Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/North8000_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/Incidents/North8000 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)

Legal threat at Abdelaziz bin Ahmed Al Thani

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

---

An ip editor has made an apparent legal threat[1]. 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. [2] 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. 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 [3] 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)

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[4] 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)

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 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 [5] [6] [7] 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. 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. 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)

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. 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: [8]

1st revert and expansion: [9]

2nd revert: [10]

3rd revert: [11]

1st ip revert: [12]

2nd ip revert: [13]

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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

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

Legal threat by LittleBenW

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

User A3e6u9

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

User continuous removal of contents and disruptive edits

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

---

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

Japanese islands and more...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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. 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 [14]. Closure of this section is recommended. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

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)

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)

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 [15]. User:Emmette politely agreed to avoid my talk page as a result [16]. 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 [17]. On this occasion user:Cptnono also warned user:Emmette of an apparent votestacking of his view-sharers from previous/similar discussions [18]. 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 [19] - making notifications to participants of the discussion on PNA talk page [20]. 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 [21], but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread [22].

He also approached user:Int21h with the same request [23], but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread [24], but with an opposite opinion.

Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc [25], regarding his post on Pt/PNA [26].

So far, user:Int21h responded to Emmette's message in supporting him (as expected) [27]. 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 option 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 option 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)

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)

WP:NPA by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

User:TheRedPenOfDoom in this diff [28] abused me. He has also repeatedly interacted with me in an uncivil manner (eg. [29]) 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)

Protected erroneous chart needs fixing by an administrator

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)