Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Welcome to the incident noticeboard
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion thread

Centralized discussion Paid use of administrator tools How to use and populate new magic word for article descriptions

Noticeboard archives

Frequent WP:NPA violations, etc.

Within Talk:Absolute value (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), there seems to be frequent attempts to label me as in the complete wrong while making the vague accusations that they happen to be within the right. They're even going so far as to do personal attacks, stating things such as me "lacking competences at handling this type of article", claiming that I don't have the best of intentions within handling the article, etc.

I tried several times trying to resolve it. While I'm not trying to justify myself here, what I do know is what they're doing isn't really how Wikipedia should be handled. Meanwhile, D.Lazard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be specifically targeting me under the pretense that I am violating rules myself, such as WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, etc. This, even in spite of the fact that discussion was never a content dispute to begin with. He also reverted several of my edits under that pretense as well; when I pointed out WP:IGNORE within an edit reason, he brings forth WP:DISRUPT.

Someone even made as though they've protected the article, although I can see at this point that it's not. Even so, I believe it's wise for now that I don't edit that page due to them having problems with me. Even if I know I'm in the wrong (and I genuinely don't), that doesn't really give everyone the right to bully me like this.

As an addendum, some of the problems mentioned here seem to have extended to my talk page as well. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Karjam, you need to stop talking about other editors' behavior and discuss only content (nothing else). That's what everyone on that talkpage has been trying to tell you. If the consensus is against you, the consensus is against you. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Your recourse if you do not like the current consensus is (A) to continue to argue your case for the content/version/text that you want, or (B) to engage some form of dispute resolution -- but it all has to be properly and neutrally done, and it needs to avoid mention of other editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Some diffs would be helpful. Neither I nor anyone else here wants to wade through a long series of talk page discussions to get to the offending comments here. I will say that at a glance, it feels like neither your conduct nor Purgy Purgatorio's conduct has been perfect. I agree with Joel B. Lewis's general assessment of the situation: You both need to lay off the personalities. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: As I am cited by the nominator, I must recall here the history of the case. This began on November, 30 when Karjam started edit warring on Absolute value (9 similar edits from November 30 to December 9, reverted by 4 different editors). Another editor stopped this on November by protecting the article. Since December 9, he did not edit anymore the article (even after the end of the protection), but he started a lengthy discussion at Talk:Absolute value#The formula about the behavior of other editors (never about the article and its content). None of the 8 editors who have participate to this discussion has supported Karjam complaints, until Joel B. Lewis closed it. Nevertheless, Karjam tried to unclose this out-of-topic discussion, and to restart it. This was the object of my reverts (here is the last one). I have warned him two times on his talk page for disruptive editing. This seems a case for WP:BOOMERANG. D.Lazard (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Absolute value has never been protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read correctly this edit. Protection has been applied for, but declined by this edit. D.Lazard (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree that a boomerang is warranted here. I think Karjam is clearly frustrated but not without reason. I'm not saying Karjam is right in anything (the merits of the disagreement are outside my scope of expertise), but I think the talk directed at Karjam at some points crosses the line between explanation and condescending (e.g., [1], [2]), and at some point becomes WP:BATTLEGROUNDish (e.g., this edit summary calling for someone to "take over", i.e., take over reverting Karjam). It's pretty obvious from the edits and the comments that Karjam is an editor without much experience on Wikipedia, even though his account is over 7 years old. The entirety of handling things at the talk page strikes me as violating WP:BITE. Especially the focusing on Karjam's idiosyncratic use of "Guys," to open most comments. Particularly given the dispute centers on grammar and readability, one would hope that the more experienced editors would understand that Karjam's grammatical idiosyncrasies weren't intended to offend and simply ask politely that he avoid it since not every editor is male (though I frankly suspect the annoyance at it was more because of its flippant connotations, like "dude").
  My summary of this dispute: Karjam is a relatively inexperienced editor with fewer than 300 edits in over 7 years on Wikipedia. He went to Absolute value and tried to make some very basic changes to improve the flow of the article, though he characterized them as being grammatical fixes. Those were reverted persistently. So persistently, in fact, that when Karjam mistakenly unbalanced a parenthesis in one edit, that edit was reverted so quickly that when he went to fix it himself, resulting in another unbalanced parenthesis. When discussion at the talk page finally got underway, it quickly devolved into suggesting that Karjam's education was flawed, or that he lacked the competence to edit Wikipedia because of an edit summary. I don't blame Karjam for getting frustrated.
  So, no, I don't think a boomerang is appropriate here. I don't think this is something that requires WP:NPA sanctions or any direct admin activity, but it definitely doesn't require a boomerang. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mendaliv: your summary misses the facts that (1) the text has been edited in response to the initial Karjam edits, and (2) Karjam has been persistently unable to make any statement on the talkpage about the article (rather than about editor behavior). --JBL (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• My assessment: On 30 November, Karjam appeared at Absolute value and began making unilateral undiscussed changes to a widely viewed article, and continued to do so through 9 December [3], edit-warring with a variety of editors including Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, D.Lazard, and Purgy Purgatorio. Purgy Purgatorio succinctly characterized the problems with Karjam's changes in this 10 December article-talk post: [4]. On 9 December Karjam stopped edit-warring on the article but brought his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to the talkpage instead: [5]. He has received numerous usertalk warnings from four different experienced editors about this Talk:Absolute value talkpage battleground behavior: [6]. I don't know what the solution is except to ask Karjam to back off or face a topic ban from this article. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I would add is that Karjam does not appear to understand the meaning of the phrase "discuss article content" as a practical matter -- possibly having this explained by a neutral administrator, under threat of block, would help? --JBL (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Karjam: You need to step away from Absolute value voluntarily. I understand how you feel, but any "bullying" was brought on by your own stubborn and persistent push against a consensus of editors who are more experienced than you. It doesn't matter how "right" you think you are. You have to learn how to collaborate on Wikipedia or you will continue to have problems. I don't think a block is in order; nor do I think I need to threaten you with a block. If you leave the article and the Talk page alone, a topic ban won't be necessary. If not, my assumption is we will be back here with editors proposing a topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

[following comment added, per talk page edit request: -- Begoon 05:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)]:
Thanks for telling me about WP:BATTLEGROUND. I know I was being a bit... harsh in my tone of voice there. As I've said, I'm never justifying myself, since I didn't know if I am in the wrong. Even if I was, however, I'm willing to learn from my own mistakes.

Let me just point out; I couldn't really discuss anything related to the article, itself, since it would get interpreted as not really being related to the article's content. Seriously, now, people seem to have trouble telling a difference between an aside comment and one that's making an attack towards the others. As what can be seen on my own talk page, back when I was still violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, I've said I had a genuine reason to call the others "fools", but I held back; this was interpreted as as an indirect attack by someone, even though it's not meant to be such. (Look, I know how derogative that phrase really is, but it doesn't change the fact that it's meant to be an explanation instead.)

And then there's the fact that it seems the others had unilaterally agreed that my own grammar is bad and that their own grammar is the best. Read "Since you've asked..." under that article, for instance. (And then, there goes my tendency to misread everything, causing misunderstandings interpreted as a personal attack, making me no different than those who accuse me of such.)

I also wasn't planning on editing that article for a while due to these issues. You are right, I am inexperienced. But, there's nothing wrong with me gaining that experience on the go, learning from my mistakes, no matter how costly. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

what is going on in the filter log? spambot?

Someone is trying to create an account by the name of 加扣扣⑥⑤⑥⑤⑨⑨⑨⑥④彩票计划软件包中可免费测试哦稚栈 every 1.2 seconds, see the filter log[7]. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this is some sort of spambot, and enabled the filter as an emergency measure. It has already created a whole pile of accounts. The filter is bordering on exceeding its limit, so I would appreciate it if someone more competent than me could transfer this to the title blacklist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I created a similar filter (minus the spambot clutter) here[8], to get around the spambot clutter when doing counter vandalism Tornado chaser (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Are these accounts using the same IP or IP range? Maybe a hardblock on the range can serve the purpose if the filter blows up. (Maybe not, there should be a cap of 6 new accounts per day for same IP, but if they are from same range, then a rangeblock might still work out) -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 17:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a mega-range, so range blocks are not a real possibility, unless we get seriously annoyed by it. The title blacklist would be the easiest way to stop it cluttering the filter log. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Usernames need to go on the global blacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a meta-admin to do that. I've posted at meta:User talk:Billinghurst requesting help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Posted a request to m:Talk:Title blacklist#Chinese username spambot as well. —MRD2014 ^Talk 19:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I bet that's a QQ number or something similar encoded like that to hide it from something that'd detect QQ numbers just from digits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The string has been added to global title blacklist: meta:Special:Diff/17591324. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm totally unknowledgeable about any of this, so please forgive what may be a naive question: should all the accounts that were created be indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Should already have been globally locked. If you find there's any account missed, just feel free to request them to be locked at meta. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a string that should stop them to the global blacklist, but it's not stopping them. My regex is a bit rusty, so maybe one of my two additions is incorrect (see here). You could add the string to the local blacklist and see if it has immediate effect. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ajraddatz. I don't fully understand the timing of that, but the accounts seem to have stopped as of 20:11. Only 4,000 attempts in four hours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I could be totally wrong, but when adding an entry to the global blacklist, the local wikis would have some caches so it might take a few minutes to take effect? -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be. I guess we'll wait and see if they try to bypass the blacklist. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User assuming article ownership

Hello. A user is assuming ownership of the article List of wars involving Latvia [9]. This is after I have invited them to discuss suggestions on how to improve the article on the article talk page and on the user talk page. I am taking a step back from this situation. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I left a note on Fuziion's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note didn't take. Blocked 24 hours. Hoping for a response to my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad bin Salman

An anonymous editor/editors (different ips, maybe the same person, though) keeps changing basic info at the Mohammad bin Salman article. Maybe lock to ip editing for a day or two? PaulCHebert (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They've done it 4x since yesterday, from different IPv6 addresses each time, looks too broad for a rangeblock but maybe someone more knowledgeable in those things will say otherwise. I think semi would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@PaulCHebert and Mendaliv: The IP is messing about with the birthdate. The problem is that a translation of the source in unclear: "The minister of defense and the head of the royal court, Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, born in 1985, is the youngest minister in the new government, where he is thirty years old, contrary to information on the site "Wikipedia", he was born in 1980, which Some foreign newspapers say he is 35 years old." There's no month/day there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well caught. I agree with the resolution: Pull the DoB entirely until we get something definitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

incorrect site notice

We currently have an incorrect site notice, purportedly linking to Wikimania 2018 but actually linking to 2017. I'd try and resolve it myself but am on a very restrictive mobile device at present. ϢereSpielChequers 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I presume WSC is referring to this notice Meta:Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/wm2018scholarcfp. You should be able to see a preview of it using this link [10]. As far as I can tell, the notice itself is probably right. It's the scholarship application page which hasn't been properly updated [11]. On the top part, including the picture, the date and location and name of Wikimania 2017 are mentioned. Then at the end of the blurb there's a link to the 2016 FAQ. Later on, in the application itself "This year for Wikimania 2016" and it also includes a link to [12] so I'm guessing it's not a typo. Then at the end it has "Do you intend to apply to any local Chapter / other movement organization(s) for scholarship funding to Wikimania 2018" and "Wikimania 2018's theme is focusing on supporting underrepresented voices and filling knowledge gaps in our movement". So parts of the page haven't been updated since 2017, parts haven't been updated since 2016 and parts have been updated for 2018. I assume if you use the form you'll be applying for scholarships for 2018, but it's very confusing. This probably isn't the best place to discuss it though. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it's only like that for en-gb [13]. En [14] is fine. Other languages have their own weird mixes. E.g. even in the top part, some have nothing updated, some have the logo updated but the description below is outdated, some have the description below updated but the logo is outdated, some have both updated. I didn't even bother to look at the text of the form itself. Probably someone with translator rights from translatewiki.net could fix this, but that isn't me. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of probable spam bot accounts

This report at AIV coupled with Edgar181's link to this edit filter report suggests that multiple accounts are being created using non-English symbols, likely for nefarious purposes. I'm not sure what can or should be done here. This may be an issue for our more tech savvy editors/admins. [Note: For obvious reasons I am not going to post ANI notices on all these accounts.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem There was a long discussion about this with stewards yesterday (and somewhere on meta.) The blacklist globally has been updated but because they change the pattern daily, they're likely to start getting through again. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Brich627

Newbie-ish editor Brich627 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added substantial content in at least 35 edits today with misleading summaries such as "Added links" and "Fixed typo." At least some of these edits are clear BLP violations (e.g. unsourced content falsely saying that Rebekah Mercer owns a majority of Breitbart News). I'm hoping that someone can rollback their edits and give them a stern warning on BLP and honest editing practices. Note that these articles are part of post-1932 AP and as such are subject to DS. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is something odd going on here. I went to this user's talk page to leave a warning for adding unsourced content and found that this discussion had been started. This user is adding content to numerous pages about "investor and Texas billionaire energy scion Christopher Sullivan Richardson" to numerous pages. See here for an example. The first issue is that this user is misleadingly adding new content in front of existing citations. The stranger issue is that I'm not even sure "Christopher Sullivan Richardson" is a real person. This might be WP:HOAX territory. A search for "Christopher Sullivan Richardson" pulls up barely anything, and the first result is a Wikipedia article. Surely if this individual is a billionaire there would be more information about him? I'm not sure he even exists. Anyway, I'll keep reverting the unsourced edits as this gets sorted out. Marquardtika (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, we know that at least one of his edits was completely and verifiably false. See http://www.sullivancity.org/history/. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything about "Christopher Sullivan Richardson", an alleged billionaire, anywhere on the web. No one with 10 figures before the decimal point can remain that anonymous. This is starting to look like a NOTHERE account. I have posted a warning on their talk page but my finger is hovering over the block button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. I have however left their TP editing rights intact in case they want to respond to the issues raised here. But the evidence looks pretty damning to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• They are a sock. The other account is HBass214 (talk · contribs · count). This edit by HBass214, which I've reverted, may explain the Sullivan Richardson obsession. Someone might want to take a look at HBass214's other edits to see if they need removing. There aren't that many.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Also IPsocks 2600:100C:B00D:CF49:AD71:8FCD:6F6D:DE4B (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2602:306:8081:d2a0:43c:a241:383d:39b7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:100C:B004:5863:B506:B8DB:AFDD:E56D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2600:100C:B027:919A:28D8:14F3:4E52:D214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). General Ization ^Talk 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• And another sock: Hbass214817 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Good catch.  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the link listed by Bbb23 above ([15]) list "Daniel Joseph Sullivan IV (1934-2006)" as the "Billionaire owner of the Mariposa Ranch", and the Mariposa Ranch website [16] says that "the Mariposa Ranch has remained in the Sullivan Family for over 110 years. Daniel J. Sullivan, V continues the legacy..." So there may be a combination of fact and fiction here -- and perhaps some score-settling between the Sullivans and the Richardsons? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: another apparent sock adding content on the same material as above: 2600:100C:B029:D1E0:ACDA:8964:C43E:82E1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Marquardtika (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Could use an admin eye at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

Original request dealt with --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:1800:E970:8AC:B8DA:F739:5508. IP disruptively pushing more "it's not debunked!" complaints at talk, edit warring them back in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved and I've got an eyeball on it. A Train^talk 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(ANI is protected, moving comment from request on WT:AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC))
As i stated on the Seth Rich talk page, the reference listed did not show that law enforcement debunked the conspiracy theory. Clearly this statement upsets you, I am not sure why. The police stated that these claims are unfounded. That means that there is no evidence to support these claims. Debunked means its not true. No one knows why Seth Rich was murdered. Clearly wikipedia doesn't care that the article here reflects that though. 2600:8800:1800:E970:8AC:B8DA:F739:5508 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AN/I is for discussion of behavioral problems, not for determination of content disputes, so please do not continue to make content points here -- make them on the article talk page.

And, incidentally, "to debunk" does not mean "to prove false", it means "to show the falseness or hollowness of a myth, idea, or belief". There are many things in this world which it is nearly impossible to prove false, but a claim which has been shown to have no supporting evidence has indeed been "debunked". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've always wanted to know... if I prove something has an evidentiary basis, am I bunking it? EEng 23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To "debunk" means "to take the bunk out".[17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, my university dormmate asked maintenance to debunk our beds once. They didn't do a very good job considering there was plenty of evidence the beds were still there afterwards. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, who put the bunk there in the first place? EEng 23:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I admit it... It was me. And I would have gotten away with it to, if it weren't for you meddling kids. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(To take the bunkum out?) I'm uninvolved too, and I've been observing the article and the talkpage. Note that it was because of the same person's blatant edit warring on 27 December from the IP 2600:8800:1800:e970:c49e:af82:db7e:7de0 that the article had to be semiprotected. That was pretty disruptive, and earned them a 48-hour block. Now they have been using two other IPs, 2600:8800:1800:E970:2433:B3F1:6391:92F6 and 2600:8800:1800:e970:8ac:b8da:f739:5508, to disrupt the talkpage instead, by insisting on editing a closed discussion, and using the page as a soapbox. Please note, it's not the user's fault that the IP keeps changing, but the fact remains, all three IPs represent the same person. I've just warned them that if they keep disrupting Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, I'll block the 2600:8800:1800:E970::/64 range — not just a few single IPs — which will hopefully take care of it. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Yes, "to take the bunkum [Buncombe] out". One of those cases where a politician's words were remembered long after the politician himself became irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Add that to the list of things I've learned today. A Train^talk 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Me too, actually. Who says Wikipedia is not educational? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly (to me, anyways) is the fact that "bunk" as slang for "bad" or "without merit" is still being used today, despite being centuries old. I overheard some teenagers complaining about how bunk some rap song was, a few days ago, and I've used it more than once myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Kind of a cousin to "humbug",[18] which means "fraud" and is seldom heard today except in re-readings of A Christmas Carol and in The Wizard of Oz movie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hogwash! I use the word unremittingly. Now I must be off to fill my conveyance with petroleum distillate, and re-vulcanize my tires, post-haste... nagualdesign 00:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Take note, though, that use of "bunk" may just as easily be derived from the use of bunco to refer to any fixed game, and then later to any swindle. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the most famous use of the word “bunk” is in the phrase “history is bunk” attributed to Henry Ford who actually said “history is more or less bunk”. Ford pointed out that the leaders who had started World War I knew lots of history but still ended up starting that war. Ford had a point there, but many of his other ideas were total bunk. Nice car company though. It seems that the “Murder of Seth Rich” article has become less a history of that murder than an article about the bunk that grew up around it and the debunking that grew up around that bunk. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like this is one of the reasons I love this place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like this just make me want about a dozen shots of Jäger. I came here to escape the cesspool of modern journalism, not to embrace it. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Modern journalism is not a cesspool, modern politics is; journalism (at least real journalism) just reports on the shit in the cesspool, they didn't put it there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, people aren't angry about lawyers anymore. [grins in legalese] —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bunco squad is a fraud investigation police unit (and a 1950 TV show. Neonorange (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Bunko" was also the name of my pet turtle in fifth grade. To be fair, he was full of it. You couldn't believe a word he said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And when Paul McCartney's "grandfather" in A Hard Days Night, Wilfrid Brambell, goes to a casino and plays Baccarat, he calls out "Bingo!" instead of the proper "Banco!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Getting further into left field, in the 1950s the Chicago Cubs for a while had Ernie Banks at short, Gene Baker at second, and Steve Bilko at first, for a double-play combination Cubs announcer Bert Wilson called "Bingo to Bango to Bilko". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth. EEng 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flamingoflorida is back with sockpuppets

Flamingoflorida (talk · contribs) was blocked for WP:COI and WP:CIR. She came back as Artliker (talk · contribs). See previous ANI.

She is now editing as 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the same focus on Recanati winery and Overseas Shipholding Group Billhpike (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Billhpike, I blocked that IP for obvious block evasion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

She is now using 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think we need a rangeblock on 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:00/112 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Billhpike (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Billhpike, I also blocked that IP. I will let an administrator experienced with range blocks evaluate that part of your request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Also using 2600:387:9:3::c1 (talk · contribs · 2600:387:9:3::c1 WHOIS). (Already blocked) Billhpike (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What's with the shopping mall edits? [19] Different editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Flamingoflorida has made similar edits. [20] Billhpike (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:0/112 blocked two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in the 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:00/112 range and has been associated with Maleidys Perez (talk · contribs), who was also blocked for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maleidys Perez/Archive. I suspect Flamingoflorida is just another sockpuppet of Maleidys Perez. Billhpike (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Kinda looks like the same mangled English, too. Quack, quack. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done some digging throug edit histories. I think the following IP ranges are associated with the same vandal:

• 2600:387:2:809:0:0:0:97/112 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - Note: very narrow ipv6 range
• 2601:58A:8600:F6D0:0:0:0:0/64 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 24.138.202.246/24 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 107.77.215.0/24 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 64.237.233.96/21 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 24.50.204.149/21 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - Note that 24.50.204.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made vandal edits today.

The telltale sign is an obsession with San Francisco (sans-serif typeface) and childrens TV shows. Another common behavior is requests for a direct block after an autoblock (example). Most IPs appear to be from Puerto Rico.

Some of the IP ranges overlap with those used by WP:Long-term abuse/Link Smurf and there are some behavior similarities. Since the IP ranges are broad, it could just be a coincidence. I'd appreciate inpute on whether to file a new LTA report or update the Link Smurf report?

(pinging Link Smurf experts Imzadi1979 TJH2018 ) Billhpike (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

She is now using Crazypug (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Can we just semiprotect all of Category:Recanati family? (Proposed by @Cullen328: [21]) Billhpike (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I filed for a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flamingoflorida Billhpike (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The tone of Snooganssnoogans

I have been trying to improve immigration to Sweden recently (controversial topic), things were going fine and we had a civil discussion until user:Snooganssnoogans showed up. Instead of engaging in the discussion he started edit warring, being rude on the talk page of Talk:Immigration to Sweden as well as Talk:Immigration to the United States. He does not seek to balance the article, but instead try to push on view on the subject. Furthermore if you look at his user page he actively boast about upsetting user of a different perspective and I think that is tone and attitude towards other users is not in line with community standards. Instead of trying to improve the crime section he tries to blank it with a biased text that fits his views on the subject.

He has made it clear that he is not looking to get a neutral view on the subject, by demonstrating an aversion towards Sweden Democrats and Tino Sanandaji.

P.S. There is also a dispute regarding a reference to a self published, but peer reviewed book, where should we go to settle this?

Best regards, Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the book, WP:RSN for a quick and concise answer, follow the instructions at the top. The name/location of the source, article its to be used in, the information used in the article the source is to support. -edit- Oh its Tino, I remember this. See RSN archive here under Crime in Sweden. I'm assuming the self-published work is Massutmaning. If you start a new discussion at RSN try and keep it simple as to what it is being used to source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There are three points I want to make:

(1) When User:Immunmotbluescreen says that I don't want to "seek the balance", what the user has in mind is an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The text that User:Immunmotbluescreen objects to is long-standing text from Immigration and crime that was recently imported to Immigration to Sweden. The text is extensively well-sourced (half the sources are scholarly publications and the rest are high-quality news sources).

(2) My alleged aversion towards Sweden Democrats and Tino Sanandaji is because I removed an analysis published by the Sweden Democrats (a far-right political party in Sweden) and a self-published book by Tino Sanandaji. These sources do not belong on Wikipedia, as they are not WP:RS (try imagining someone adding an analysis of immigration by the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign to pages related to American immigration).

(3) User:Immunmotbluescreen, who was reverted by three different users, has done the same revert on five occasions within 24 hrs (mass-removal of reliably sourced text) and re-introduced Tino Sanandaji's self-published books on seven occasions within 24 hrs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Immunobluescreen has now progressed to saying that Snooganssnoogans and Iryna Harpy are making "troll edits" [22], and rejecting advice from an uninvolved editor (me) with a "stop playing in my sandbox" comment [23]. Unless someone with a hammer lays a serious warning on them, I think they're heading for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by a hammer? This is a new one. (I only just worked out what canvassing is... :( ) TomBarker23 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess Beyond My Ken is referring to a banhammer... so someone wielding a hammer here would be an admin ;) –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry if I was being too opaque. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Dinhio13

User:Dinhio13 is persistently removing several clubs from the career of football player Akaki Khubutia, despite them being confirmed by external sources. Said user also does not engage in any discussion, despite my advances in revert summaries (at first) and his talk page (more recently). The article in question is the only one he ever edited, and google search by his nickname suggests that he is either the player himself, or a close person, thus also violating WP:AB -BlameRuiner (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it me or is the fact the user has only edited this one page suspicious? I think we have a one-purpose account here. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Page ECP and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring over archival of stale talk page

Requesting thoughts about talk:Symbol. The talk threads were all archived in 2016 by Cluebot III. This week, user:66.31.54.242 reverted the archival of threads dating back to 2004, and after having their restoring reverted by User:DanielPenfield and myself, they restored it again and started a thread at talk:Symbol#Don't arbitrarily remove talk page content -- put thought into it.. Basically a long rant against archival bots in general, which seemed a bigger issue than that one talk page, so seemed to require a broader venue - just not sure the best board for it.

I'm heading to bed and working from a cell phone with low battery, so would request someone to notify the IP for me. I'll be back in several hours, after I wake. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you editing here, Mr. President! EEng 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The admins appear to have taken the night off. AIV is pretty well backlogged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going through the AIV backlog now. Sorry nobody was around, Bugs. With this Symbol chap, there hasn't been any edits in several hours and nobody's left him a talk page warning, so ordinarily that would not get a block via AIV. I'll keep an eye on him, though. A Train^talk 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem; when I posted here, I wasn't looking for a block. The IP appears to have a complaint about archive-bot behavior in general (although archival on that specific talk page was the current focus). I mainly had two concerns: I was hoping for someone to help point the IP to a discussion board better suited for addressing archive-bot concerns. Would the best place be User talk:ClueBot Commons, or Help talk:Archiving a talk page, or Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? I was unsure where to suggest. And second, I was heading to bed and wanted to see if someone could de-escalate the developing edit war before a 3RR block might occur (which wasn't going to help anyone).

I appreciate everyone taking a look; but does anyone have a suggestion for a board where the IP could better address their archive-bot concerns? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I am addressed in one thread above I noticed this one quarrel, and stopped by there too, to suggest the "minthreadsleft"-parameter. This seems to please the IP! So I think the rather aggressive tone this IP usually employs should not be mirrored by admins, talking about "chaps" on which they will have "an eye" on with the threat of a block as danaos dona ferentes. BTW, activating an archiver should also bee accorded. Was it?

... and yes, I added the template on IP's talk, too. Purgy (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AFD closed. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Could an admin close this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurzaidi Bunari as the article has been already deleted, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Turkish air con is causing ANI trouble...

User:Turkish air con has been adding useless content to this very page. The thought of it! I still don't understand how diffs work, but all you need to do is click "edit history" right up there. The edits I've noticed have mostly been about how his car stopped working in the middle of the road. Why's that on ANI? Not to mention the swearing... Could we have an admin over here, please? TomBarker23 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I already blocked them. Looks like the same vandal that had been posting nonsense on the page previously that lead to ANI being protected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going off to support the suggestion for a new ANI filter. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if an edit filter for this LTA is even possible. I can understand hesitating to protect ANI indef, but he'll keep coming back as long as an expiry date is there. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we even know who it is? --Tarage (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this

BLOCKED:

SPI case over. Archived. Blocked in <16 minutes. Kinda ironic, no? --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 19:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please check out the recent history of LED art (since revision 818611384 at 15:30 UTC today)? This appears to be the beginning of a sock farm trying to build up edit counts in order to become auto-confirmed. Is this a thing that Wikipedia should be discouraging? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Already handled. Also, SPI filed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/16minutesoffame. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, all blocked. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

See Wikipedia:Help desk#The multiplication table pattern section violate my copyright & IP in US. Clear violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats by Benson tan at work. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Referring to this diff, I assume, at the end of the wall of text, specifically " Last but NOT least, please provide the contact info so that I can ask my lawyer to contact you. Thanks"? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support blocking - No objections to unblocking providing they retract it and stop with the threats. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• User was blocked unnecessarily by User:Alex Shih, but since the user doesn't have any friends here, I imagine there won't be an uproar this time. I'll go try to act like a human being on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing unnecessary about it - They made a threat and were blocked for it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll make an excellent sheep. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Floquenbeam How's it unnecessary? They've made threats to get lawyers involved, which is a clear legal threat. And they're still doing it here. And they've already been given the advice on the proper way to contact Wiki about alleged copyright. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats#Copyright. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply saying that something might be a copyright infringement is, I would agree, not a legal threat. But that's not why they were blocked; they were blocked for threatening to get their lawyer involved, which is a legal threat. SkyWarrior 20:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Classic; close a thread where your own behavior is questionable. Truly classic WP behavior. It's not turtles, it's brick walls all the way down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, supporting a block is downright questionable behaviour and as such I should be hung, drawn and quartered - Please feel free to start a new request here on how I'm such a bad editor for supporting a block of an obvious legal threat. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Does User:Benson tan at work know how to contest his indef block? Or will he just have to go ask his lawyer? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Floq was kind enough to reach and explain how to contest the unblock, and the possible violation of his copyright on Benson Tan's talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And he's still making legal threats even now:[24] "I can pass that info to my lawyer to seek the solution" and "Wikipedia may have its own rule, but it should still fit into US law as I know" Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Goodness me, Floq, that sounds like politeness and common decency. What's this place coming to. Um, "Wikipedia may have its own rule, but it should still fit into US law as I know" - is that an outrageously threatening statement or just a plain fact? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to say I've undone the close and will allow this to be reclosed by someone else, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is the block being challenged now? It's clearly a good NLT block. They're not just threatening to get lawyers involved to enforce their copyright (which they've declined to pursue through the proper channels after being informed how to do so), they've explicitly inquired as to how to go about taking legal action against a particular user in the interest of getting money from them. They're being talked at by a couple of users on their talk page now but they're close to having that access revoked as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have missed the part about "legal action against a particular user in the interest of getting money from them". Could you copy that part here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see how any block for legal threats could be accurately described as "necessary", a good idea, perhaps, but necessary? Necessary for what exactly? Paul August ☎ 21:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, does this count? "How to ask my lawyer to contact you guys? In addition, if the result is impact my right, I will ask your page hits multiply by $10 for each then" As established, English isn't his first language, but that seems pretty much an intention to try and get money from somebody... Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, somebody. But who exactly? That looks to me pretty much like exaggeration and fantasy to me, rather than a coherent "legal threat". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the points are moot now. I've expressed my thoughts about my block here. Alex Shih (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• That seems fair and balanced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to the actual block, but that method diagram was known when I started teaching some 20+ years ago, and I doubt very much if a mathematical method could actually be patented anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems the U.S. Patent Office agrees with you: Shearonink observed that the patent application was not accepted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So we can all agree that a legal action is not possible in this case? The editor is somewhat misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure how you deal with a legal threat that's not viable, but on the other hand the only mainspace edit that the editor has made is to delete the "violating" item in the article anyway, so I don't think we need to expend too much time on whether it's an NLT or not. If the editor is unblocked, are they going to provide anything positive? Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

Dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For a distasteful edit summary. [25]. Dawnseeker2000 21:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offensive comments on user's own talk page

Please see User talk:PBadali#North America isn't my choice! (permalink for version as of my posting: [26]) for what I took to be antisemitic comments. I (sternly) asked PBadali to remove the comments citing these concerns (and that it was outside the scope of talk pages as he wasn't talking to anyone), but he refused, claiming that this was only his opinion (user's English is a bit poor, so there could be misunderstandings in places). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted part of the comment per WP:POLEMIC, which it clearly violates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The part where he says "I don't like being under any thought" is hard to deny. But it's odd that he hasn't been blocked yet for his blatantly racist comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

He needs to make such postings to deflect the attention of the authorities in charge of monitoring Social Media and the Internet. Count Iblis (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you being rhetorical, or is there a factual basis to that claim? If so, what evidence are you basing it on? Are you claiming that if he didn't make such a claim he would suffer some official punitive actions? If that's the case, why edit en.wiki at all, since his English skills appear to not be quite up to it, why not edit the Wikipedia of his native language instead? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To add to that, what is the meaning of "It seems my account is hacked so if you see something is wrong please ignore it!" on their user page, and when suggested that they open a new account "Thank you, but the difficulty won't be resolved and for new account the same events repeats only I can inform". Is the suggestion that the authorities in Iran are editing through his account and that they made the remark on his talk page? If any of this is true, then we should take the step of blocking his account as being compromised, and PBdali should make a new account and edit through proxies, as accounts in China must do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the editor has made no article edits whatsoever [27], their edits are to talk pages and the RefDesk. We're not a social media website, editors should be here to improve the encyclopedia, not to chat. Given that, and the fact that they admit their account is compromised, shouldn't this account be blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk)

Gurneyslaves44 and Geoff Davis

User:Gurneyslaves44 appears to be a VOA, having made these 4 edits so far[28][29][30][31]. User:Geoff Davis's only edit so far was this[32] edit to Gurneyslaves44's talk page, which could be interpreted as a vandalism warning or a threat. I have notified both users but they will not be able to respond as ANI is protected Tornado chaser (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that those two accounts were created 16 minutes apart. Gurneyslaves44's last edit diffed here (to Gurney family (Norwich)) strongly suggests a failure of the WP:ATTACKNAME usernames policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Gurneyslaves44 username blocked indef. Geoff Davis had this edit caught by the filter which suggests they're here to play games with their friend. Also blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations on Sholam Weiss

A new user, Lexjuris has been making edits to Sholam Weiss which violate WP:BLP. He has removed information which was sourced and is adding information that is not sourced. In two instances the information he has added the ref just says "ibid" and in one place he added a blank ref tag with nothing in it. I have attempted to post on his talk page asking him to not make these edits however he continues to make them. Thanks - Galatz^Talk 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)