Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776

User:SaberToothedWhale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has made repeated inflamatory and libelous comments on this article, and made inflamatory and libelous comments against myself. Requesting attention on this matter. Smarkflea (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Obvious vandal-only, needs a block. Shaz0t (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[1] Shaz0t (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

...and you called them a prick in your edit summary as you added that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was just referring to this. Shaz0t (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

By which I mean I used 'prick' as ed-sum to remind me/others what it was about in my history; not as any pa. Sorry. Shaz0t (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please revoke their talk-page access. OS emailed. Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't edit war with a user on their talk page, Shaz0t. Report them and move on. Tiderolls 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reported here. No EW for NPA's. And, I've moved on. Ta. Shaz0t (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tiderolls 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, tide. But srsly; calling me out on 'edit-warring' over someone repeatedly saying, "<redacted (it was boring, anyway) NE Ent>"? O_O Shaz0t (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not Dodge City, this is the Administrator's notice board for incidents; I don't "call out" editors. You reported the incident, that was sufficient. There was no need to continue to revert the user. Your reversion actually interferred with administrator action. I was hoping you'd get out of my way so I could act on your report. As to the essence of the "attack", it's confusing that you would mention OS and then repeat the objectionable post. Tiderolls 02:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OS? Shaz0t (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[2] Tiderolls 02:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't read it as OS in that context. Shaz0t (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Abdelaziz bin Ahmed Al Thani

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An ip editor has made an apparent legal threat[3]. Considering the content they were referring too, I don't blame them for being upset. Not sure what else needs to be done.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone's already warned the user who vandalized the page (added unsourced material which clearly violates BLP at a minimum). The legal threat is clear though. a13ean (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP appears to not be shared, so I've indefinitely blocked the IP. Feel free to change the block settings if necessary. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the block, but I didn't think we indef'd IPs. Perhaps I missed the memo. Bencherlite^Talk 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't be indeffing IPs. I say reduce the block to 1 year. GiantSnowman 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Indefinite blocks says that "While the user may be considered indefinitely blocked and subsequently blocked on sight, the IP addresses they use should only be blocked for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same user." Since the WHOIS information seems to indicate that it's probably not a shared IP, I figured that indef was ok. I'm happy to shorten it if necessary. 1 year sounds reasonable. I'll make the change. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine - I was going to do so but thought I'd check first in case guidance had changed. In the meantime, I revdel'd the offending edits. Bencherlite^Talk 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's registered to an ISP for ADSL use -- why do we think it's static? NE Ent 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I don't check WHOIS stuff that often, so I think I was confused. My bad. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is static. [4] Keep in mind, when that site says "dial up static", that is a different thing, but this is adsl. I also tested for proxy, not likely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, if you go the IPs talk page, and click the "geolocate" button, you this this site, which is more informative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it. The PC I'm currently on is setup DHCP at an institution and the site just called it static. This user on their forum says it was wrong for them, and their terms of service don't claim accuracy. The IP whois takes you to an ISP -- how the ISP connects using that IP is between them and their customers. NE Ent 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking a look at the ports, it is very, very consistent with a server. I've had static IPs on SDSL, ADSL, satellite, cable, etc over the years, so there is no reason to think that ADSL can't be static as well. It is just SDSL with crappy upload speeds, like cable is for businesses who don't do a lot of hosting. The other ports look exactly like what you would expect for this purpose as well, vpn, proxy, even a closed (interoffice) DNS system. I could be wrong, but I would bet my lunch money on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And if the consensus is that I'm wrong, by all means, fix it and tell me about it afterwards. No permission is every needed to change an action I make. I don't own them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Redflag OS/suppression missed some diffs (e.g. the first one) 88.104.5.103 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I screwed up, but when I reverted the legal threat I also reinstated the BLP, which I subsequently removed in the following edit. I hope I did that correctly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revdel the legal threat, if that's what 88.104... means, because that's not within revdel policy. I did catch the accidental reinsertion by LGR. Bencherlite^Talk 21:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned that you'd removed edit-summaries, but not actual content that was deemed a legal threat; wondered if you'd missed it. Shaz0t (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the now-indef'd user Shaz0t admitting to be IP user 88.104.5.103? That subnet was once the realm of a banned user I call "LC", but that was a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing restriction

Two administrators have suggested raising this question here.

User:LoveMonkey is under the editing restriction "LoveMonkey will not make article edits regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice", as I am correspondingly restricted from making article edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice. Would you please indicate whether this edit was a violation of the editing restriction. For myself, I believe such tagging is a violation, since allowing LoveMonkey to add this tag to information about Roman Catholic teaching or practice would open the door wide to many similar edits by both LoveMonkey and me, the sort of thing that the restriction I agreed to was meant to avoid. I have tried to get LoveMonkey to agree peaceably to withdraw his edit, as I myself recently reverted an edit that I made regarding "Western criticism of the practice of Hesychasm and by proxy the Theoria derived from it" without adverting to the heading, 10 screens up, "Eastern Orthodox Church". LoveMonkey has refused to make a similar withdrawal of his edit. On this see User talk:LoveMonkey#Edit regarding Western theology. Esoglou (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider that a violation of the restriction and have removed the tag. Esoglou is to be commended for reverting their own challenged edit. NE Ent 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted no content, I posted a tag. Esoglou however posted original research with no sourcing. He is also posting in a Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) theological article under a Greek word (theoria), his own opinion. The Roman Catholic church uses the word contemplation theres an article for that. He can post his original research there. Why is he taking over an article that is in a modern sense about a Greek Orthodox theological term and is under the Greek the word, name for it? No one in their current language uses the word theoria but the Eastern Orthodox. Esoglou has decided he has to go into that article and take it over and that is what got both of us having to contribute here under restriction. You don't see me going to the immaculate conception article stirring up a fuss. Esoglou just loves to go into Eastern Orthodox subjects and obfuscate them. I am not the only whom has complained about him. He has gotten topic banned from other subjects [5] Where he has already been accused of the same original research and edit warring. It has been requested already that there be a separate article for theoria just for the Greek Orthodox. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking editing restrictions are interpreted very broadly, so any edit is most likely going to be considered a violation. Theoria has referenced both east and western catholicism since its creation by Trc (talk · contribs) in 2004. I encourage both editors to just edit the appropriate section of any articles which cover both traditions -- my guess is continuing issues with this would most likely lead to expanding the topic ban(s). NE Ent 22:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification by admins

• Quick clarification about the two admins.
  LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) approached admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs), who declined to get involved and suggested ANI or another admin. (Discussion here).
  Esoglou then posted about this on my talk. I replied that I was unable to get involved, and suggested ANI as an alternative. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User RasboKaren inserting large sections on an extremely fringe and possibly self-invented Finno-Ugric theory in Rus' people, Varangians and Rurik Dynasty

RasboKaren, which is a single purpose account, is repeatedly violating WP:Fringe by inserting massive sections [6] [7] [8] in Rus' people, Varangians and Rurik Dynasty on a possibly self-invented and very fringe theory that basically claims that the Vikings, at least the ones living in Sweden, weren't a Germanic people at all but Finns, basing his claim on non-scientific "evidence" (he has for example interpreted the claim by a scientist that a small number of pre-historic skeletal remains on an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, halfway between the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic countries, could possibly be of Finno-Ugric origin as proving that the Scandinavian peninsula was inhabited by Finns and not Germanic people well into the Viking age...). His additions have been repeatedly reverted by both me and other users, citing WP:Fringe. I have issued a user warning for disruptive editing, clearly informing him of the reason for the reversals of his edits, with the result that he has now issued a user warning to me for removing his fringe theories, an act that I see as talk page vandalism. Thomas.W (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Seems a pretty clear-cut case of tendentious fringe-pushing, and obvious edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The user has immediately reappeared on Rus' people as IP 213.216.208.242 (which geolocates to Oulu, Finland) and added the fringe theories again. I will file a WP:SPI for block evasion. Thomas.W (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Police_Association_Credit_Co-operative_Limited - Name change request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Police Association Credit Co-Operative Limited is now known as Police Financial Services Limited and I'd like to request that the title be changed to reflect this. See the business name on the footer of their website Minden jacob (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an admin for that -- I moved it for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attention needed at WP:UAA

Some pretty horrendous usernames are uttering some pretty horrendous things at Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense. Let's dispense of this unpleasantness and likely socking. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC) User:Billinghurst may be taking care of it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup

I would like to talk about the behaviour of user Dantetheperuvian on the article related to the Intercontinental Cup: 1- he insists that the Lipton Trophy, the Rio Cup, the Pequeña Copa del Mundo and the Intercontinental Cup were competitions created with the purpose of being a club world title, and he states that it is "a fact": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intercontinental_Cup_(football)&action=history . However, the source presented by him does not support that informantion; 2- it is a matter of controversy the value of the Intercontinental Cup as "world scale" cup. Many respectable sources do see it so. However, many others don't, based on the fact that it has always been accessable only to South American and European clubs and always unaccessable to clubs of other parts of the world (Asians, Africans, North Americans, etc) all over its history, even on moments when clubs of other parts of the world beat the South American clubs. Well, all the debate and all the sources and all the argumentations are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup . As you will be able to see , the supposed "world-scale value" of the Intercontinental Cup is not officially enforced by the sole soccer world-scale official authority (FIFA), therefore being a non-official matter, in other words, a matter of each one's personal interpretation. The user Dantetheperuvian is trying to use the Wikipedia to prove his personal interpretation that the Intercontinental Cup has the same value of the FIFA Club World Cup, the only club football cup which has officially (by FIFA) world-scale value. I beg you please check the Edit History of the article Intercontinental Cup and the Discussion page, mainly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup , which has a lot of sources and argumentations, all dismissed by Mr Dantetheperuvian . I would also like to please request that moderation/dispute resolution be open concerning the Intercontinental Cup article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.9.25 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, a matter for WP:DR, which has nothing to do with administrators. Neither adding nor removing the contended information rises to the level of vandalism. You and Dantetheperuvian have been edit warring on this nonsense for a week, and you've both broken WP:3RR today. 87.113.165.189 (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel sorry to have made the request at the inapropriate place, but I am not very well acquainted with the working of the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.8.36 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Karl Rove

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One newly registered editor (Antrtsg) and an IP (115.132.84.89) are repeatedly adding claims about Karl Rove being involved in voter suppression. Initially unsourced, now sourced to a blog. Both have been warned about WP:BLP, but revert without comment. Suspect IP = Antrtsg.

Initial addition: [9]

1st revert and expansion: [10]

2nd revert: [11]

3rd revert: [12]

1st ip revert: [13]

2nd ip revert: [14]

Glaucus (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The page needs to be semi-protected, and that will suppress the votes of BLP violators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a request at WP:RFPP in case no one does it here first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for a week and removed the BLP-problematic section.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Koalagcf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
on Talk:Jesusian "looks like I will have to contact my lawyer" diff Jim1138 (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say that a block is not necessary at this point (the talk page has been deleted, and I'll explain to him why suing Wikipedia wouldn't have made sense). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • More of a case of clue than anything. I am cool with whatever you choose to do. As long as his disruption doesn't spread or continue, a hearty talking-to and a suggestion that he go to Teahouse or the help desk and ask for help should be sufficient. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Koalagcf is not happy talk Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And yet another 45 minutes of living I'll never get back. Oh, well. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a valiant attempt to help in some ways, but the way his talkpage reads, I'd have probably left in a huff too (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by LittleBenW

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just make a WP:LEGAL threat (a claim of libel) against me, toward the end of WP:AN3#LittleBenW, where he's already blockable for 6 reflexive reverts (among other transgressions, such as a series of personal attacks against anyone critical of his proposals as "vandals", etc.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that a legal threat, just another example of his extreme battleground mentality and incivility when confronted with normal criticism. Some action is necessary, perhaps mentoring or something similar, but retaliating with overreactions isn't going to help either. He just needs to back off and turn down the rhetoric substantially. Leaving the diacritics area alone for a (long) while and focusing on other topics may be advisable as well. Fram (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He needs to lose that term "libel", which is a legal term and thus violates the NLT rules. Although he might be blockable for other things anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. I don't feel threatened, mind you, it's just that I've regularly observed a pretty close to zero-tolerance ANI approach to people bandying about claims that they have been "libeled", "slandered" or "defamed", with blocks being pretty much automatic and immediate. I'm not sure I even agree with the policy (I feel WP is legally paranoid in several ways for no real gain), but WP:OFFICE set that policy, not the community, so it's not something that can be WP:IAR'd. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think he is definitely blockable at this point. I am involved in the thread where this happened so I will let another admin decide if that is true. But I think its pretty clear at this point he is blockable for something. If not for NLT reasons any of a number of the things pointed out over at the AN3 section linked to above are valid reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Describing something as "libel" is not a threat per se, but it is certainly heading in that direction. GiantSnowman 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Historically, ANI has appeared to treat it as a legal threat, hasn't it? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If it has, it shouldn't have - and when I was accused of libel a few weeks ago and it ended up at ANI the editor was blocked for disruption, not legal threats. There's a big difference between saying "that's libel" and saying "that's libel, I'm suing." GiantSnowman 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not recently, kind of depends who's around that day. "Libel" by itself is not a threat just because it's a legal term. We say copyright all the time and that's a legal term. NE Ent 12:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Typically, yes, it's considered a legal threat, and it's often bundled with other blockable behavior. As soon as someone starts yelling "libel!" they have to be told to remove and disavow that comment or they'll be blocked for it. The NLT rule is as much about intimidation as it is about actually taking legal action. The editor in question MUST lose that word from his comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that. Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to remember that. (Last time I brought this here it was an actual "I"m going to sue you, expect to hear from my lawyer" unmistakable threat.) PS: LittleBenW made both slander and libel claims (not understanding the difference) in the same post, just for the record. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin closure of invalid RfC requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On a related but different note re: the above, I've asked for an admin closure of the entire bogus, disruptive RfC at WT:Biographies of living people#Reliable sources for names in BLPs (essay for discussion). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage share of web browsers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user A3e6u9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made me personal attacks on Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers. I made an edit on Usage share of web browsers article. I changed the article to non-mobile browser usage statistics, because mobile and non-mobile statistics can be confusing. But I faced harrassment after.He never discussed this issue before reveting my edit, instead he opened a chapter with my nick, harrassed me, insulted me , that I hit his nerves, that I give him headaches etc.... He never discussed the issue, directly attacked me, and hoped that "someone would ban me". It made me sad to face such insults. Thank you.--Free ottoman (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What is it that you are requesting with this thread? Doc talk 12:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I request that an administrator gives him warning on talk page of the article. The admin must tell him, if repeats, he faces consequences.--Free ottoman (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You can warn him against personal attacks yourself - you don't need an admin to do it for you. I personally think A3e6u9 is being abrasive, but not directly attacking you. However, if he really is attacking you, dramatising it and making an issue of it is not a good idea - it makes things worse. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I warned him.. Please leave this ticket open in case he continues his bully behaviour.--Free ottoman (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It will close in 24hrs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you please tell me a single constructive edit that you have made? You are deleting everything, your edits are full of errors, I'm not saying that it's intentional, I don't attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to incompetence. Some of your edits can be regarded as vandalism, I can give examples of that. A3e6u9 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that excuse abrasiveness? Or is it better to guide gently? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You can give examples so we can check, but make very very sure you are certain they are edits with deliberate malicious intent behind them. Like you said, don't attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to incompetence. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usage_share_of_operating_systems&direction=next&oldid=523118638 As you can see, there was no basis for the percentage of Windows 8. He has wreaked havoc on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers deleting almost every chart, you can see his latest deletions in history, which I have undone. A3e6u9 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. All I can see is unsourced information was added, and Free ottoman may be just slightly confused by our verifibility policy. There's certainly no proof he attempted to maliciously manipulate figures for his own amusement. A bona fide case of vandalism would be more along the lines of replacing the percentages with a message like "micro$oft sucks linux roolz yah" (don't try this at home). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, he may not be malevolent, but he is disruptive. Hopefully, this dialogue will persuade him to stop his disruptive edits. A3e6u9 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I need help. this user is non stop harrasing me here, and on talk page, non stop discussing about me. (not my edits) asking other people to stop me? Please take the necessary action, administrators. He is obsessed with me. He is not discussing disputed material, he is reverting my edits, and he is talking about me non stop. Please send him a warning about this.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

I beg administrators to enforce this. Please. Thanks.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Who on earth do you think you are coming on here and demanding people do things? Remember that Wikipedia is a voluntary project, and stomping your foot loudly won't necessarily give you the desired effect. I've managed to convince A3e6u9 that you're not obviously vandalising anything, but you are adding unverifiable, unsourced information and any other editor has a perfect right to challenge you on that. Why can't you just get along? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one adding unsourced information. I am removing the material.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Using the direct example given above, in this diff, you added an unsourced claim that the share of Windows 8 as an operating system was 26.35%, without leaving an edit summary. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about Usage share of Web Browsers. A3e6u9 is trying to install back disputed material, showing non-mobile and mobile shares together in the statistics. He doesn't discuss on talk page of the disputed material. He even opened an extra chapter on talk page with my nick on title and made the issue personal. Still making it personal here.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My patience has limits. Please stop deleting that chart, the information in it is correct and up to date, only you are disputing it because you think that there should be two charts, or whatever. That page is not your personal playground. When you edited the chart to show only non-mobile usage, the numbers were wrong, because you have to recalculate when taking out the mobile usage share. A3e6u9 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, both of you let your backs down for a moment. Wikipedia goes by WP:CONSENSUS ... and use WP:BRD as your best friend. In other words, if you make an edit and it gets reverted, do not try to re-add it until it's discussed at length on the talkpage of the article. As much as we like WP:BOLD, BRD is still the process at its simplest. What we have is a content dispute about layout of stats, but I see a couple of editors insisting it's their way or no other. WRONG. Although I can understand that some people may view change as disruptive, WP:AGF that both editors are trying to improve the article. Nobody is allowed to say "I'll only accept X if Y happens" ... nope, doesn't work that way. So, STOP calling good faith changes disruption or vandalism. It's also 100% inappropriate to start a section on the article talkpage where you NAME ANOTHER EDITOR and then say "he's getting on my nerves". Very uncivil, and I recommend it be changed/removed immediately ... that is commenting on the editor instead of their edits. Otherwise, BOTH of you are due for a block for slow edit-warring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, he is attacking me personal, (I never attacked him personal) He is aggressively trying to install disputed material (I am removing contested material) . He is not even responding on talk page. Tell me what I should do. Thanks.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He is saying that "his patience has limits", even on admin noticeboard here. Nothing can be said more.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Give him a FEW minutes at least to read what I wrote, digest it, and fix it. Both of you are partly at fault here - so re-read what I said, start from square one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You are whining like a little girl. I'm washing my hands of all of this, you can go and delete all the charts, I don't care. Or maybe you would like to replace the correct numbers with incorrect numbers, whatever you wish. If nobody wants to do anything about it, it's wikipedia's problem, I have my own. A3e6u9 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, after the way you're going on, my patience is beginning to fray a bit too. Stop whining, the pair of you unless you'd both like to be blocked per Bwilkins' rationale. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have returned the article to the WP:WRONGVERSION, and full-protected it. If both sets of editors are going to play the "fine, someone else do it" game, then I'll have to say that's the most useless and petty BS I've ever seen - not getting your way, so you're whinging off to sulk in a bug huff. Go. Talk nicely. Come to a NEW consensus. Ask for a third opinion. Follow WP:DR. Whatever. Just stop being jerks to each other, and start acting like you're a part of this community. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that chart look right to you? If it does, maybe you should check your maths. A3e6u9 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User continuous removal of contents and disruptive edits

Basith1993(talk) keeps on vandalizing pages, some of which include removal of contents, reference links and faking existing links with his original content and abuse in biographic articles of living persons in the article Harris Jayaraj. These are some of his edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522423592

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522424493

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522993583

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522996169

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=523306372

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mankatha&diff=prev&oldid=524155470

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mankatha&diff=next&oldid=524155570

The user needs to be blocked from editing as he continuously intends to vandalize some pages. He continuously keeps on removing the contents even after reverting his edits and warning him in talk page.Goosebumps7 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Basith1993 certainly needs to read up on our verifiability policy, and their removals of content may look suspicious, but looking through their contributions I would say that they are editing in good faith. They haven't edited since Moonriddengirl gave them a warning, so I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see if they take notice of what she said. I don't think any kind of sanction is warranted here at the moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The user still continues to remove the same contents which he had been removing previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=524469528

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_film_music_directors&diff=prev&oldid=524469103

He is also suspected of editing with an IP address 59.189.155.240 (talk). The IP address undoes the reverts editors make to Basith1993(talk) edits, removes the same contents that Basith1993(talk) removes and the same disruptive edits that Basith1993(talk) makes in the pages Thuppakki and Harris Jayaraj . Proofs

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_film_music_directors&diff=prev&oldid=524150348

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=523605848

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522961257

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522945325

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522810645

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522748473

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522748213

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522451355

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522423216

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522415501

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522307057

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filmfare_Award_for_Best_Music_Director_%E2%80%93_Tamil&diff=prev&oldid=522173519

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522002971

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filmfare_Award_for_Best_Music_Director_%E2%80%93_Tamil&diff=prev&oldid=521999751

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=521980058

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522614835

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522614350

With out a doubt the ip is of the same person and both doesn't seem to respond in their talk page. Both Basith1993(talk) and 59.189.155.240 (talk) requires a block.Goosebumps7 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese islands and more...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to ask Administrators to convince Wiki-editor User talk:DAJF to comply‎ with Wiki-rules, university and international standards, dictionaries and handbooks when editing articles on Japan. His activity causes a mess in the Japanese transcription and Japanese names. He should rather avoid the subject. --Seibun (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

About those wiki-rules - we don't actually seem to have any rules for hyphenation like this in Japanese article titles at the moment. I looked at MOS:JAPAN, and there are a few mentions of hyphens there, but nothing that we could definitely apply in this situation. I see that at User talk:DAJF#Inu-jima you pointed out that MOS:JAPAN says "If no romanization is given by the reliable sources used in an article, use modified Hepburn Romanization." That's a good start, but we need to know exactly what "use modified Hepburn romanization" means without having to resort to reference books.

I note that our Hepburn romanization article doesn't have a description of how to use hyphens, so probably the best way of solving this is by adding some rules about hyphenation to MOS:JAPAN. The best place to discuss this is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, which is well-watched by Wikipedia's Japanophiles (including myself). How about starting a new thread there? Also, until we have a consensus about what to do with the hyphens, you shouldn't make any page moves that are purely switching between hyphened and hyphen-less titles. Now that we know that the hyphenation is disputed, moving pages from one version to another could be seen as disruptive, and if it's really bad it might get you blocked. (I hope very much that things won't come to that.) At the very least you should use a requested move for any individual pages you want to move, but the best thing to do would be to find a consensus on what to do for all similar cases and stick to that. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good answer! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad faith account -- pls consider blocking (etc)

The Wikipedia community appreciates that WMAU is in the midst of a challenging election. At the same time, this is *your* issue, not English Wikipedia's. Please, all of you (unlinked alternate accounts included), keep the debate on your own wiki. Risker (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This account was created purely to post a bad faith attack on User:Jimbo Wales talk page diff, the user says I am writing this under the wrong user name and not mentioning names... but it very to clear who the intended target is as ...looding DYK with poorly written articles given there was recent discussions both here and at DYK. As have had dealings with both the target user and the person with whom I suspect is behind this account I think it would unnecessarly escalate the matter if I was to block the throw away account. I ask that the throw away account be blocked, I'll now notify the throw away account of this discusion, and will withdraw from the discussion to enable uninvolved admins to consider whether blocking the throw away account is sufficient or whether a sockpuppet investigation should occur or if other appropriate steps should be taken. As part of the transparency this information alluded to has been known to ARBCOM for some time, the source of that information can only be from ARBCOM or the result of personal information posted on a member only chapter mailing list, ie private mailing list. Gnangarra 13:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Indef blocking the throwaway account is only useful due to the possibility that doing so might catch the good-hand account (if we want to consider it that) in an autoblock. Since the throwaway account (by definition) only intended to make that one edit, blocking it doesn't serve any other purpose. An SPI and checkuser on the throwaway account might be more useful, but in the circumstances it would be best to provide the username of the suspected sockmaster (the good-hand account), and the relevant evidence, privately, rather than on-wiki. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Why wouldn't we block an admitted sleeper sock? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Because it's not a sleeper sock - it's an admitted alternate account. The whole point of a sleeper sock is to build up a seeming second person - announcing from edit one that you're an alternate account means you aren't doing that. WilyD 14:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Agreed. However, I do believe it is a bad-hand account, which I noted on Jimbo's talk page. The entire post had a "run to daddy" feel to it by someone who wants to attack from the shadows. Resolute 14:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC) What is that account doing? Admitted? Alternate of whom? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The contribution is here. The question is mostly moot, since it's exceedingly unlikely the person will ever use the account again. The account was explicitly an alternate account they created to ask Jimbo about a possible undisclosed conflict of interest in a chapter election, and they used an alternate account because they feared retribution for asking (which appears to be justified). WilyD 15:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Not seeking retribution if I wanted that I would have just blocked the account as a sock and user account created solely for the purpose of faciliating a personal attack or opened a SPI request. The account can be blocked without blocking the IP address of the account that doesnt out the user who made the accusations. Gnangarra 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Where or how is the allegation justified? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Largely irrelevant really, I wouldnt get worry about it. (Unless you live in Australia, then worry a bit) Its not an en-wiki issue. Its internal WMAU chapter politics. Which while the allegations may be of interest to the WMF and Jimbo, isnt relevant to the greater en-wiki community. Unfortunately, if they wanted to bring it to Jimbo's attention, his talk page here is the most direct method. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Hm? That post talks about en-wiki content, en-wiki blocking, and uses an en-wiki account. So, it's en-wiki behavior. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Is it trying to en-wiki out others, though use of a sock? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Looks like it to me. I'd guess that's why Jimbo used the specific phrase "people's private living arrangements" (my emphasis). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The "most direct method" is in fact "Email this user" and not the talk page. Such private information has no place on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Can we not beat about the bush here, is it related to the WMAU mailing list vitriol? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, see that it is. The diff is not exactly nice but given the principles involved Jimmy's opinion might actually be relevant. The similar situation with WMUK ended up at his talk page after all. Frankly the WMF should give all the chapters a shake by the neck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Well, Jimbo's opinion was "It is very very difficult for me to imagine how people's private living arrangements could possibly have anything to do with anything. If you'd like to email me with details that you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, then I might understand better what it is you are talking about." Both sentences are relevant here. Presumably whichever trusted person ends up dealing with the eventual SPI can enquire of Jimbo whether this "alternate account" with the rather unique and noticeable writing style ever did email him with further details or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) If this is about Wikimedia Australia, and it sure looks like it, that 'private' living arrangement has been described publicly in the acknowledgements section of user:LauraHale's thesis, which she has published online and has linked to during the Gibraltarpedia discussions here on English Wikipedia. So the sock could be anyone with access to the Internet, and anyone involved in Gibraltarpedia discussions could have noticed this. No need to blame arbcom or WMAU members for the leak. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Lets not forget the other leaks from the Committee shall we? Sorry John but you have no right to state (without the permission from the person involved) what you have just stated above, whether or not it is public elsewhere or not. It would be like someone posting your address and phone number from the white pages. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User: Sean.hoyland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I've been making the odd contribution here on Wikipedia for quite some time but only recently opened an account (as my contributions grew longer and more frequent). I feel as though Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated Wikipedia's civility principles WP:CIV by being needlessly aggressive and threatening. There's nothing wrong with being forthright and concise but I feel the user's remarks contravene Wikipedia's bullying policies WP:BULLY. The dispute can be seen at Talk:Hamas#Canada.27s_designation_of_Hamas. I take issue with Sean.hoyland's condescending insinuations that because I'm a relatively new user, I should heed the commands of more experienced ones. I also take issue with his demand to self revert for supposedly being in contravention of a WP:1RR restriction (I only reverted Sean.hoyland's edit ONCE, so I'm not in contravention of anything). Being told "I need to respond and self-revert," in addition to being threatened that if I do not do so a report will be filed against me that will see me banned, is not only unhelpful, it's downright disgraceful (doesn't Wikipedia want to expand its base of established editors? I argue Sean.hoyland's attempts to intimidate only act as a setback to that goal). I also take great offence to wording such as "things don't work that way" and "hmmm...it seems you have no idea what you are dealing with." I've always tried to edit in good faith and I've had a number of productive discussions with many other editors in the past. Sean.hoyland's tactics all just seem uncouth, excessive, and unnecessary. Factcolony (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This report is in response to my filing this edit warring report for violation of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions. That report could have been avoided with a simple self-revert. That will be almost certainly be my only comment here. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I filed this report in response to Sean.hoyland's bullying and pathetic intimidation tactics which are obviously on full display here -- "That report could have been avoided with a simple self-revert." (i.e. had I done what was "demanded" of me, none of his threats would have materialized). As the old adage goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. By the way, I've been watching Sean.hoyland's account activity for some time now. I'm seriously considering filing a sock puppetry complaint as well. Factcolony (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I closed the report a WP:ANEW with a 24-hour block of Factcolony. The report here is nonsense. If anything, Sean went out of his way to help Factcolony. The unfounded sock puppetry accusation leads me to believe that Factcolony's problems may continue after expiration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can't say that Sean Hoyland's approach was "bullying". As you say that many of your early contributions were as an IP user, there is no way for anyone to know this and thus having a look at your short list of contributions it is only a reasonable assumption that you are a new user. From that perspective, Sean Hoyland's responses are perfectly reasonable in attempting to make you aware of the sanctions that are in place surrounding articles in this particular area, which are also displayed at the top of the talk page. Also, a revert does not have to be via the Undo button; manually deleting text is also considered a revert. Thus your deletion of the text in the table, followed by Sean's revert, which you then revert would count as 2 reverts by you and as such Sean's comment that you self revert, which effectively counters that second revert you made, is entirely correct. I highly recommend you go to the top of the talk page and have a look through this link, where the Arbitration committee remedies are laid out in detail. If anything, rather than bullying you, Sean was actually trying his level best not to get you topic banned off the article. (By the way, a topic ban is different to an outright ban. The former is a community decided sanction forbidding you from editing an article, which cannot be done by any admin tools. An outright ban is an admin tool enforced block of you from editing anywhere on the site. Please see WP:TBAN and WP:CBAN for the difference. Blackmane (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow on comment Suggesting that Sean Hoyland may be a, or may have, sockpuppet is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Failure to present this evidence is considered a personal attack. Rather than exacerbate the situation, please consider retracting that statement so that one thing can be dealt with at a time. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The OP has posted a "Retired" notice [15]. Closure of this section is recommended. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gallura

Hello! In the last week or so, a user named Gallura has been editing the Broken Sword I work on, filling them with false information. He's saying that the voice acting was directed by a certain director, changes the names of the current voice actors, for example, changing names of confirmed actresses of one of the characters, co-protagonist Nicole Collard, and something about her half brothers or sisters being cast as other characters, and a bunch of other things which don't have a source and are not true. Looks as if it's the work of a vandal. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallura (talk · contribs), Broken Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please provide a link to where you discussed this issue with the user before bringing it here? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bovlb and Khanassassin I am Gallura. I am also the actress who voiced Nicole Collard in Broken Sword II, The Smoking Mirror. I am not, and have never been, a vandal. I am in possession of my contract with Revolution software for my voiceover, and I have today received a Tweet from Charles Cecil, Director of Revolution Software who made the BS II video game in 1997, apologising for the Wikipedia and IMDB errors, where my name was erroneously replaced with that of another actress. My half brother was the director of all the actors voicing Broken Sword II, and he is today the Director of a well-known theatre in London and has a fine entry on Wikipedia. Please stop deleted the truth, it really does not suit Wikipedia. With thanks. Gallura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallura (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallura, Wikipedia operates on verfiability, not truth. What we need are reliable, independent, secondary sources that can confirm that information. Your declaration that it is the truth is not enough. A tweet from someone associated with the video game is not a reliable source. There is also a conflict of interest issue that you should consider as well. Changing information in an article to be about you and your siblings without reliable sources is often a sign of disruptive editing, even if that was not the intent here. So it is easy to understand why Khanassassin believed that the editing was disruptive. I would suggest avoiding directly editing articles that you are in a conflict of interest with. Instead, start a discussion on the article's talk page. I would also suggest looking for reliable, secondary sources that can back up your claims.

I would suggest to a reviewing admin that if Gallura can follow my suggestions above, this thread could be closed. Singularity42 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My question above was directed to Khanassassin. As the instructions at the top of the page say, people should discuss issues with the other user before bringing them here. I couldn't find any sign of Khanassassin having done that (on either article or user talk), which was why I asked for a link before engaging the issue prematurely. Apart from that, I agree with everything Singularity42 said, and would emphasize that content issues should be sorted out by discussion on the relevant article talk page, not here.

Gallura, I hope your experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy has not left you too disheartened. I hope you appreciate that we have to deal with a constant onslaught of vandals, and that erroneous changes to actor names is very common. One approach you might take is to ask your contact to make sure that the correct information is published somewhere that could be cited as a reliable source, for example somewhere on the Revolution Software website. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that Khanassassin should abandon his ownership of articles, explain his rationale for reverting and discuss it with the person. I have been watching the article on which he just reverts without explanation and even inappropriately uses the rollback feature. Nothing has been changed since then, the same behaviour. Claiming that this was vandalism is utter nonsense. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor claims to want to make me "famous" by making a movie about my actions which they dispute

Regarding article: Internet television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a long-running debate between an editor in Greece and an editor in the USA over a history section. The problem is that neither claim is well sourced (the one from the USA has provided a newspaper link where he's identified as "one of the first" (not stating the first, just one of the first), and links that prove the website existed at the time they claim. They insist we use original research from that to identify them as the first unless someone else can provide a source for their own website. A consensus among only a couple users was reached on the talk page to simply omit the section as the claims from neither party could be reliably sourced. But, the editor from the USA has been re-re-re-restating on the talk page that the claim of them being first should be restored.

The page is currently semi-protected (by me) for sockpuppetry. The editor from Greece only returns to edit via multiple IPs when the page protection expires and does not take part on the talk page; while the editor from the USA appears to have stayed on the same IP for a while now and appears to have abandoned his user account.

Their latest maneuver is to state that they are going to make a movie about the Wikipedia page to post to their internet television website, insisting I will be made "famous". As I'm involved and also the one to have semi-protected the article page, I wanted to post here to request a review of my actions and to get other eyes to review the article and talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

An internet movie about wikipedia. Wow. That should get the same level of viewership as videos of cute kittens and trendy dance moves, right? Or maybe not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably about the same viewership as those watching people hurt themselves, which is more or less the same thing when it comes to wikipedia, for some people at least. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion (agreeing with you) has not changed since last June. An extraordinary claim, being the "first" Internet TV station, must be backed with multiple high quality reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 in home video

A non-logged in user has been making repeated incorrect edits to 2013 in home video. I have reverted his/her edits multiple times. The user in questions has already received multiple warnings from admins for doing the same thing to other pages. I would appreciate admin help with this issue. Thanks. --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By non logged in editor do you mean an IP editor or a registered editor posting while logged out to hide their identity and if so why do you suspect that?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know. I just know that the edits belong to a IP address not a registered user. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, there has been an incident and the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers is under protection. The problem is that the chart displayed on top is erroneous. I'd suggest that an administrator who knows basic maths should look at it and fix it. Thank you. P.S. My edits were correct, you can check that. A3e6u9 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the article talk page. AN/I is not the place to solve the underlying content dispute that resulted in the protection. Generally we prefer to stop edit wars, even if that means the wrong information is in the article until talk page consensus can be reached. Once you have established consensus for a particular version, make an {{edit protected}} on the article talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 06:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if you don't mind wrong information being displayed, that's fine with me. A3e6u9 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No one wants information that is wrong in articles, but edit warring is not the solution. What you should do is go to the article talk page, and present your case for why your version is right. Be sure to include Reliable Sources that support the factual changes you wish to see made. If after making a clear case for why your version is correct, you are still unable to convince the other editors to the talk page, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on how to proceed. Monty₈₄₅ 07:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no problem with the edits until someone came along to delete every chart from that page. I'm not the only one who was irritated by this. I've just looked at an up to date chart that is missing from the page for whatever reason. Because of one individual who made that page his personal playground, all the editors are having problems submitting their correct changes. I've tried to talk to the individual, but he did not stop. I'm not a babysitter, to revert all his disruptive changes all the time, I'm fed up with all of this, really. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going off of Monty's point, BWilkins referenced this essay when he fully protected the chart. If you haven't read it already, you may want too: While humorous/sarcastic, the point it makes is that this page has been protected precisely because there is dispute over what is or isn't "the wrong version." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Any half-wit can see that the chart is wrong, simply because it's missing over 20%, which is no small loss. Plus, if you look at the code, the maths is simply wrong. If someone wants to remove the mobile stats, the stats need to be recalculated. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The chart is missing 20%, that is clear. But you are also not listening, the way to fix it isn't to tell us here on this notice board. The way to fix it is to explain it on the talk page of the article, and follow the dispute resolution process. Monty₈₄₅ 07:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What is there to dispute, that 3x3 is not 13? Math is not disputable, I'm sorry to say. If no administrator with basic math knowledge wants to fix that chart, that is wikipedia's problem, not mine. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page regarding both this issue, and the issue that was the focus of the edit war. If no one objects, I will make and edit request to fix the percentage and bar length issues with the current chart in a day or two. I suggest you offer your views on the merits of both issues there, and will leave the other involved editor a similar invitation. Monty₈₄₅ 08:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A3e6u9 was reported for violating WP:HA, WP:CON, and WP:3RR. He even called me a little girl on this board. After he didn't respond to debate the issue on article talk page , A3e6u9 said he doesn't care about the chart anymore. By the way, the chart has reference from wikimedia statistics.Free ottoman (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The earlier ticket was closed to discuss the issue on talk page. Why did he open a duplicate ticket for the same subject?--Free ottoman (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A3e6u9 is asking for an edit request through the protection, despite the fact that this is not what ANI is for. Please do not resume the bickering that was closed in the previous ANI. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. We were told to find a consensus on article talk page. He is the one asking for edit request, I am waiting his proposals on talk page, but I have no response yet there, I don't understand why he opened a new ticket instead of discussing the issue there?--Free ottoman (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Smartmo keeps putting WP:CRYSTALBALL failed predictions on Mobile operating system

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Smartmo (talk) keeps putting the failed predictions of International Data Corporation on Mobile operating system and its liked files. I have tried many times to explain that he has to have a neutral point of view and that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that he should not keep posting failed predictions and also disregard predictions that he does not like. Would you help make Mobile operating system and its linked files have a neutral point of view?

Prediction of IDC is not failed, is last and still valid. IDC predictions is credible research and is officially published in past (it is fact), and is related to article, there no reason to suppress. Information about market outlook is on this page for some years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have, perhaps, misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and so we only need information about things that can be verified to be accurate. It appears that you are reading some predictions of what may happen, and reporting them as factual statements of what will certainly happen. Since the future growth of a company has not happened yet, it cannot yet be verified to be accurate. Next year, when Android has indeed gained market share, add the information about what happened, and how. You've been accurately informed about the rules -Wikipedia does not predict the future, but simply writes about the past and present. Are you willing to follow the rules, and confine yourself to writing about things that have happened? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Smartmo (talk • contribs) continues vandalizing wikipedia. What can I do next? -Davidkmartin (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Smartmo has misunderstood the rules, and is edit-warring. I've asked him to stop, explained the edit-warring rule to him, and added the relevant article to my watchlist, so I can see if he does indeed stop. Your use of the word 'vandalism' indicates that he is also vandalizing, I assume, but I don't see any vandalism in his contribution history. Can you provide a diff to the vandalism edits? It is important not to call an edit vandalism unless it is genuinely a malicious and intentional defacing of the encyclopedia. Putting a giant picture of a penis in the middle of the article would be vandalism; what I see happening is not vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Smartmo (talk • contribs) is not doing vandalism. He is edit-warring. -Davidkmartin (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This chapter in this article is not only about future on the market, this chapter is about relevant and interesting information published by IDC world leading company, and this information is published in past, not in future. Also this chapter is there for some years, there no reason to remove it, and without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the rules so quickly? Do you want to say anything specific about them? From this message, I can't tell whether you have read the rules yet or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read this rules, especially WP:CRYSTAL I not see nothing wrong on a short chapter with related information from the world leading agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Davidkmartin keeps overwriting official published information with personal information and rumors. Also still overwriting charts on this article. All without any discussion on talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs)

If you're responding to a previous comment, you don't need a new section heading; I've corrected the problem. I've posted more specifically on your talk page, with a link to some of the rules you might be misunderstanding. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:3RR would be useful reading for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, information in this article is not related to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:3RR, it is relevant information to article published in past. There no reason to suppress. And not at all replaced with rumors. Also this information is on page for some years, where is reason of one user to remove it, again without any discussion, and attack me for "vandalism", I'm keeping information on this page in past, not vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! thank you for reading all of the rules closely. Now that you know that you are expected to get consensus before making your desired changes, you won't restore this information to the article again until you have shown the other users exactly how the rules support this information as part of the best, most accurate possible version of this article. You won't be edit-warring any more, and so we won't have to block you. I'm afraid I don't understand quite how a published source, even a very good one, can verify accurately what will happen in the future, but if it's true that published predictions are guaranteed to be accurate, and that no prediction of this sort has ever been wrong, then I'm sure you'll be able to help others understand how those sources achieve that level of reliability. The discussion of the specifics of that belong on the article's talk page, since I don't really know enough about Android, operating systems, or market shares to contribute usefully, and the people who do have the knowledge will be more likely to see it on that page. We're just here to help you understand the rules. Thanks, and I wish you the best of luck in creating the most accurate and neutral version of this article possible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I thought you said you read WP:3RR closely? I think you misunderstood it. Since you are in clear violation of that rule after being clearly informed of it, I've blocked you for 31 hours. However, you'll be welcome to join the conversation on the talk page when the block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

urgent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

joe swash is about to be vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.172.71 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• ClueBot has been catching vandalism on this page effectively. If it doesn't, other users will. This does not require administrator attention. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI Role Account

It appears that User Keithbates51 (talk · contribs) is an account shared by multiple people. I've looked a bit into it and the bigger picture shows little doubt this may violate Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Role_accounts;

• " Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates have reverted the Wikipedia Mail Art page"
• " We have both practised Mail Art"
• " We decided not to include any list of famous or notable mailartists"
• " Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates"
• " what Vittore and I regard as the most important here "
• " sites that Vittore Baroni and I think are most useful to interested readers "
• " Vittore and I regard as enriching."
• " that Vittore and I feel are most important "
• " we are both still confused"
• " we are suggesting,"
• " Vittore Baroni and myself wrote the original copy in 2010"
• " We request that a mere three be reinstated, we feel these are the most relevant and informative"
• " Keith Bates and Vittore Baroni"

Apparently this has been going on for some time...adding themselves and website (keithbates.co.uk) [16][17][18][19][20] and creating articles about themselves ie Vittore Baroni. --Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you (Hu12) ask them if the account was shared on their talk page before opening an ANI thread? NE Ent 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've included (above) diffs showing the account signing comments as, "Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates" and editing on behalf of "Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates". They have received notice of this thread. --Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader explains " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." (emphasis original). Ask them on their talk page first -- maybe they don't understand the policy about accounts only having one user. NE Ent 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps to resolve a grievance or dispute but this is neither, nor would doing so make appropriate the continued use of Role accounts in this case. I'm an involved with the user on separate matter and it would be best to pass this to another administrator. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and notified the user of the possible problem here. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandal with the "my little brother did it" excuse.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Coolkidmoa (talk · contribs)

Excuses, excuses

Repeat vandal, nowt worth saving. Now they're admitting to a compromised account. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tanzeersaji: AfD removal warning and subsequent abusive message

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I issued this user with a Warning-level notice on removing the AfD notice from the Tanseer Saji article: [21]. The user has subsequently changed my User page thus: [22]. It is also worth noting that the article history shows a couple of IP addresses being utilised to the same attempted end of removing the AfD notice: [23]. Overall this is a pattern of lack of civility and willingness to adhere to editing norms. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-Nazi League and Squadism articles

I have removed a substantial amount of material added by a new user User:Spandrell to these articles. I did so because the material looked contentious and badly cited. Philip Cross (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your revert on Anti-Nazi League looks a bit harsh, although the sourcing left something to desire. But other sources could quickly confirm the contents of the book, like this one or [24].

Squadism was one mess of WP:OR, seeing the comment From personal experience/knowledge I have provided a lot of background information to clarify and enlarge on the brief. simplistic, outline of "Squadism" previously provided. So the revert was, in my opinion, valid.

The tendency to fight back is certainly true, as I have seen first hand years ago in The Netherlands. The Banner _talk 20:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on what we currently have, Squadism appears to fail WP:N quite miserably. I happen to know its not something someone has just made up, but we need more than a blog entry that doesn't even have the word "Squadism" in it. Maybe it could be merged to Red Action? Formerip (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman

For the last several weeks me and user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman have been engaged into a dispute on the use of concepts Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority. The dispute has often resulted in high tones and a very large number of notification messages by user:Emmette to me and several other users, which apparently were spamming in my case and possible votestacking in several other cases. I herewith provided a warning to user:Emmette on Oct.29 to stop leaving numerous messages on my talk page regarding discussions, which i'm already participating in [25]. User:Emmette politely agreed to avoid my talk page as a result [26]. The next day, user:Emmette issued a dummy rename proposal in my name on Palestinian territories talk page, announcing that user Greyshark proposed to rename "Palestinian territories" article into "?" (question sign). I saw this strange and outrageously weird proposal as a personal attack (or puppetting) and issued a complaint on Administrators' noticeboard. The issue was closed as a misunderstanding, but it might have been an attempt of campaigning (WP:CAN).

Next, a series of discussions/polls were launched by both of us on the talk page of the Palestinian National Authority article, during which user:Emmette resumed spamming my talk page, and hence i warned him on Nov.17 not to spam me for the second time [27]. On this occasion user:Cptnono also warned user:Emmette of an apparent votestacking of his view-sharers from previous/similar discussions [28]. For a while, user:Emmette didn't make any suspicious moves, but suddenly on Nov.21 started a messaging campaign, apparently in a legal way [29] - making notifications to participants of the discussion on PNA talk page [30]. Shortly after, on Nov.22, he however started blatantly and openly votestacking various users from different discussions, who would share his specific POV regarding the discussion/poll Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity, in a kind of attempt to change the opinion balance in this discussion:

First, user:Emmette asked user:Tiamut to participate in discussion on PNA page [31], but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread [32].

He also approached user:Int21h with the same request [33], but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread [34], but with an opposite opinion.

Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc [35], regarding his post on Pt/PNA [36].

So far, user:Int21h responded to Emmette's message in supporting him (as expected) [37]. Since user:Emmette could not restraint himself from doing anything to "win" the discussion, and warnings didn't do any good, i ask for an official investigation on his actions.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Greyshark is repeating allot of the same things that were rejected at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Complaint_on_personal_attacks_by_user_Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman, and I thought I already explained that I didn't mean to make that rename in his name, I meant to make it to address his concerns and resolve the dispute (it diden't work partly because at the time I had misunderstand his concerns). In retrospect it did look too much like I was making it in Greyshark's name.

As for inviting people to that discussion, Some people seamed to express an opinion on weather the PNA was an organization/government or a geopolitical entity/physical location on other discussions on at Talk:Palestinian National Authority and Archive 1 so I invited them to that discussion. I didn't invite anyone from that talk page who supported Greysharek's views because I didn't find anyone there who supported Greyshark's views to invite. I didn't invite Bleddynefan because he didn't seem to express an opinion on weather the PNA was an organization/government or a geopolitical entity/physical location. His only objection seamed to be that there wasn't enough of a conciseness to remove the infobox.

As for the first discussion, there was a related discussion where some people expressed an opinion about the issue on Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Rename, so I invited them to that discussion. Agan I didn't find anyone there who supported Greyshark's views to invite

Lastly making this report on Thanksgiving?! It couldn't have waited a day or two? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I misread what Greyshark said, somehow I thought he was talking about User:Bleddynefan and not User:Alinor. Alinor said that "the PNA is administration that has legislative jurisdiction" so I don't see how not inviting him would constitute canvassing. I must have missed him when looking though the talk page (it's a long talk page) so I'll go ahead and invite him. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not inviting anyone to a discussion, which they have previously been a part of, because they do not share an opposing opinion, in this case Greyshark's, and only inviting those that share yours is precisely the definition of canvassing. On a side note, for the rest of the world it's just another weekend and when a report is made is irrelevant. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My choice of people to invite had nothing to do with weather they shared an opposing opinion. I saw that some people seamed to express an opinion on weather the PNA was a government or a physical location at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Rename and on other parts of Talk:Palestinian National Authority, so I invited them, regardless of what their opinion was. It's just that I didn't find anyone shared Greyshark's opinion to invite. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Even if they didn't share Greyshark's opinion, if they had contributed to the discussion previously then you should have invited them. Otherwise, you are only inviting those that share your view, again, the very definition of canvassing. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My discideion of who to invite had nothing to do with whether they shared Greyshark's opinion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By "other discussions" I didn't mean the first discussion, I meant that I invited people who seamed to express an opinion on discussion on that talk page other then those two Greyshark and I started, such as this one. As for the first discussion I asked the people who voted "Origination" (i.e. everyone other then Greyshark) to clarify what they meant by "origination" [38]. Does this clear things up? I'm pretty tired so maybe I should come back to this after I've gotten some sleep. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also concerning this, this and this it's not that suprising that I had trouble finding anyone who supports Greysharks views to invite. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Also User:Alinor hasn't edited scene 2011, that's probably the reason I didn't invite him. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Misread it again, Greyshark was talking about both Bleddynefans and Alinor

I -- appreciate that I was sought out for input given my past opinions on Grayshark09's behavior. However, I have no desire to participate further. I saw a situation, I commented on it hoping to provide more detail and insight, and that was it. This is gone from "incident" to "issue" and I've no interest in being involved more than I have been. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

At this time, I have already given my view of the situation. I will leave it to the admins to determine what is to be acted upon. Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Adventures_of_Captain_Underpants#The_Adventures_of_Captain_Underpants (a mass AFD) I invited the percipients of the two previous AFD's, and I left a note on the mass AFD saying that I did so. At that AFD Uzma Gamal (who I invited) seamed to conceder what I did to be canvassing. I honestly don't see the way I was inviting people to discussions as canvasing, but if looks to both Blackmane and Uzma Gamal like I was, that has me worried that I might have been canvassing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to mention more possible canvassing by user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, since the complaint has been issued on Nov.22:
  

Following his edit [39] and my revert [40](reverted since no agreement has yet been achieved on using concepts of Pt/PNA Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity - which is the core dispute on this matter), he issued a strange rename procedure of article Transport in the Palestinian territories->Transport in the Palestinian National Authority, which is apparently an opposite view to his opinion. He then notified two editors (Koavf, Tabletop), who had edited that page in the past; but also several of those, who had supported his POV (Carolmooredc,Dlv999‎,Tony1 - participants of discussion on Economy of the Palestinian territories). In that discussion it happened that Emmette's opinion was a consensus and naturally those editors would be expected to support Emmette's view, thus "legalizing" his previous edits as a "consensus". Remarkably, he didn't notify users (AnonMoos,Araignee,GHCool, Al Ameer son, Japinderum, Pluto2012, Futuretrillionaire, Baemathan, CMD), who participated in the main discussion on concepts PNA - an organization or a geopolitical entity, where opinions were split; and also didn't notify users from other related discussions PNA - organization or place?, renaming "Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948", renaming "Human rights in the Palestinian Authority", when were Palestinian territories established? and renaming "Elections in the Palestinian National Authority".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue at Talk:Transport_in_the_Palestinian_territories#Requested_move was the same one that was that was at Talk:Economy_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Rename, weather the article about the "Palestinian territories" or the "Palestinian Authority". In this case the title said it was about the PT but the lead contradicted itself by saying it was about the "the region under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority" (which would mean Areas A and B of the West Bank), but also saying that the article was about the "Gaza and the West Bank", so I felt that ether the title or the lead needed to be fixed, the purpose of the RM was supposed to be to decide weather to fix the lead or the title.

I'll invited the people who participated in that Economy RM (minus Greyshark because he doesn't like it when I edit his talk page), along with User:Koavf who moved that page from "Transport in Palestinian Authority" to "Transport in the Palestinian territories" and User:Tabletop who created this page under the title "Transportation in Palestinian Authority" to that discussion. Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity is peripherally related to that discussion, but the issue of what exactly the PNA is is quite different then the issue of what the scope of that article is, besides at that article we were discussing the term "Palestinian Authority", not the term "Palestinian territories". To invite the people from all those deductions that Greyshark mentioned seemed quite excessive to me.

As I was typing this I took a better look the Economy RM, it seamed to be largely based on the assumption that the PNA was a government, so in retrospect maybe I took the wrong approach in the way I invited people. If I did, my mistake. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I invited Pluto2012 and Japinderum whose views at PNA - organization or place? were closer to Greyshark's so that should compensate for that bias that I accidentally introduced. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

Resolved

Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Time as a reliable source for Barefoot College and Bunker Roy, Talk:Barefoot_College, and User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom § Barefoot College's claim on training > 3 million people

User:TheRedPenOfDoom in this diff [41] abused me. He has also repeatedly interacted with me in an uncivil manner (eg. [42]) and refused to discuss even with a WP:3O volunteer I requested so to achieve peaceful consensus. BlackMansBurden (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there some reason I or another admin shouldn't indef the OP for blatantly disruptive editing? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • INDEF. prior 3RR User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Barefoot College / 3RR Annette46 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Annette46 - who are you suggesting we indef? GiantSnowman 12:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd think "OP" refers to either "Opposite Party" or "Other Person". In this incident that would be TheRedPenOfDoom. 3RR+abuse=bad_behaviorAnnette46 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • 'OP' actually refers to 'opening poster' i.e. BlackMansBurden - and we will not be indeffing TRPOD for 3RR, what a ridiculous suggestion. GiantSnowman 13:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
          • If there are cultural/linguistic differences in the way either of us use English to describe parties in a dispute involving Indian subjects, please read this gsearch ["http://google.co.in/search?q=opposite+party+site:indiankanoon.org"] : we'd better work around it. I never stated TRPOD be indeffed for 3RR alone, just this outrageous NPA example is sufficient by itself. Annette46 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
            • No idea what the first part of your comment means, but regarding the "outrageous NPA" - which one? Yes TRPOD was uncivil & immature and deserves a trouting for that, but that's it. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
              • See the now working link. It's a legal term in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Now, lets say we stop this back-n-forthing, and close this red-herring discussion. PS: trouting ?Annette46 (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
                • WP:TROUT. GiantSnowman 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • If you are not sure of the meaning of terms in Wikipedia, Annette, a good starting point is Wikipedia:Glossary. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks David. I really question if its worth spending time in this Alice_in_Wonderland pseudo-reality where people make up mimsy momes as they go along. Enjoy yourself, I'll stick to editing the odd article occasionally. Annette46 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. It would be overlooking the actual substance of the dispute to concentrate only upon the completely immature and inept way that BlackMansBurden has gone about editing the article in the face of a dispute.

    On the talk page, BlackMansBurden makes a fairly sane assertion, that is at least worth looking into, that a Wikipedia article is currently describing an educational instution in glowing, and on their face fairly unbelievable, terms that go well beyond what the sources actually say. In the article, in contrast, BlackMansBurden has done this sort of utterly wrongheaded edit several times, tagging (to pick one example) the name "Roy" with a {{who}}, in a sentence that comes immediately after one that said "Bunker Roy".

    Given that BlackMansBurden clearly cannot edit the article competently, but can make a talk page argument, the correct solution would seem to be to take steps with the protection tool to stop the back-and-forth editing where BlackMansBurden is repeatedly making these foolish edits to article space, and let the talk page discussion continue. This is, after all, SOP when people don't figure out for themselves that revert warring instead of talk page discussion isn't the answer.

    If the talk page discussion becomes problematic, then that's a different kettle of fish, of course. But it has only been going for two days, so far.

    This shouldn't be construed as in any way condoning using edit summaries to tell people to "shut the fuck up". Not good, TheRedPenOfDoom.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Sir, I apologize if I used tags incorrectly. The reason I placed after Roy is because the article reads "Roy states that in 2008 there were approximately 7,000 children attending the night school programs" but in the PBS source it is "FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Today some 7,000 children attend night school here and across rural north India.". So I asked "who" said it - Roy or Lazaro? I also placed tag because PBS says 7,000 is "here" and across rural north India (which may have nothing to do with this school/college). So again, I apologize for misusing tags so ineptly, and I really wanted to talk with some seniors. I can give reasons for every other tag I placed. BlackMansBurden (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm no-one's "Sir", that I know of, and you'd have had less typing to do in the long run, as you can see, by just correcting the name directly rather than tagging and expecting someone else to do the work. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sir, Even the website of the college might be a spoof/hoax [43] for it is registered to some "FRIENDS OF TILONIA, INC." (curious). BlackMansBurden (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly take a trouting for that edit summary. I realized my mistake and lack of good faith and reverted the same poor form content in two posts that followed but could not remove the content from the edit summary. I dont know how I could have mistaken for a troll a new editor who made 7 minor edits to articles such as Ancient Greek and Billiard ball and Snooker and the Rules of Snooker] before diving in to articles about Barefoot College and Bunker Roy on their 9th edit and never leaving, and making comments like about 3RR] and SOAPboxking on their 14th and 15th edits, and making repeated claims that Time and PBS and the BBC are not reliable sources. I will work very hard in the future to vent my apparently ill founded disgust elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sirs, in my country India it is a sin to abuse fish (and 80% Indians are vegetarians, 70% of whom further don't even eat onions or garlic) so I frankly do not enjoy what passes for humour on these forums. I have extended a golden trout to user TRPOD at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Time as a reliable source for Barefoot College and Bunker Roy. It is up to him to accept it or not. BlackMansBurden (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't a forum - maybe that's where you're going wrong? GiantSnowman 17:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sir, which this are we discussing - the English Wikipedia encyclopedia, Article pages, Talk pages, Incident Notice boards ? It is very confusing to talk to other editors who don't clarify context. A forum is literally a public place to discuss within/outside a closed enclosure (such as this incident discussion "board" outside the article space but within the Wikipedia Project). If this encyclopedia is only reserved for Administrators to speak or edit or crack insider jokes, then I shall go away. That is the BlackMansBurden in a KKK] !! BlackMansBurden (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It's exactly these kinds of inane comments that make me less willing than Uncle G above me to believe that you're anything but a troll pulling a fast one. I somehow suspect TheRedPenOfDoom is correct in thinking you're not a new user, so if you have any previous accounts you should probably state what they are. The way you're going you're fast approaching a block, so you'd best listen to the advice given to you if you're serious about editing here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The use of what is almost Baboo English is rather suspect, I'll grant. And as I said, if BlackMansBurden's actual discussion contributions become a problem then that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Try to remember that your first three edits with your account threw around terms such as "OR" and tagged things for citations, and by your ninth edit you were slinging shortcuts around. I was at RFD on my third edit with this account. Try to remember that we ourselves exhibited the very behaviour that you now think to be only possibly indicative of trolling. (In my case, I'd been around here a long time before finally creating an account.) Imagine if you'd been met with yourself as you're acting now back then.

  Imagine if you'd been met by someone who takes a fairly sensible argument, that if one reads it one find that a source nowhere states what the Wikipedia article states, and continually rebuts it with a straw man that yes the source is reliable. What would you think of that person's reasoning skills? Come on, TheRedPenOfDoom. I've seen your work on biographies. You're better than this, and you can reason better than this. I know that you're better than this. And I know that you can be better than this even in the face of Baboo English. ☺

  The assertion is that the content isn't supported by the source, and makes a leap that the source does not. You made a similar assertion in your first three edits. Whilst BlackMansBurden might be inept, we both of us were once people with few edits to our accounts yet who grasped how Wikipedia works, used the jargon, and knew the places to go. So go and read Mortenson 2010 and try to explain going from what the source actually says to what the article says, as challenged for being original research on the talk page. Explain it to me, if you like, because I can see a disagreement between source and article.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Master G", for the divine effulgence of your beatific knowledge, kindly accept this worshipful oblation [44] to spread among the needy. Peccavi BlackMansBurden (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering that remark, indef as a troll, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's just an RfG in the wrong forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Reaper Eternal as a sock of User:RobertRosen. IMO could've been blocked for the name alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gilliam and copyright

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Approximately a year ago, I discovered that Gilliam had inserted copyvios into many Cincinnati-related articles (text was largely copied from the Cincinnati city website), so I deleted them and gave him a stiff warning; you can find examples in the deleted revisions of Cincinnati and Suburban Telephone Company Building, Race Street Historic District, Observatory Historic District, Peeble's Corner Historic District, Westwood Town Center Historic District, and Main and Third Street Cluster. He furthermore got a recent warning (for older copyvios) at Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum; while the incident in question is old, the warning is near the bottom of his talk page and dates from just two months ago. I've just discovered a clear example of close paraphrasing in a very new article: the "Symbolism" section of Flag of Cincinnati, which comprises most of the article, is clearly taken from this page. As an administrator, Gilliam clearly knows our copyright standards, and any remaining ambiguity should have been resolved by the warning I gave him and the warning related to the Gardner Museum. Because he's still ignoring our copyright policy, I must ask for a copyright-based block and whatever other sanctions the community believes appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my flag of Cincinnati article. It is well sourced and I am not aware of any copyright infringement in it.- Gilliam (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem at Flag of Cincinnati nor do I see that there have been any attempts to address the issue in other venues. Can you please help us understand what I'm missing? ElKevbo (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of close paraphrasing (compare the text to the link that I gave), and Gilliam has been guilty of blatant infringement on multiple pages in the past. Look at his talk page; he's repeatedly been warned that he's violating WP:C. I've provided a link to a warning that's no longer on his talk page. If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "close paraphrasing", read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for a discussion of the subject. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't see where you've raised this issue with him or her nor do I see how this is a egregious example of close paraphrasing or copyright infringement. ElKevbo (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you quite sure it is based on that source-- conceivably they are both based on some other official source? If it is based on the source, this is paraphrase, yes, but not what I would consider close paraphrase, and it is just a single paragraph. This is too trivial to bring here. As you cannot actually prove the copying, basing it on past violations is analogous to the old Scottish practice of hanging people who are "by habit and repute a thief". DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have to be a little concerned by the phrase "I stand by my flag of Cincinnati article" (emphasis added)" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh. The amount of text supposedly paraphrased is so short as to be nearly impossible to be completely original. It isn't a verbatim copy, and I'm not sure it could be obfuscated anymore than it is. And "my" could be shorthand for "my edits to", which is what WP:AGF tells me it means. Yes, copyright infringements are serious and should be taken seriously, but this isn't it. If this is all we have, I don't see any problems. If there's more recent problems I'd like to see them, but I don't see this as any sort of sanctionable violation. --Jayron32 02:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threats on Talk: Rotherham by-election, 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm uncertain about this case, but I am concerned that a recent comment by an IP editor at Talk:Rotherham_by-election,_2012#Campaign constitutes a legal threat of sorts and I do not know how best to proceed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• The editor is asking for Wikipedia to be neutral, so that it doesn't become embroiled in a possible external legal dispute. That's not really a legal threat per se, given that neutrality is our official policy and not getting encyclopaedia writers involved in external disputes is part of what underpins the no legal threats policy. I'll have a word. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Seeing that there's also been an edit war with (by my count) 11 reversions in the past 26 hours I've fully protected the article until 00:00:00 UTC on the day after the election, and removed the entire section being edit warred over. Although at least two people are technically in violation of the three-revert rule, I have decided against revoking the editing privileges of any editors at this point as being an unconstructive move that won't lead to the matter being resolved. Involved editors can continue to edit, and discuss the matter on the talk page. See Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Politicized edit warring for more. Uncle G (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• The IP's comments are certainly on the borderline of a legal threat. However, his English is not very good, so it's not an open-and-shut case. Protecting the page, as G did, is probably the safest approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frederic Bourdin

Others of you in the Jimbo-watchlist cabal may have noticed a complaint from the subject of the Frederic Bourdin article (who, as I showed there, appears to be who he says he is). I'm bringing this up here because there are two potentially valid recourses, and I'm not lobbying for either. In short, he was blocked (first as User:89.94.23.111, then as User:Francparler) for legal threats as part of an edit war against trusted contributors, followed by incivility/assumptions of bad faith, and now has created a new account, User:Idontfeelthesame. He's pretty clueless about policy, but he's also clueless about the behavioral guidelines (seeing as he's asking Jimbo - and now every other editor he sees - to stop Bbb23 from some perceived gross injustice, so that he can go back to editing his own biography), which is why I think there are two real options here: The first is to give him enough rope to hang himself by either unblocking the old account or giving the new one the green light. I've already explained COI to him, and told him that he'd have to do everything by {{request edit}}. The second option is, obviously, to just block him for sockpuppetry.

I'd recommend the first one, since he really didn't get it before, if not for some of the things he's written about Bbb23 - "je suis bloqué et l'utilisateur Bbb23 prend un méchant plaisir a me le rappeler" ("I'm blocked, and the user Bbb23 takes a nasty pleasure in reminding me of it) (he really doesn't seem to get what a block is); ("Comme vous pouvez le constater, Bbb23 n'a pas l'intention d'améliorer le problème, et la raison est qu'il ne m'aime pas" ("As you can attest to [he seems to think I agree with him], Bbb23 has no intention of fixing the problem, and the reason is that he doesn't like me.") Still, I think there's a strong case for a very tentative unblock, with a readiness to pounce at the first indication that he still has no intention of improving the encyclopedia.

But, if y'all deem that unwise/perfunctory, any previously uninvolved admin has grounds to go ahead with the sockpuppetry block right now, thanks to this confession. Since it's in French, the relevant parts are: "je suis bloqué" ("I am blocked") and "Alors a moins que vous preniez sur vous de me débloquer (ce que j'apprecierai vraiment), je veux dire mon vrai profil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francparler" ("So that, at the very least, you can take it upon yourself to unblock me [he appears to not understand quite how blocking and unblocking work], I'll tell you my real profile: User:Francparler.") Anyways, I leave this in your capable hands, admins. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• A few comments. First, Tom brought this to my attention at my talk page. Second, I have already filed an SPI report. Finally, the negative comments about me by the editor don't bother me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bbb. Sorry for forgetting to mention that I'd come to you already. As for the SPI, just so you know, you can drop the CUrequest per the above confession. Hope it doesn't look like I was forum shopping or anything; the only reason I took this here instead of commenting on the SPI is that I think the SPI's perfectly valid in its basis, I'm just not sure if it's the right recourse (though, as I said, I'm not at all convinced that it's not the right recourse either). — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Two issues have recently come up on Jimbo's talk page: The first is of verifying that this person is, indeed, M. Bourdin. Wnt advised that "Bourdin" log into each account and confirm the shared connection, formally retract and apologize for the threat, and then provide some sort of off-wiki confirmation of this - Wnt suggested issuing a statement through some verified channel (website, publicist, etc.), and Jimbo suggested that he identify himself to the Foundation. Just as a note, to do this, someone would need to re-instate User:Francparler's access to its own talk page. (For what it's worth, as I've stated previously, the IP is originating from the area in which M. Bourdin is said to reside.) The second issue is the one I attempted to address earlier - whether to block him for sockpuppetry, or reconsider the previous block. Let me reiterate that I am indifferent, and Jimbo said that he'd "like to see [...] a path forward for Mr. Bourdin to 'come in from the cold,'" but he clearly was only speaking as a normal editor, albeit a very experienced one. The point is, though, that we clearly need to decide something, as opposed to just waiting for someone to approve the pending SPI case without first deciding whether or not the case is necessary. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Although Jimbo objected, User:Fram blocked User:Idontfeelthesame as a sock of a user who made a legal threat who has not retracted it. Jimbo also posted to my talk page asking me (nicely) to "step back". As I've already stated, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and will therefore not act administratively. However, I am not involved simply because the editor hates me. If that were so, a great many admins would become involved simply because an editor reacts negatively to an action an admin takes. I am involved because of historical content issues on the Bourdin article. In any event, I consider it part of my responsibilities to express opinions on editor misconduct, file reports at appropriate noticeboards, etc. If in my view my "involvement" becomes counterproductive, I'll stop, but at this point I don't think it has.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is the editor some are arguing should be given extra leniency. Here is one of the posts the person calling himself Bourdin made (to Jimbo's talk page) before he was blocked (for 12 hours):

How many time are you going to try to block me before you realize that you actually can't do shit about it ? I might not know about your Unfair Wikipedia rules but I know about computers... I also know how tracing IP and changing them. So Mister Jimbo, your friends did not give a damn about asking them to step back and asking them for leniancy ? I will contribute to Wikipedia my way and as you will find out, there is so little you will be able to do about it. This will end in court. Now don't forget to block this IP and to read your stupid and unfair statute and which one to apply here. Bbb23, we'll have a talk someday but out of Wikipedia where I can teach you my personal rules about respect. It's never a good thing to fuck with me.

12 hours? for a static IP? At least he was blocked, but it's a crazy world.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That comment contained a clear legal threat, so there should also be an indef block until the threat is rescinded. Then there's the matter of calling you a "cunt" and a "bitch" from a "cunt family" in this edit, and repeating what seems very much like a threat of personal violence. I don'r care how upset sopmeone is about the article about them, this behavior is way, way out of line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help at "Chemtrail conspiracy theory"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm a fairly new contributor in the Wikipedia world and I'm having a hard time to improve some articles, like for example "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" article. I'm willing to spend (and I already did) a lot of my time researching and improving the text on that subject, but I've noticed there are several editors that are acting more/less too much authoritative in a way they don't allow any other kind of opinion to be shown there, except for their own. I've tried on the talk page to present a lot of evidence for the text I tried to submit, to show that I'm not a spammer or a person who wants to do bad things for his own interests, but I got ignored a big time. And whenever I submit the changed/improved text, with more credible links, my edits get deleted with reasons like "get the consensus" and just look at the Talk page for that page and you'll see that nobody cared to reply for more than 7 days. So how can I get any kind of consensus if they don't really want to talk?

So, I'd like to ask for a proper guidance/tutorials/anything that can help me, as a newbee editor, to start making proper edits and to avoid the "clans of editors", who will always bring you down, no matter what you write and if you provide any links to reliable sources or not. Or just let me know if this is too much too ask, so that I can stop wasting my time trying to improve things here.

Please help. Thanks in advance. Burek021 (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The ref desk is usually a good place to start. If you're posting refs that others are finding unreliable, the reliable sources noticeboard is somewhere to get an outside opinion. Failing that, you could also ask at the ref desk about how to open an request for comment. Also, have a look at the top of the talk page to see what project your article falls under and pop over to the project page to see if you could get another opinion that way. Blackmane (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hải Trà repeated creation of inappropriate articles and removing CSD tags beyond level 4 warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Repeated creation of inappropriate articles on both Saigon Perfect (using different caps and spelling to bypass detection) and Trần Nguyễn Ngọc Trang. Consistently removing CSD tags, having gone beyond the level 4, then started removing the CSD tags through IP User:‎123.30.165.230. Cindy(talk to me) 11:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As their contribs were few and easily speedied in one way or another, I just did my first use of the Nuke tool, and given them a 2-day rest - I think we'll unfortunately have to use that as a "get your attention" message, as the use of the account and anonymous edits really took the cake. I'll watch for comments on their talkpage as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dang, you're quick! Thanks for your help. Cindy(talk to me) 12:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pattern of poor edits an no communication by User:Historylover123

User:Historylover123 registered an account in 2007, barely used it for years, and suddenly turned up making a large number of small edits and new page creations, primarily on topics of Maharastra state in India.

• Nearly a dozen of his new article starts in the last week have been proposed for deletion by five different editors, generally for a total lack of formatting, non-notable topics, etc.
• In response to the editor piling non-notable films into Shivaji, I created what is now Shivaji in popular culture to help compile a list. HL123 has created multiple forks Filmography of Shivaji and Films about Shivaji Maharaj; the latter both has an inappropriate honorific he's been warned against putting in titles ("Maharaj"), and also tripped the copyvio bot since it was a clear cut-paste from an existing article.
• This editor absolutely refuses to communicate: note in his Contribs[45] that he's made maybe 2 edits out of 400 with any kind of manual Edit Summary (which he's been repeatedly asked to include), and has never replied to the 22 warnings on his talk page from just the last 10 days.

Fundamentally, this editor refuses to communicate or collaborate, and he's wasting other editors time following him around and cleaning up after him. I don't so much request a block for a period of time, as an indef block to be lifted once said author manages to actually communicate on Talk and express a willingness to listen to others and share ideas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, I also left them a note about a week ago, but they seem to be unresponsive. May be a short block could show whether they read their talk page at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's beat the men until moral improves, Ymblanter. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

    I noticed that you left a message at their talk page, let us see whether it helps. If they ignore this message as well, I would not know what to do. An indefinite block does not seem to me the optimal solution, since this is a good faith editor. May be sending an e-mail via the e-mail interface, hopefully they read e-mails.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what to say. Yes, Matthew is absolutely correct in their assessment. But Historylover seems to be good-faith editor who aims to improve Wikipedia. I don't believe in the short attention-getting block, though I know some admins do. It may well be that Matthew's proposed indefinite block is the way to go, and as a side note, I guess that one more inappropriate article, copyvio, etc., should be reason for a block. I'm going to reluctantly support an indef block, but I want another admin to look at this discussion and hopefully propose something smarter. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree HL123 appears to be a good faith editor, but metaphorically he's a guy who's joined our basketball team, but is wearing earplugs and can't hear the other player's shouting or the ref's whistle. If he would actually show evidence of awareness of other editors, this would be 90% a non-problem, but until then we're literally following him around either prod'ing or copyediting practically everything he does. The article Shivaji gets 800 hits per hour, so not a good place for someone to be "feeling out" how to bullet a list, or how WP:Notability works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If somebody wants to send him a "hey, check your dang Talk page" poke on email, please feel free. There has to be some suitable way to make people communicate, and letting someone just wander around blindly as they receive 26 warning messages is not fair to the other editors who have to follow behind him wherever he goes. EDIT: if folks are reluctant to block for non-communication, then we should have a admin-launched widget that puts a huge banner across most of his screen while logged-in, saying "HEY, GO READ YOUR TALK PAGE AND RESPOND!!!".MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • They don't have their email enabled. Let's wait and see what their next edits are. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, in the last 10-15 minutes (diffs) he's jamming more unlinked/NN names into an article, citing some non-RSs, etc. So again, it's not vandalism, but because we can't even talk to him about WP:N and WP:RS, we can't do anything about it except delete his work. Plus, since he's not using edit summaries, other editors are forced to open all of his edits to make sure he has not (yet again) made an improper edit. The complete lack of communication really outweighs any partial benefit he's providing. Barring any easier way to make him listen, I don't see a better option than a temporary block which he can end by simply visiting Talk and discussing his intentions. Why let someone just ignore their big yellow "Messages!" banner for weeks on end? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Block with really apologetic message -- if the editor doesn't respond to every other good faith effort to communicate, and continues to cause disruption, what other choice is there? NE Ent 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Let me try one last ditch effort to get their attention in my own special way, pointing them here. Otherwise, a block is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Sorry Dennis--you typed this while I blocked. Please feel free to write the message: you are nicer than I am. Yes, this block is indefinite but comes with an offer, that it be lifted the moment the editor starts communicating. Of course, part of the block rationale is that not all their edits were productive--those chunks of trivia are not. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Never mind. I was going to blank the page and put up a full page sized stop sign and a note pointing to here, but Drmies was already cutting their phone line. You would be surprised at how often a 600x600 pixel stop sign gets their attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                • Both methods are versions of the Glasgow kiss. I've been watching this user for a while & MV has been remarkably tolerant. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • No problem with the block, it was the normal and expected response. I'm just not normal and have an appreciation for trying something highly annoying to get their attention, ie: the giant stop sign filling their entire page, with a polite link saying "come to ANI". It does work sometimes with non-communicative editors because they can't just overlook it like they can another templated warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think that a widget, under control of admins, that covers a whole chunk of their screen with a banner saying "No, seriously go check your Talk page, and then I'll remove this" might honestly be less intrusive overall, be a bit less harsh than a block and so easier to jump to rather than spend a week and lots of ANI attention dealing with incommunicado editors. I've run across several that looked like decent folks, but had to be blocked for sheer heedlessness, and left me wondering if they literally just didn't understand the small orange "Message" banner was trying to communicate with them... MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That orange banner occasionally also goes AWOL. We had a spell of that not too long ago, presumably because of some Javascript issue. No idea if it affected everyone or just those using a certain subset of tools. Obviously, something like MV suggests will only work if the user has Javascript etc enabled, but how many do not nowadays? One for the Village Pump, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this editor had 22 warnings, so I'm not likely to blame the javascript each time :) This is why blanking and changing the whole page color, the silly stop sign, or something really drastic has worked before. It isn't just words on a page. Maybe I need to make a giant flashing red warning light GIF and upload it just for stuff like this. The more annoying, the better. I would rather annoy than block if there is a chance they will get the message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Or user status that would only allow edits on talk pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean article talk pages. TRPoD? The block limits them to their own talk page, unless even that access is revoked (a relatively rare situation). If I'm right in reading your mind, that seems like an interesting idea. I've not really thought it through but, yes, interesting. Dennis, I got no orange notification for something like three weeks ... and now it has gone the other way & I get a notification telling me that X number of users have left messages, most of which are Sinebot and typo fixes etc. In any event, I do think this is one for the Pump and if someone fancies raising it there then I would appreciate a nudge. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just to note that the user finally responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• They did by leaving an unblock request, denied by Bwilkins. I think we can close this thread. Ent? Drmies (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock please. The consensus above was the the user be blocked only to get their attention sufficiently to make them aware they had a talk page and they needed to respond to things posted there. As their unblock request clearly establishes that goal has been achieved, they should be unblocked now per AGF and all that. There will be plenty of time to block later if their edits are problematic in the future. NE Ent 13:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's as simple as that. While HistoryLover has responded, they haven't really understood why they were blocked, with no real guarantee that the problems that led to it won't happen again, which is why the block was declined. I think they need to do that first, if nothing else to be consistent with any other blocks that get issued. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Now that the editor in question appears to be reading their talk page I propose reducing their block duration from Indefinite to something back in line with the escalating blocks (Possibly 2 weeks). With all respect to Drmies and BWilkins, I think extracting a admission of understanding of what they did wrong is sufficient for resolving this issue. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Update. A new user has created an account with the name Camal123 and made, so far, two edits, both to Shivaji in popular culture. There's not enough evidence to call it sockpuppetry yet, but I'd be surprised if there weren't enough shortly. Owing to the complicated nature of the previous block, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to grant Historylover one-time amnesty? To wit, if this account does not become a nuissance, I hardly think it would be fair to extend the questionable block to it; and if it does, then this time we don't have to resort to policy grey areas to block it, since someone can just file an SPI. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Camel123 is almost definitely HL123, in that he's behaving almost exactly like a chastened version thereof. He's avoiding Shivaji where his old account's edits were reverted in minutes, focusing on the "in popular culture" legit-fork he created, adding the exact same kind of info from similar sources, but now he's responding to everything on his Talk page, including 'bots, and using Edit Summaries every time. Technically we should probably hit him for socking, but it appears he's trying to correct his behaviour, although perhaps unaware that making a new account is not the appropriate way to get "unblocked". MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support blocking Camal, and notifying HL about the single account policy. He will then be given a choice of either choosing one account to work on while using proper edit summaries/communicating (if need be, the edits could be merged). If the communication rules don't seem to be followed, or another sockpuppet comes up, indef. Buggie111 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking over this, all I can say is "wow". This was terribly handled from start to finish. The user's an extremely poor English speaker. There. Great mystery solved, good work team. They're not 'refusing' to communicate. An English-speaking newbie would be thrown by an overwhelming slew of templated messages—spoiler alert, this is why WP:BITE is a real thing that actually exists. We standardly give blatantly disruptive users, even vandals four clear warnings before resorting to a block; from what I can see this user wasn't even given as much leeway. And, if, after sufficient warnings, disruptive editing continues, a block is perfectly suitable. However, "this will get their attention" blocking is just plain bizarre. They're having trouble communicating, how is a block going to resolve this problem?! But okay, we're in panic mode and all agree that a block, essentially a friendly, apologetic block just to provoke communication is in order. It does and they reply, saying that they will heed future warnings and request unblock...and, we don't unblock? Bwilkins is, in my eyes, one of our best admins and I find myself agreeing with his comments/actions nearly 100% of the time. But as much as it pains me to say this, what on Earth was he thinking?! And then we deign to be surprised when he creates a new account?! Let's forgive the user's return, forget about the old account whose handling we botched, and hit the reset button on this one, and take it from there. Let's be simple, clear and understanding from now on and block them only if there's no other way. Swarm ^X 06:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I agree about poor handling, but I do agree with your conclusion: I rarely think WP:IAR should be applied in conduct cases, but here's a perfect example, I think. Yes, he is socking, but this is not the type of offense WP:SOCK exists to deal with. In fact, SOCK takes IAR into account: When you file an SPI report, you're required to show evidence of sockpuppetry and of use thereof to circumvent Wikipedia policy. Considering that there was no real policy allowing the first block (though I agree with the decision to apply it), I don't know what one he's violating now, especially if his conduct's improved. When to take action against a good-faith user has always been a bit of a policy grey area, but if he doesn't do anything that itself warrants a block, I don't think we should block him simply because that's what the letter of the law says. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the main people having to deal with Camal, I'm not advocating his second blockage (for socking now) despite the letter of the law, though a merge of the two accounts and a notice to not sock in the future would seem appropriate. However, I would say that something had to be done for his first account: if you don't read Edit Summaries or the Talk page, you can naturally become combative when you don't know why your edits keep disappearing and your articles are deleted. So you recreate and recreate and paste changes back in and get frustrated, while causing a lot of hassle to other people. At Village Pump we're discussing the idea I suggested of a huge half-page "Hey XYZ, GO CHECK YOUR MESSAGES" Javascript, which I think would help this. But seriously, barring attention-getting blocks, what other way is there to get someone (with email contact turned off, no less) to stop well-meaning but disruptive editing? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Handling the general case

Hey, all, happened upon this, and I was wondering: for the general case of someone not knowing that their talk page is there (or ignoring it, even), could we do something like what MatthewVanitas suggests? That is, an admin (needs to be an admin, obviously) goes into the user's js/css and puts in a giant banner saying "please go look at your talk page". Is that something we'd be allowed to do, as an alternative to the "attention-getting block"? Not sure if it would be considered too intrusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I rarely ever look at my user or talk page unless I get a "new message" banner. So if we are throwing around ideas for a method of "attention getting" directed at unresponsive users, I'd suggest it be something like signing them out, and then a polite message that appears when they first log back in. Ditch ∝ 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• In my experience with editors who do not respond to talk page requests, blocks are the only way to ensure someone's attention. GiantSnowman 17:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's certainly possible; have we tried something like this, though? Might be worth a shot if we haven't. Even just a Javascript alert() might make a difference. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• If blocking is indeed the best way to get the attention of a seemingly good faith, yet unresponsive contributor, then I think that is a problem unto itself. Some other technical methods should be explored. But no point in talking about it at ANI. Perhaps the Village Pump folks would be conducive to hearing other ideas. Ditch ∝ 18:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• But shouldn't they be unblocked once they do respond? NE Ent 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. I am not sure why the unblock request was insufficient. He/she should be unblocked, and (assuming they continue on the same course) attempts at communication and escalating warning should start at square one from unblock. Ditch ∝ 19:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've started a thread at VPP for some other opinions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If somebody was blocked purely for being uncommunicative, then as soon as they started responding an unblock should be the default action. However, in reality, people don't get blocked purely for being uncommunicative (which, alone, is hardly a capital crime) - it's usually for failing to respond to concerns about problematic edits in article-space &c. If that continues... bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis reports success with his technique. I have a different one, also often effective, using words, and in the tone of a adult being realistic, but prepared to put an absolute end to things, that I learned from my supervisor in a job 30 years ago. (I have other effective tones learned from my actual parents, but they're not appropriate here.) It might be a good idea to use one or both of these first in such case, before a block. And I find an attention-getting block of a short period more effective than indefinite, which sounds too awful no matter how we explain it (For those who want an euphemism for "attention-getting," think of it as preventing further unfruitful behavior). I find the key is to make it unmistakable that a real human is paying attention, and this is best done by informality and taking care that the wording reflect the specifics, not the general words of a notice. Of course a sufficiently clever robot could do this also, but our templates and bots are not all that clever--it's much harder to write a program for artificial intelligence than to behave intelligently as a human. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Arthur has been making several rude comments recently, and today, Arthur has notified me that I am in jeopardy of a 3rr violation on the article Symbol (formal). This is harassment. My last edit involved removing the template that Arthur himself wanted removed. So it consists in a cooperative act. I'm furious about this, and I am justified in being so. Furthermore, the disambiguation of type-token distinction in that article was productive, and it was reverted. The change from "abstraction" to "concept" makes the language neutral, rather than presuming the existence of abstract objects, which is not universally agreed upon. Arthur is completely in the wrong, and is acting like a child. This is a formal complaint. Arthur is a long term problem editor. I have lodged numerous complaints about him, and heretofore has never had any sanctions, or consequences of any kind imposed on him. Even my request for some reasonable leadership in the form of a warning has not been granted. This is my request that he be removed as an administrator, or in the absence of that be banned from editing articles residing in the Category:Logic category tree (yes, the whole tree), or in the absence of that, to be blocked from editing for a period of not less than three days, and preferably three months. I feel pretty helpless given that no one in any official capacity at WP has seen fit to do anything about him. I feel that all that I have in my power is to do is document the abuse. I'm not a Wiki-lawyer. I am a morally reflective person who knows basic civility. Do something. Greg Bard (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have a leg to stand on. You are clearly at 3rr: [46][47][48] And if you want to complain about rude comments from Arthur (which I am unable to find, btw), you should probably refrain from edit summaries like this one: "(I think its a pretty dick move to force me to do deletions of my own contributions for other people because they aren't willing, or too lazy to do it themselves carefully)" Arthur's 3rr warning was NOT harassment; it was necessary and 100% called-for. Belchfire-TALK 09:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are wrong. Arthur wanted to remove a template from the page, but did so by undoing other productive edits at the same time. As a way to move forward, I removed the template myself, in good faith, and against my own wishes. To invoke a 3rr when it clearly goes against the spirit of the policy is harassment. Like I said, I'm not a wiki-lawyer. I just have a strong sense of decency. Greg Bard (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Learn policy. It's got nothing to do with Wiki-lawyering. There are 7 exemptions to 3RR available: Wikipedia:3rr#3RR_exemptions Your argument fails under none of them. I don't see any harassment here; I just see you being unhappy because you didn't get your way. Belchfire-TALK 09:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, and they are put forward as guidelines, so as to prioritize cooperation, civility, and just plain being reasonable. I do not use policies to harass others. My actions were in good faith, and if you don't see that you should be ashamed of yourself. It isn't about "getting my way" which is a very cheap response to this incident. I wouldn't bring it to ANI unless it was a serious matter. Anyone can learn how to abuse the policies, only few learn how to be decent people.Greg Bard (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Decent people" notify others when they report them to ANI. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 09:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Again, pretty cheap criticism. Greg Bard (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• This report is meritless. Greg Bard was indeed involved in edit warring, so the template was appropriate. Greg Bard's exaggerated demands for Arthur Rubin to be desysopped are not based on any administrative abuse or incivility. They seem to be part of an overreaction on the part of Greg Bard that has become too personalied. It's not a good sign that Greg Bard is at odds with a number of experienced mathematical editors, essentially about trivial points (discussions on an iffy template). Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the other edits on the page were questionable; after looking at them more closely, I decided that none of them should remain, and one of my edit summaries explained the specific reasons. Since Greg has not expressed interest in participating in talk page discussions, as opposed to adding monologs loosely related to his edits, I didn't feel it necessary to add a specific talk page comment. Perhaps I was wrong, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have looked at Symbol (formal), Talk:Symbol (formal), and User talk:Gregbard (including the recent article histories) and found no evidence of harassment or rudeness by Arthur Rubin. I think that the most likely explanation is that Gregbard misunderstood. We all make mistakes. Suggest we close this one as a misunderstanding.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Carl has left a pretty detailed rationale for his revert at Talk:Symbol_(formal)#Template_with_list_of_symbols, which has not been responded to by Greg. Instead Greg has reverted again [49] with nothing other than the default edit summary, which is a discouraged practice except in the case of WP:VANDALISM. Under these circumstances, Greg should not be surprised that he was then reverted again by someone else (Arthur Rubin). WP:BOOMERANG could also apply here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to state for the record that I am completely innocent of what I was originally accused of (3rr). If you look carefully at the three edits I made, the first two were reverts of two different editors, and the third consisted entirely of relenting to what was being demanded (i.e. removal of the template.) I removed that template against my own wishes, in good faith, so as to move forward, and Arthur, knowing full well that that is what the third edit consisted of (not a revert, but rather a conciliation) still put forward that I was violating a policy. That's not good faith behavior. Furthermore, I came to ANI in good faith, requesting that this lack of good faith on Arthur's part be acknowledged, and I was promptly bullied further. This is a shame on all of you. Even User:CBM has stated on his talk page that he believes Arthur's actions were heavy handed. Greg Bard (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had my share of disagreements with Arthur Rubin in the past. What would be helpful in this case is for you to participate on the article's talk page instead of insisting here for sanctions against him, which are unlikely to happen under the present circumstances. You can remove his warning from your talk page if it bothers you. While a templated warning is sometimes unsuitable for regulars, in this case you seem to be missing a point from the templated text: "Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." Tijfo098 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur. NE Ent 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Really guys? You both have over 70K+ edits to the project? ANI is not mommy and daddy that you coming running to, to rat out the other kid. What is this board suppose to do about this?lack of good faith on Arthur's part be acknowledged? Really? Ok, Arthur, you are a bad boy, go sit in the corner for 5 minutes and then come back and play nice. Are we now done here? Great. --Malerooster (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You may mean it in a mocking manner, but I am sincerely grateful. All I want is acknowledgement of the reality of this situation. This is the most acknowledgment, (along with Deltahedron's note to me on my talk page), that I have ever received in all of the many incidents I have reported concerning Arthur. You may see it as being at a level beneath what should be occurring here. However, my claim is that IT REALLY HAS COME TO THIS. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I was mocking, but just trying to disfuse things.This is the most acknowledgment, (along with Deltahedron's note to me on my talk page), that I have ever received in all of the many incidents I have reported concerning Arthur probably says that nothing Arthur is doing really rises to the level of being brought here. I hope things work out and wish you good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000_Discussion NE Ent 14:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this moved to a subpage? That seems far out of the usual norms. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000 Discussion NE Ent 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Somehow this section should be tagged so the bot doesn't archive it before the sub thread is closed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm adding {{DNAU}} for 30 days. NE Ent 14:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a comment with a date into the future might do it. I'll give it a try: IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has beat me to it with {{subst:DNAU}} IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposal at the sub-page for a self-imposed ban on the page in question (to be enforceable by a block if the ban is broken). Please visit the sub-page if you would like to see the proposal and make a comment. Posting here to alert folks who may not have the sub-page watchlisted. Please discuss the proposal at the sub-page, not here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a request for closure on this but can I ask an admin or other experienced editor to come along and close please? The constructive phase of discussion is long past and all that can be said helpfully, has been said now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be an admin close per WP:CBAN. NE Ent 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not enough consensus to accept offer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User continuous removal of contents and disruptive edits

Basith1993(talk) keeps on vandalizing pages, some of which include removal of contents, reference links and faking existing links with his original content and abuse in biographic articles of living persons in the article Harris Jayaraj. These are some of his edits

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

The user needs to be blocked from editing as he continuously intends to vandalize some pages. He continuously keeps on removing the contents even after reverting his edits and warning him in talk page.Goosebumps7 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Basith1993 certainly needs to read up on our verifiability policy, and their removals of content may look suspicious, but looking through their contributions I would say that they are editing in good faith. They haven't edited since Moonriddengirl gave them a warning, so I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see if they take notice of what she said. I don't think any kind of sanction is warranted here at the moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The user still continues to remove the same contents which he had been removing previously.

[57] [58]

He is also suspected of editing with an IP address 59.189.155.240 (talk). The IP address undoes the reverts editors make to Basith1993(talk) edits, removes the same contents that Basith1993(talk) removes and the same disruptive edits that Basith1993(talk) makes in the pages Thuppakki and Harris Jayaraj . Proofs

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

With out a doubt the ip is of the same person and both doesn't seem to respond in their talk page. Both Basith1993(talk) and 59.189.155.240 (talk) requires a block.Goosebumps7 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I for one am convinced. I call on an admin to indef this disruptive editor. Jusdafax 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I tend to agree with Mr. S; it appears the user may be acting in good faith. If he doesn't respond on his talk page to queries, perhaps an indef block with the proviso that he needs to explain himself to be unblocked would suffice. Go Phightins! 21:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but i don't think he is editing in good faith. There is no reason for him to remove an album rating section from a page continuously and also try to fake the ratings in it. He also removed a list of awards listed in a composers page with out any reason(more than once), and also tried the same with his IP. There is no reason for one to remove sourced contents from an article again and again with out any explanation. That cant be an edit in good faith. From what I have observed the user vandalizes only on a composers page Harris Jayaraj and also vandalizes on the movie articles for which Harris Jayaraj have scored. He have never made any constructive edits on these pages. He also edits on pages related to another composer A.R.Rahman. What he does on those articles is just the opposite. He tries to be constructive to those articles but even there he comes up with disruptive edits by adding unsourced contents. So its so evident that this user is a fan boy of a composer who just vandalizes articles related to another composer who is a competitor to his favorite one.Goosebumps7 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Art Theft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wish to report this user:

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/User:XxHannahxX

For being an art thief, they have been asked by many to remove the stolen art work or give the correct credit due, but even the admin over on Paragonwow.wikia have ignored this completely. As it is part of your own site I believe you would have more sway on this matter.

This person has stolen art from others, which includes the following but probably many others as well;

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Masquarade.png

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:RemakeNoble.png

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Mother2.jpg

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Test2.jpg

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Test1.jpg

They have not asked permission to recolour or use these pieces of art work until recently, when they asked only one of the original artists which is Zombie Cat over on Deviant Art, now she said they could use the art work IF they gave the correct credit to herself. This however has not been done and they have refused to do this, as they are not taking the polite hints many have seen to it that they are not such polite hints anymore and so before it gets out of hand I would prefer for yourselves to sort this matter out.

They have also used Blizzard Art work, this for instance;

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Natielblood1.jpg

This should also have the correct credit to the original artist however XxHannahxX doesn't seem to care that not only have they been found stealing other peoples art work but that when they are asked politely to either remove it or give the correct credit they would prefer to ignore said requests.

Please sort this out before I find a way of taking it higher.

Thank you.

Ammeg88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.68.203 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is not "Wikia". We here have no relationship or control over what happens there...you need to address your concerns with wikia directly. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I shall head that way again then, although they seem to do shit all.

Sadly that's quite possible:( Good luck getting this resolved! DMacks (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad user page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just moved User:Mc352revno53 to article space, in response to a user request, and inadvertently moved User talk:Mc352revno53 at the same time. My bad. Could someone undo the talk page (not the article) move, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

someone keeps defacing John Giuca's article

Problems with potential libel in a biography of a living person go on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Insults regarding my ethnicity

IP 94.197.127.102 ([76]) isulted me for my ethnicity calling me a nationalist with chaivinistic views regarding the Muslims.

This user's edit is against Wikipedia's ruls. Moreover, I think he is banned User:San culottes with multiple sock puppets and with similiar rethoric.

--Wüstenfuchs 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Had the IP omitted the phrase "bizzare and embarrassing East European ethno-nationalistic" the comment would have been fine, just discussion of a content dispute.

If you can point to other diffs supporting your allegations of sock puppetry and ban evasion, please help us out by doing so. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the first sock puppet investigation [77]. As you may see, the user is involved in the same topic and has the same interest for my user account, as he already knows I'm Eastern European, don't know how. --Wüstenfuchs 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, SC is not WP:BANned, and he isn't even WP:BLOCKed anymore [78]. As for how he might have guessed at your geographical origins, it's really not so hard at all if you look at your "linguistic tics" (rather Slavic) as well as your other areas of interest (Balkans especially). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but what about those two edits [79]; [80]

Earlier sock puppet of cullotes (Arabic name) and this IP made the same edit. --Wüstenfuchs 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC

Also to add, he made other puppet also when he wasn't banned... San culottes was banned for hours, but he made other two user pages as well, even though his earlier account recieved a block lift. --Wüstenfuchs 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What is a San cullote? Also, who cares what fox user's ehnicity is? I don't know or care. Stop putting it out there bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Sans-culottes. And also The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, a "sans-culotte" is anyone who doesn't wear culottes - and they're my kind of people. I much prefer people to wear either shorts or skirts, coulottes are just so boring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, see also L.H.O.O.Q. And preemptively: cluttering up WP:AN/I with ridiculously erudite cross-languages jokes? Shome mishtake, shurely?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (critic)

• Robert Hughes (critic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• DownUndr (talk · contribs)

User has a long term involvement with this article; WP:OWNERSHIP and very nearly WP:SPA seem likely, as does WP:COI. Edits of the last few weeks, culminating in today's edit warring, have centered on persistent addition of unsourced cause of death, with an interest in promoting the reputation of Hughes's last wife [81], [82], [83]. Some previous edits introduced or retained controversial unsourced content, including BLP violations [84], [85]. Discussion has been attempted here [86], and at previous sections of the article talk page [87], [88], as well as at the user's talk page [89], to no avail. JNW (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The activity has stopped for now. I have watch-listed the page, and I expect several others will also help keep an eye on things for the next while. -- Dianna (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. At this point that sounds just right. JNW (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Grebe11

Grebe11 (talk · contribs) is a vandal only account, repeated in quick succession repeated the same type of vandalism at Betelgeuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . See vandalism 1 and vandalism 2 two minutes later.

-- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, you want to take vandalism to WP:AIV, not here. That said, I blocked him for 31 hours, although I don't have high hopes that his contribs will improve after the block expires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)