb was still erasing my stuff - I found I was collecting citations for text that no longer existed, and he took particular pains to repeatedly delete a quotation WITH citation that I went to some effort to find. I am ready to dump this whole project. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I would be happy to copy the entire deleted text to the talk page or any piece of your userspace that you specify, so that you can add citations to it and then re-add it to the article. If I deleted anything that was properly cited, that was certainly a mistake, and if you just show me the quote, I would be more than happy to add it back in myself, if you like. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting, at this point, that the continued addition of uncited material by Sussmanbern has continued even after the beginning of this ANI thread: [15]. The added material there speaks to the motives of the translators of various post-1880 Bible translators and editors. He added that to a previously correctly-cited quote from a writer in 1832. The quote is cited -- the additional material about what people were thinking several decades later is not. WP:V is still not being followed. In the interest of not edit-warring, I'm simply going the leave the uncited material there, but I would urge Sussmanbern to delete his claims about the motives of these translators until he can find a reliable source backing up the claims. And I would ask Sussmanbern to substantiate his claim that I removed a properly cited claim, or to strike out the accusation. One of or the other. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another edit by Sussberman, still as this ANI goes on: [16]. It purports to give the "Reason" that modern Bible translations omit a particular verse, but does not cite any source that confirms that the "reason" given is in fact the reason the modern translators have omitted this verse. This is also a violation of WP:V. I'm surprised to see this behavior going on MID-ANI. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And . . . here's a third WP:V violation, also made while this ANI goes on: [17]. The unsourced part is, "Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,ƒ<super>1</super>, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources." What somewhat later sources? Why no citation? How difficult is this? Alephb (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a fourth WP:V violation: [18]. It makes an uncited claim about what motivates modern translators, about what is written in the original handwriting of a particular manuscript, uncited claims about which manuscripts are more, or less, ancient, and an uncited claim that uncited editors "seem confident." Alephb (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a fifth: [19]. It alleges that several books have been written on a particular passage, without citing any books written on that passage. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number six: [20]. It alleges things about "most modern versions" and their treatment of two passages, without a supporting citation. It also says the passages are supported by a "wide variety" or uncited sources, and the uncited claim that "there are strong reasons to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels." Alephb (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number seven: [21]. It alleges that "some Italic mss" include a particular verse. No source is cited. Alephb (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Reasons" that Alephb says are unsourced cite mss listed in the critical editions of the Greek NT mentioned by name in my Intro to the article (Souter, Nestle-Aland, etc.), having mentioned them anyone can find the relevant verses. As for not specifying "some Italic mss" and the like, these are (1) recondite and (2) the usual citation forms involve a complicated typography, often with layers of superscripts; as this article is intended for beginners in this topic (non-beginners would not need this article) it was not my goal to baffle the reader. Again the specific mss can be found in the critical editions I named. I had said in my Intro that I would cite only "four or five" of the leading mss evidence for inclusion or exclusion, and those motivated to dig deeper can look it up in the named critical editions. Listing all the mss evidence, including versions and patristic sources, as appears in those editions, would make this article very bulky, require some difficult typographic tricks, and make the article less reader-friendly. I would like to emphasize that this article lay fallow - useless and unrevised - for more than five years until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Even Alephb had not attempted to improve it in those five years. But once I started, he could not contain himself for as little as five days. I am ready to let him roll this boulder up the mountain, while I play the critic. And could someone please ask him to stop misspelling my name. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve your content disputes, that should happen on the article talk page, or in Dispute Resolution. Here, only behavioral issues are considered, and Alephb has presented fairly compelling evidence of your ownership behavior. I have left a comment on your talk page to explain in further detail why that is a problem, and why not editing collaboratively can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read that and the links it includes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No one is asking you to list every italic manuscript. It's just that, when you restore text that has been removed for not being sourced, we need an inline citation confirming that "some manuscripts" say the one thing or another. Just name whatever source you're copying the claims out of in a footnote. And likewise, when you make claims about the motives of particular people (some still living) you should find reliable sources for those claims as well. That would work fine. I can quote the wording about inline citations in WP:V again if that would help.

The accusation that I made no efforts to improve the article prior to you showing up is false.

Speaking of accusations, I am still waiting for you to show us the diffs of the properly cited quote that you say I "repeatedly" removed. Either that, or I would ask you to strike out the accusation. One or the other. Alephb (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Have you considered drafting your changes in your sandbox or userspace? I hope that you are planning to add sources to the content as you said (I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can.) - taking you at your word, drafting in userspace first would resolve this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up. This article was seriously neglected and I was a volunteer trying to improve it, but ingratitude wins out. I leave it to Alephb to finish the article to his satisfaction. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are serious about letting this one go, I think that resolves our problem. Given Sussmanbern's statement that they are no longer interested in working on the article, I would assume that it would not be considered edit-warring if I waited a day or two and then stripped all non-verifiable content out of the article. Given that the "other side" has thrown in the towel, and there's now no one left to edit-war with. Alephb (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User has been indefinately blocked for threat of violence. I recommend we close this discussion. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually he wasn't complaining about his 2nd Amendment rights being violated in that diff. I've blocked indef for a clear threat of violence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good eye. How'd we all miss that one? --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider that a legitimate threat of violence, and a indefinite block seems harsh, and unwarranted. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no way in hell I'm letting "I'm gonna shoot you for reverting me" stand, whether it's "legitimate" or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, had he said: "I'm going to shoot you for reverting me", then it would have been a good block. Nice straw man. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if you wouldn't summarize that diff the way I just did, then how would you summarize it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have summarized it at all. I would have asked him what the hell he meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No matter how much you WP:WIKILAWYER about it, there is only one possible interpretation of "this is why the Second Amendment exists" in that context. We don't give people a "get out of making a naked threat of violence free" card just because they don't use specific words to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The only one Wiki-lawyering is you, which I understand, as AN/I is filled with admins defending the indefensible, lest their own infallibility one day be called into question. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that casting of aspersions, I don't believe this conversation can go anywhere productive, so I'm out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given how obviously confused this user is about so much else, did it occur that he could have the 1st and 2nd Amendments confused, lamenting interference with his perceived right to free speech here? I ask this having more than once heard an (obviously confused) individual state: "the 1st Amendment grants us the right to bear arms". It just seems incredibly unlikely that this user would make such a giant leap from frustration to threats of murder so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit on my talk page, where the editor says that they are "very angry", and claims that Alephb deliberately sabotaged their work, would seem to be pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention revoking talk-page access immediately, allowing the user no chance to even explain what was meant. I guess that was a prophylactic measure; less chance the user can complain about it if you shut them up preemptively. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet, the user appealed the block and is currently able to edit. Funny how that works.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's anything but funny. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb - Haven't you learned anything yet? Well, you didn't learn anything four years ago, and maybe you didn't learn anything two months ago. You appear to have jumped into this controversy that you were not originally involved in, just to dump on an admin or something. Four years ago you were asked to try to be less provocative. Two months ago OR and NYB made a last plea with you to try to change your behavior when Tomstar81 had requested arbitration. I requested that ArbCom take the case, not merely to deal with you, but also to define a procedure for dealing with editors who poke you, like poking a bear, and then try to blame you. However, in this case, you just came running into this conflict like a bear on a tear. This conflict didn't involve you, and you should have left alone, and, if you can't learn to leave things alone sometimes, you will wind up in a bearcage, known as an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I think you need to be less trigger happy. There's no way that statement deserved an indefinite block. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have seriously contemplated an indef if I had seen it. That kind of implication is totally unacceptable here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a blatant threat of violence and was dealt with appropriately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Is there anything you feel you can say about why this block was lifted? I ask because it does not seem obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

He was unblocked by User:Yunshui, who could perhaps shed some light on this, as I too am quite curious. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do so. The UTRS appeal made it clear that this was basically intended as a very poor-taste attempt at humour, not a deliberate threat of violence. The editor has said that they will not repeat it, and has also stated that they will step away from the List of Bible verses... article, which also assuaged my concerns about future edit warring. I checked with Sarek via email, and on getting his agreement, lifted the block, as it was no longer serving a purpose (the behaviour which cause the block is not going to be repeated). Yunshui ^雲_水 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yunshi: Thanks for that explanation. I hope that the editor's promises hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that threats of violence results in being blocked for a shorter time-period than someone who violated 3RR once, I would like to take this opportunity to request an indefinite IBAN. I have been threatened not only with violence, but with more mundane retaliation as well: [22], and user who made the threats has not, as far as I can tell, offered any assurances that they will not carry them out. I think under these circumstances, an IBAN is warranted. And I'm not saying that because I want the user punished. I do not give the slightest shit whether the ban is one-way or two-way. If the user will not give me some assurance that I won't be retaliated against, I request that the community does so. Alephb (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the comments above, I'm going to take the assertion that there are no outstanding threats now at face value. Alephb (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

At least for myself and as of right now, I consider the personal threats issue resolved. What is not resolved is the continued personal attacks: i.e., [23], which was written just a few hours ago. But progress comes in steps. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I don't think that S's final remark comes close to being a personal attack. It was snide, and completely unnecessary -- I've suggested to him that he strike it for those reasons -- but not a violation of WP:NPA. I think it would behoove S. to mind his P's and Q's considering that he just had an indef block lifted, but that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you are uninvolved, there's a good chance you have a more reasonable opinion on this than myself. Fair enough. Alephb (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential COI and disruptive editing

TheCorageone1 seems to be a WP:SPA which was created to solely edit Defiant Wrestling. He has been an extremely disruptive editor and continues to add information to the article which goes against the stubify result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling. He was twice been asked on his talk page about potential COI, including once here [24] which provided evidence that they did declare themselves the owner of the logo in question, which would make them affiliated. He has not responded yet continues to edit the page. Despite the AfD on the initial article they started three spin off articles which all resulted in delete at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Women's Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Hardcore Championship. Despite the delete closing result, the information was merged and redirected by this user. We now also have 27 redirects to this page [25] and a template filled with redirects Template:Defiant Wrestling Champions.

All of this for a wrestling promotion who barely passes GNG if at all. Of the 41 references currently on the page, 12 of them are YouTube, 5 are WP:PRIMARY, and 9 are from cagematch (which is an RS for stats but not for notability). This user has clearly not done anything to benefit the purpose of the stubify, only to fluff the article. - Galatz^Talk 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that posting this here has gotten the user to stop editing the article as he has not made any edits in the past couple days, however some assistance on the matter would still be appreciated. Thanks - Galatz^Talk 23:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I just want to chime in to back Galatz up. Corageone1 has been the main player here but this article has had a problem with other SPAs in the past. It would be helpful if others could add Defiant Wrestling to their watchlists to look for disruptive activity.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

Moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

Primefac (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje

• Maximiliano Korstanje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (METROTEL.COM.AR)
• 181.92.112.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• Dyck99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noellesch9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.226.154.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• Vanrobert99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 181.105.12.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 181.92.114.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 186.125.41.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR)
• 181.90.148.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (TA.TELECOM.COM.AR

etc.

Maximiliano Korstanje is an Argentine sociologist. A small number of IPs and account s have extensively edited his article, adding much resume inflation which has since been rolled back, and also editing numerous other articles to add his viws primary sourced from his own publications, again rolled back.

Today I blocked 190.104.232.132, after the IP reinserted another mention of Korstanje primary-sourced to his published work. I blocked for:

• Promotional editing, adding WP:REFSPAM to Maximiliano Korstanje (IP address geolocates to subject's location and edits suggest a close connection).
• Disruptive editing, adding all-capitalised meta-commentary to mainspace which also strongly suggest that this IP is, or is closely associated with, Korstanje.
• The entire editing history of this IP is indicative of strong POV aggressively pushed (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nova_Science_Publishers&diff=prev&oldid=740686385).

I think it may be time for a formal ban on the person behind these IPs and accounts. Style and meta-commentary makes it unlikely it's more than one person. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: just also blocked 181.90.148.76 for the same crap. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support formal ban on the person. I've also had experience of these IPs/accounts and assumed good faith of the account User:Noellesch9 till my eyes bled; then I indeffed. I agree it's probably all one person — as you say, a person that is... yes, closely associated with Korstanje. This comment from Noellesch9, their last, is interesting; it suggests the promoter has moved to the English Wikipedia because they couldn't get any traction in Spanish wiki (because all the editors who opposed their editing there were it seems "abusive" and "never intellectuals"). A formal ban on the person behind this would be morally satisfying, and I support it. Practically speaking, we'll also most likely have to semi the article Maximiliano Korstanje forever and a day. And how about a filter for keeping out Korstanje-related spam from other articles? (Said she hazily. I don't understand filters very well.) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Barnstar only account?

Chopard geneve 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:‎Chopard geneve 007 seems to have no purpose other that issuing barnstars, not exactly sure what his motives are but wondering about WP:NOTHERE Tornado chaser (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstars are actually a positive thing so NOTHERE doesn't really apply. What's to note is it's essentially a pointless SPA atm. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: When you filed this, they had only had an account here for fifteen minutes! As things stand now, they're clearly just feeling around their talk page and getting used to their new-found powers  :) WP:RETENTION, anyone?! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed as NOTHERE and very likely some form of block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) It looks to me like Chopard geneve 007 went to the history of Rolex Daytona and is handing barnstars to the editors that have worked on this article. Nothing actionable, IMO. I'll stop by and send an invite to the Teahouse. No longer needed, it seems... –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That's probably David Adam Kess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also Special:Contributions/Dr.bb8. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. That's also a Kess sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Y'all missed one - Benjamin Franklin 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Scr★pIron^IV 19:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hoax

I've been ignored a few times, so now I'm "forum shopping" until someone explicitly tells me the only alternative is to revert manually until I get tired of it. Among other reasons why edits like this can't be true: no references that mention his name, and this similar edit where he claims a well-known title that hasn't been used since World War I. User:Abibmaulana been blocked, so now he usually uses a new IP address every time. We semi-protected The Blackstone Group, where most of the vandalism edit war can be found, so he moved to several similar articles about corporations until it expired. I've read about "range blocks", which might help because 19 of his IPs are in the range 120.188.4.122 to 120.188.95.142, but that doesn't include 162.217.248.203, 188.119.151.166, 114.4.78.231, 114.4.79.165, and 114.4.82.82. Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested might help, but not for me - 3 days ago I emailed according to the instructions on that page's edit page, and the only response was that my request is being held because I'm not on some list. This must be a common problem, so what usually happens? Art LaPella (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the Blackstone article and threw out a rangeblock. I can't help you with the blacklist--sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want some consolation, I've also dealt with people owning the World Bank[26], Sony[27] and numerous other companies. It seems to be a thing. We have constructed temporary edit filters for this type of thing before, and that shouldn't be a problem this time (filter 684 perhaps), but don't use the mailing list - drop the request directly at WP:EFR, and provide a few more links than you have here. But, you might still need to wait for more than 3 days. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Cute little noticeboard!

What a cute short little ANI noticeboard! Congratulations all, hopefully keep it like this! Ushering in a new ANI era! bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Requesting action for 73.251.37.0

This IP is repeatedly making bad edits, and is not responding to either edit comments or talk page notices. He seems to be basically trying to players to the rosters in various NFL seasons for a team, but is getting the formatting wrong and is not providing any citation. I've been a New England fan for decades, and I don't recognize "David Struges" as a quarterback the team had, so I suspect this is some form of self-promotion.

Specific edits to look at: 2008 season, 2007 season, 2006 season.

Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)