Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive808

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

PrivateMasterHD and 69.122.190.4[edit]

PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles (and has added generally incorrect information and used questionable word choices in several articles) and has been unresponsive to messages left on their talk page except to blank the page. There have been documented concerns about them for past behavioral issues and while PrivateMaster has demonstrated the ability to make constructive edits, edits such as this continue.

I became aware of their activities on June 17 at Nick Folk when they made this edit that I reverted. Nearly a month later, they returned to the article to make two consecutive edits. There was a third edit made by an IP account (69.122.190.4) that I believe them to be using as the edit was a minute apart from the other edits. The IP claimed Folk was "designated for assignment" however, this does not exist in the National Football League (NFL) only in Major League Baseball (MLB). I left a note on the IP's talkpage however, I did not realize that Yankees10 had warned PrivateMaster a month earlier for a similar incident which aroused my suspicions. As it turned out, both accounts heavily edited MLB and NFL articles so I decided to do some research and found some trends.

Via PrivateMaster's account: Jason Babin ("designated for assignment"), Boomer Esiason (In this instance, the majority of the edit is fine but the disabled list does not exist in football), Kris Jenkins ("eliminated for the rest of the year"), Michael Crabtree ("disabled list"), Orlando Franklin (Trivial information under "Other"), Danny Woodhead (Incorrectly stating Woodhead "lead" the Jets to the AFC Championship when he had little playing time), Shaun Suisham ("designated for assignment"), Jonas Mouton ("eliminated for the entire season"), Billy Cundiff (There is no preseason roster however, there is in baseball), Jeremy Maclin ("eliminated from the season"), Percy Harvin ("60-day disabled list"), Rob Gronkowski ("60 day DL"), Physically Unable to Perform (addition of a link to the disabled list which is exclusive to MLB), and Joe Morgan ("eliminated from the season"). Update 8/12: "Optioned" is not terminology used in football.

A look at the edit history of the IP account reveals a similar batch of edits: Darius Slay ("disabled list"), Shawn Nelson ("designated for assignment"), Colin Baxter ("disabled list; designated for assignment"), Albert Haynesworth ("designated for assignment"), Dennis Pitta ("disabled list"). Most concerning is an edit made back in May to the Injured reserve list which stated MLB players were placed on an injured reserve list if they were lost for the year. This is not true because the MLB utilizes the disabled list (for example Johan Santana was declared out for the year after undergoing shoulder surgery prior to the start of the baseball season—he was placed on the 60 disabled list).

For what it's worth, in addition to the consecutive edits made by PrivateMaster and 69.122.190.4 at Nick Folk, this occurred again on July 27 at Andre Gurode with the IP incorrectly stating Gurode had been ""designated for assignment" while PrivateMaster added dates in the section titles which has been a trend in the edits of both accounts (see here and here).

Being that they frequently edit MLB and NFL articles, I could see, earlier on, if it was a mix-up however, we're to the point where multiple messages have been left for both accounts and yet they are still blatantly substituting the incorrect terminology. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Indef block until he decides to communicate with other editors. I don't see where he's communicating at all with any editor. Blanking and continuing the same behavior is not acceptable.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • He actually has communicated with other editors - but only about protection templates, it appears, and nothing about this behavior, so I'd support an indef based on WP:IDHT if it continues. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef block: Very disruptive editing, no communication with other editors about the problems they notify him about, and a clear lack of competence. Thomas.W talk to me 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Nor do I. It's still problematic that they continue to remain silent however. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What's the issue with that particular edit? All I see is a removal of unreferenced information from a BLP. That said, the user is clearly being disruptive elsewhere, so I support the indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the protection templates - now that it has been established that there's a pattern of disruptive editing - it may be worth noting that he may be changing the tags to intentionally confuse the bots that auto-remove them. Also, he added a protection template outside noinclude tags on AIV [1] (which is transcluded on some admin's personal toolbox pages) after I had already corrected a similar mistake by him 3 days ago [2]. Now this is not an indication of bad faith behavior by itself, because even some admins make this mistake sometimes, but he continues to do it as if to intentionally make several unrelated pages appear in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. That one edit to Template:Image information art actually listed more than a hundred pages there, and the problem was not easy to fix because of the many transclusions those pages have, making it difficult to pinpoint the template that's causing the problem. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Continues the talk page blanking even after being blocked. He hid The Bushranger's comment as if to make it look like no admin has looked into his unblock request yet. Note that this is not allowed per WP:BLANKING. Ginsuloft (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by IP 199.198.223107[edit]

IP was blocked seperately to this thread, per WP:DUCK as part of a long running campaign of harassment of various editors (including HighKing and previously Bjmullan) and transparent attempt at evasion of scrutiny. This is *not* an endorsement of Murry1975's position which is a content dispute and should have dealt with via normal dispute resolution methods--Cailil talk 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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 IP 199.198.223.107 has, as of today started reverting my edits in relation to Irish articles in the same manner as he has done with HighKing. Stating a reason of, amongst other "not applicable to dates prior to GFA 1998". This is covered at WP:IMOS, which this IP seems to have a dislike for, with guidelines that have been agreed after much discussion following the ArbCom case on the "Ireland" articles. The IP was breifly involved in a thread there today. I am seeking admin assitance on this, the IP is being provocative and using a view to garner reaction. They have already wasted time on this board, the time of admins and seem to like wasting thier own time. I have asked them to stop hounding me, their only previous contact before they reverted my edits this morning was the comment above on the HighKing thread, they then set about editing three articles [3], [4], and [5], I since revert to conform with guidelines and they have reverted two after I asked them to stop hounding my edits. Murry1975 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I made one revert inline with IMOS the other 2 reverts were against POV pushing. Tell us all M1975, how you made 3 edits in 3 minutes to 3 different pages and adequately read all 3 articles? Simply, you do not understand the implications of IMOS. When faced with an objection to an edit the onus was on you to discuss on talkpage as to why you think your edit should be made. I requested you do so and here we are, you are reporting me. Already today you applied IMOS across 10 pages in 10 minutes!!! This has been noted before and you seem to have not changed your editing style since the last observation. Shambles man, shambles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you both really going to edit war over the word "THE" ? Are you serious ? Let's close this out as WP:Lame  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
the series continued to be issued when the Free State became Ireland,
The Series B Banknotes (Irish: Nótaí bainc sraith B) of Ireland replaced the Series A Banknotes.
The Series C Banknotes (Irish: Nótaí bainc sraith C) of Ireland were the final series of notes created for the state before the advent of the euro; it replaced Series B Banknotes
And to qoute WP:IMOS, and in particular WP:IRE-IRL

"A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts:

  • Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
  • An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
  • Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").
  • Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]."
Points 1,2 and 4 apply and the edits conform with these. Murry1975 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Kosh, read what the dispute is about, don't skim. As seen in this edit, they are fighting over linking to Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland; the "the" is incidental. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
@Tarc dont use the word fighting, its not nice, dispute is the correct term, but my main concern is that this is the second time this IP has hounded someone, the last can be read above. And you nearly read the edits right "Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland". Murry1975 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't "nearly" read the edits right, I read them precisely right. You're fighting (yes, fighting; each side always thinks they're right) over which "Ireland" to link to. I'm not concerned with the piping. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Tarc that is mightly uncivil. A dispute is a dispute. Understanding of guidelnes and application of them in different manner is a dispute. Fighting is the wrong way to go about things and the wrong attitude to have. Murry1975 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
In the case of [[6]], Northern Ireland is referenced in the text, so can IMOS be applied here? yes it can and is exactly why I made a revert, to keep it in line with IMOS guidelines, not rules, ill remind you. As for the 2 other edits and Series B and C notes, Ireland was not officially recognised as the name of the state until the GFA in 1998. This was the rebuke in my edit summary. I think this is a pretty legitimate revert. SO then I asked to discuss on Article talkpage, which is normal practice I believe. When an edit is reverted go to talk page to discuss, so I expected M1975 to start a convo as the onus is on them to prove their edit is correct or inline with these guidelines. M1975 did not start a discussion and reverted breaking 1RR and playing aunt fanny. Note that both HK and M1975 appear/are IMOS warriors. They do not actually read the articles, but replace "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland" quoting IMOS but not actually having read the articles. How do I know they havent read the articles, because only Johnny5(short circuit) or SUperman could read as fast as these guys. Recently M1975 applied IMOS to 10 pages in 10 minutes. Thats pretty quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────"Ireland was not officially recognised as the name of the state until the GFA in 1998", WP:OR and WP:POV, it had been the states only offical name since 1937. As for your single point of reason above "except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context", it wasnt and this type has been discussed previously on the IMOS talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not disputing the make up of IMOS I am disputing its application at an article page, so you must then go to the article talk page to discuss I'm afraid, and in this case Northern Ireland is in the same context. As for the name of the state ROI should be used if there is any ambiguity and to reference Wikipedia is not correct either. The truth is M1975, you are going page to page removing instances of ROI whether they adhere to IMOS or not. And this is the real issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Content disputes wont be encouraged here at WP:ANI. If there are issues bring them forth. Else please leave this page.  A m i t  웃   17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for getting forked. As stated above in my opening comment this is a hounding issue, I am the second editor being hounded by this IP and they seem to want to continue at this. Murry1975 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Now who is stalking who? Its only a bit of bait and it tastes sarcastic. Nothing worse in that comment than the 2 I was referring to and their activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems pretty obviously a troll with no intention of doing anything but cause trouble. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is "term" policing and Highking/Popaice is a single purpose account, whereby they systematically remove the term "British Isles" or "Republic of Ireland". HK has straight away ran to the admin who imposed the ban, user:Cailil. What is funny is that Cailil's talkpage is riddled with complaints about highking including notable complaint by Doc. HK is banned from Policing the term "British Isles" but obviously feels the same behaviour is acceptable when dealing with the term "Republic of Ireland". M1975 is also guilty of term policing. So not stirring, but someone has to police the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (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:Kevin Gorman personal attacks and assuming bad faith[edit]

The world is not a fair place, and nothing that Gorman said (or other named editors might have done) is out of order here. Laval should be happy that this gets closed before the boomerangs start flying. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Please see the following diffs: [7] [8] Gorman has left a blatant personal attack against me that I attempted to remove as is my right under WP policy regarding blatant attacks of a personal nature, yet he reverted me on that one. Gorman has also threatened me with ArbCom sanctions and assumed bad faith here [9], despite going out of my way to attempt a reconciliation and a lighter tone to diffuse the tension between the editors involved in the dispute at Grant Cardone, yet Gorman assumes bad faith and read my comment as an attack and threatened me with ArbCom sanctions. Previously in the same thread he threatened both User:Thimbleweed and myself to permanently ban us from Scientology-related articles if we even attempted to include any sources he personally disagrees with. As I have related, even when Thimbleweed and myself have attempted to open lines of dialogue and assume good faith and diffuse the tension, Gorman reads anything I write as an attack and an opportunity to bully me with the threat of ArbCom sanctions. I have also complained to Sandstein and Alex Bakherev because Gorman has never been warned once for this behavior, while Sandstein not only warned me, but demanded that I not edit the article and work things out on the talk page. He did not warn Gorman or Bbb23 despite their edit warring and their own assumptions of bad faith and wikilawyering regarding what is acceptable source under BLP. So Thimbleweed and I have not edited the article and have maintained communication and gone out of our way to be friendly, and I tried making some jokes to make the situation less serious in tone, and yet I still get threatened and bulled; Please, this is not right. Laval (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Laval has repeatedly insinuated that other editors are paid shills for scientology while providing absolutely no evidence. He's also been trying quite hard to insert a long negative coatracky section about a relatively minor incident sourced to the blog of an alternative weekly in to Cardone's bio. See the talk page of Cardone's article. Suggesting other editors are paid shills for scientology while at the same time complaining that they are violating AGF is pretty confusing. (Tangentially: I'm in class right now, so my ability to respond will be somewhat limited for a while.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Those alleged PAs are about as mild as I've ever seen brought to ANI. Maybe Laval should stop accusing other editors of being scientology shills if that's what's going on. Kevin, can you provide some diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Todd, I don't see any evidence of personal attacks. Also, the diff that Laval says indicates that Kevin threatened him with ArbCom doesn't say that at all (doesn't even mention ArbCom).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume he's talking about the fact that I've repeatedly reminded him that Cardone, as a scientology-related article, is under arb sanctions, and asked him to conform his behavior to those sanctions. (Coincidentally, he was already warned about them by Sandstein.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
He explicitly makes an accusation about it in this diff. I think these diffs are also informative about his general behavior: [10], [11]. I feel like he's made explicit accusations elsewhere as well, but can't find them offhand (and am still in class) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Laval accused User:Setomorp of being in the pay of Scientology at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christy_Lee_Rogers. Andrewman327 removed the offending personal information about Setomorp. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Ortega link, that alternative weekly is the triple-Pulitzer Prize winning Village Voice and its author is its former editor-in-chief. Let's not misrepresent where this is coming from. The incident may not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but its source certainly does. Now this shill business needs to stop, and I'm watchlisting the article and posting on the talk page to make sure everyone plays nice. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has ever suggested it's not a reliable source, just that a negative incident significant enough to be mentioned in someone's relatively small biography would've been picked up by other sources as well. If it ended up getting significant coverage elsewhere, I'd totally support including it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
When you mention "the blog of an alternative weekly", that definitely indicates that you think the source is unreliable. If your sole problem is the significance of the incident and not the quality of the source, why use this phrasing? Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Not speaking for Kevin, but one of my objections to including the material was the quality of the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It doesn't indicate that I think the source is unreliable, it indicates that I don't think the source is of a high enough quality or authoritative enough to be used as the primary (and only) source for negative information in a biography of a living person. I would consider many alternative weeklies to be reliable, but there's a difference between a story appearing on the blog of an alternative weekly vs a story appearing on the front page of the NYT or appearing in Nature. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • This content dispute has been pretty well fleshed out on the article talk page, as well as other places. Laval had no basis for bringing it here and trying to transform it into something it's not. Because of my involvement, I won't close it, but my opinion is it should be closed. Rehashing the content dispute here serves no purpose and is not appropriate for this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2013 (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.

Laval outing[edit]

Hang on a minute, here. Laval just outed an editor on WP:COIN. I know outing happens fairly regularly there, but they also throw in accusations that both the editor and the subject of the article are Scientologists. This comes after Laval failed to get the article deleted in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Lee Rogers}an AfD]]. It seems petty, at the very least. ArbCom just banned an acknowledged Scientologist for allegedly outing someone. I'm not a fan of either side of this dispute, but I got sick of the hypocrisy around this issue long ago. Laval needs to learn that the rules are the same for all sides. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just revdeleted and warned Laval, but if anyone thinks blocking is merited or Scientology sanctions are needed please weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Laval has already been warned per WP:ARBSCI but has continued to pursue a battleground agenda. Calling people Scientologists and outing an editor after being warned is call for an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment here. It appears that Laval has alleged at WP:COIN that another editor works for a certain PR firm and (without providing evidence) that this PR firm is a Scientology-related organization. At first glance, this may well be outing and/or harassment, and may merit sanctions, but there may be circumstances – such as genuine conflict of interest situations that jeopardize Wikipedia's neutrality – that legitimize such conduct. To enable other administrators to examine this further in a more structured environment, I recommend making a WP:AE request.  Sandstein  17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Enclos[edit]

NAC/OP: Article deleted by RHaworth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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 not sure what to do about this. A new editor, User:ARCHjunkie, has tried five times to get a new article on the glass consulting company "Enclos" created through Articles for Creation, but has been turned down each time. [12] This editor's only edits are to that proto-article, and to insert the name of the company into other articles. [13] Because of this, I left him or her a comment pointing out our WP:COI policy.

Today, another completely new editor, User:ObviouslyNotAGolfer created the article Enclos directly, using the text from AfC. The creation of the article is this editor's one and only edit. [14] Immediately after, a third editor, User:ConsiderMeMilesDavis also brand-spanking new, edited the Enclos article and added the name of the company to the same articles that ARCHjunkie had. [15].

I don't think it's a lack of AGF on my part to believe that these three editors are either the same person or, at the very least, meatpuppets working in concert, and that they are in some manner connected to this probably only barely notable company, but I don't know what to do about it. Did they break any rules by creating an article after it had been rejected numerous times at AfC? Does their obvious COI make the article subject to being deleted? If so, what's the best pathway to do that? Or am I simply overreacting?

Any advice and/or action will be welcomed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

All accounts notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I decided to mark it for speedy deletion under A7, no indication of importance. As far as I can tell, the article makes no claim of importance or notability for the company, the sources pretty much show that it exists, and that it did certain projects and bought other companies. I don't normally do a lot of deletion-related stuff, which is why I was hesitant to take this step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
ARCHjunkie has been on the IRC help channel a few times, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this was sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. As it is, the article's sources are not good enough, cited to one in-industry book, a niche magazine, and enclos's website. Howicus (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (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.

Nanshu's personal attacks[edit]

At Hokkaido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nanshu (talk · contribs) has been vehemently opposing the inclusion of what is as far as I can discern from multiple sources I've scoured across the internet to be the Ainu language name for the island and has done so for the past several years. Last year, when Nanshu came upon the page, he falsely accused me of vandalism and he posted this lengthy screed wherein he calls me "not just rude and dishonest but ignorant". I sought out several more sources to back up the claim I had added as seen here. Within the past several hours Nanshu has once again posted a lengthy essay to the talk page where among many things he says I lack common sense, continues to attack my intelligence by stating that something is too long for me to understand, and says that I am an example of the anti-intellectual threat to Wikipedia. He has also called me a hopeless cause and said I am "too bold to edit Wikipedia"??. I should not have to tolerate this behavior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I warned the user on their talk page. The level of incivility in this case is relatively minor, I don't believe any other action is warranted at this time. If the incivility continues, report it again to escalate the consequences. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Incivility going on for 3 years now though is a bit much.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive and extensive OR-violations by Migang2g[edit]

Migang2g (talk · contribs) is inserting tons of original research over and over again. If it's removed, he reverts and if it is tagged, he removes the fact tags. The problem is not a content dispute (Migang2g may be right or wrong) but the fact that Migang2g continues even after being informed repeatedly about Wikipedia's policies about WP:RS and WP:OR. The problem in a nutshell is this:
Migang2g uses perfectly good sources, but he always uses them to say something completely different. Here are just a few examples:

  • For his figure of how many Spanish speakers there are in the US, Migang2g uses one source that gives the total Hispanic population in the US, then another source that says which percentage of Hispanics speak Spanish, and then he calculates his own figure based on this. There are loads of problems there. First, some non-Hispanics also study Spanish. Jeb Bush is not Hispanic, but speaks Spanish. Second, the figure Migang2g presents is not found in any of the sources, it's his own calculation by combining data from two different sources that weren't necessarily computed at the same time.
  • For Spanish speakers in Morocco, it gets even more bizarre. The source says between 4 and 7 millions, but Migang2g has decided that the actual number is 5.5 millions.
  • For all European countries, Migang2g uses the Eurobarometer. First of all, the Eurobarometer only focuses on people older than 15 years, so applying it to the whole population is clearly wrong. Second, the Eurobarometer study consists of a sample in every European country, usually between 500 and 1000 people, and the gives a percentage for how many of these speaks a given language. So the Eurobarometer never gives any figure for the number of speakers in any country. Yet for more than 20 countries, Migang2g takes the percentage found in the sample, then calculates that against the number of people older than 15 years, and then presents his results as the number of Spanish speakers in the whole population.
  • For many non-European countries, Migang2g looks at how many people there are in the country from Spanish speaking countries, and then he adds all these up. This is wrong on many levels. First and foremost, it again means that the number Migang2g presents is never found in the sources, it's just his own calculations. Second, the calculations are obviously wrong. For some countries, he only finds data for some Spanish speaking countries. Moreover, he is wrong to equate "people from Spanish speaking countries" with "Spanish speakers". In Spain alone, there are millions of people whose language is Catalan, Galician or Basque rather than Spanish.
  • For a large number of countries, Migang2g doesn't even bother with a source. He just presents a number with no source at all. If it's removed, he reinserts it. If it's tagged, he deletes the tags.
  • Last but not least, Migang2g presents a percentage of Spanish speakers for the whole population. There is never a source for this. Instead he takes the whole population of each country from some source. Then he divides that with his own estimates of Spanish speakers (which are always OR, as shown above) to arrive at the percentage. Even if his calculations of Spanish speakers wouldn't violate OR, and they certainly do, this percentage nonsense would be obvious OR and false as the sources Migang2g has used are never taken at the same time.

Now, I have tried to explain over and over to Migang2g that this is OR.[16], [17], [18]. I have pointed out twice that he cannot calculate in this way and that he cannot make up numbers that aren't found in the sources. He doesn't give a damn, he just continues anyway. Last time, when I tagged the OR claims to give him the possibility to present sources for them, I also warned him that I would bring the matter here if he continued.[19] He ignored that as well. Given that I've directed Migang2g to WP:RS and WP:OR repeatedly and he still continues to delete every fact tag and to present his own calculations (and often his own inventions) as undisputed facts, I see no other way to deal with this than to take it here. This is not a content dispute, it's about Migang2g deliberately falsifying data, misrepresenting sources and deleting fact tags despite multiple warnings.Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent insertion of original research, misrepresentation of sources and synthesis of data coupled with persistent WP:IDHT and lack of competence, particularly for someone who has a 6 year old account should be met with a swift block. Blackmane (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the second last sentence by Migang2g in this diff says it all: This is the reason I inserted my original research. This comes after Jeppiz tried in detail to explain why the edits were original reseach and why it is against policy. I'm not sure if this is a language-barrier issue or just a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, but some restrictions need to be placed on Migang2g if the editor is going to continue to insist on inserting WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Singularity42 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I have also wondered if the problem is that Migang2g's English isn't good or if he just refuses to hear. That's why I've given him the benefit of doubt this far, and tried to explain over and over again why he cannot push OR of this kind. As you say, some restrictions would be needed know, because any attempt at discussing with him is fruitless. He knows and acknowledges that he has calculated all the numbers himself (apart from all those that he just made up), but he just doesn't seem to care. I've already reverted two times and tagged all the claims that aren't sourced (or "sourced" by misrepresenting the source), and I have no wish to start a long edit war, especially as Migang2g has made it perfectly clear that he will continue to behave in the same way.Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. If Jeppiz delete every data I used, people will not be able to opine, then It's neccesary people see the data to debate it.

First I am going to talk about the sources I can not understand why are violating something, according to Jeppiz.

  • In USA, Jeppiz deleted the source about the Spanish speakers as a first language. It’s a direct source from the US census Bureau. There isn’t any discussion here, but Jeppiz deleted it.
  • About European Union countries I used a direct source. It’s not the combination of two sources. The eurobarometer give us the population older than 15 years old of each country (page TS2), and the percentage of the population of these countries who speak Spanish enough to be able a conversation (Page T64). For example for France, eurobarometer says that 14% of 47,756,439 can keep a Spanish conversation. It’s the same to say that 6,685,901 can keep a conversation. Check also pages T40, T46 and T74, for other data I used. Jeppiz says that this is only a survey to 1,000 people. Of course. This is the best way to know the reality and to do a good statistic data. It's imposible to ask to everybody.
  • About Brazil, I used a direct source from Instituto Cervantes (page 6). This source says that there are 12 million speakers with limited knowledges. Its not my calculation. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge". I added the last phrase, but Jeppiz always is reverting everything.


After these 3 points, I'm going to talk about other points I can understand the discussion:

  • About 43.7 million people who speak Spanish very well. The Pewhispanic's source says that 82% of the Hispanic people in USA speak Spanish very well, and the Hispanic population is 53.3 million according to US census Bureau. If I can claim both data because both data have own their sources, mathematics says that 82% of 53.3 million = 43.7 million.

Readers can see that the figure is the combination of two sources, because is specified beside the figure with the reference number. But It isn't my own calculation. I didn’t make a statistic study to calculate the population of USA or the percentage of the population who speak Spanish very well.


Finally I used 7.8 million Spanish students. The students are frecuently used to talk about the speakers of a language. Arab for example is studied in the schools. Practically don't have a first language speakers. About English speakers, this wikipededia says that there are 1,500 million speakers, because there are 750 million speakers as a foreign language. It's a source from the British Council. In the Encyclopedia Britannica you can find similar figure. Of course It's included English students. Anyway I gave sources that talks about 50 million speakers. Instituto Cervantes (page 6) says that there are 37 million speakers as first language and 15 million speak Spanish with limited knowledge. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge" that I recently added part of the last phrase.


  • About Morocco, I used a direct source, however the source says that there are between 4 and 7 million speakers, and I used 5.5 to have a concret figure. Maybe this figure could change it for a concreter data.
  • Jeppiz also deleted the Hispanic immigrants in the European Union. Why? In the study Demografía de la Lengua española (page 37) says that there are 2,397,380 immigrants from Spain or Latin America who they are Spanish speakers as a first language. I did the same but specifying immigrants in each country, and the sum is less than 2.4 million. Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Well, the above answer by Migang2g doesn't really address the issue. I agree with him about the first point concerning Spanish speakers in the US and I've reinserted that source. However, that still leaves more than 150 unsourced claims. The rest of Migang2g's answer consists of him explaining how he calculated his data, showing that he still does not hear the point: there should be no calculations at all. For the US, he thinks it's ok to combine data from different studies and calculate his own figure. For European countries, he thinks the Eurobarometer can be used to claim a number of speakers. It cannot, as the Eurobarometer never presents any such figures, only percentages. That equating "immigrants" (and immigrants alone) with "speakers" isn't possible should be obvious, and I hardly need to point out that a source saying "between 4 and 7 millions" cannot be used to claim "5.5 millions".
Apart from these problems, Migang2g doesn't address all the "facts" that simply are made up. So in short, it seems we all agree that Migang2g is calculating (and often making up) his own population figures. As everybody except Migang2g also point out, it is problematic and worrying that Migang2g still refuses to get the point. At Wikipedia, we cannot calculate population figures ourselves, not to mention making figures up.Jeppiz (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You can claim that I used two sources for the "very well" Spanish speakers in USA, but not for EU countries. I'm economist an I studied about survey and I can claim that the Eurobarometer's study is about the population of each country, older than 15 years old who speak the different languages. The study don't give us a figure, only the percentage, but the study was made thinking that is more representative and summarized to give us percentages, but they also give us their population calculation for the study, and that's the problem with the other source. Pewhispanic give us the pecentage 82% of the Hispanics who speak very well Spanish, but they don't say anything about the population data they used. But when a study talks about a percentage is a percentage of something. We need to know the quantity of population we are talking.

Migang2g (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Migang2g, what you describe above is the very conduct issue that has brought you here. You are applying your knowledge of economics and your study of the survey to interpret the results and put them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot accept your interpretation of the surveys, etc. Either the survey directly states it or it does not. If an interpretation is required, then you are adding your own original research. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Direct question to Migang2g[edit]

What we need from you at this time is an answer to the following question: Will you refrain from adding content based on your own original research, including, but not limited to a) your own interpretation of sources beyond what they directly state, b) your synthesis of two sources to create new information, and c) your own calculations using raw data contained in the sources? If the answer to that is anything but "Yes, you will refrain", then an administrator will have to take action. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)----

Yes, I can refrain. I could added only direct sources where "citation needed" is required, but I consider that EU data used is a direct source. I could delete the percentages calculated and the figures where I used two sources combined, but remaining the EU data used as before.

The study: Demografía de la lengua española (page 37), uses the Eurobarometer 2006 to claim that there are almost 19 million people who speak Spanish including speakers with limites knowledges. It is also used in the List of countries by English-speaking population for the EU countries excluding UK. The problem here is that It wasn't considered the population data in the Eurobarometer 2012 older than 15 as I did. They used other population data source as in the talk page was debated, but the eurobarometer was considered as a good source.

I also have to say that in the table in the English language article, percentages was calculated according to the figures founded in the sources as I did. Then they must be corrected.

Migang2g (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurobarometer 2012 data figures are correct[edit]

I can understand the data were removed from the summary table. Those were totally correct but I used two sources to create an original result, but eurobarometer data is a direct source and It was removed again. In this study we can find the population older than 15 of each country, and the percentage who speak spanish with different levels. It is an Eurostat extimation through a survey made every 5 years (Eurobarometer 2001, 2006, 2012). Then, the percentages are from something. The percentages are about the population older than 15 presented in the page TS2 as It is explained. It's an extimation, with a margin error as every stadistic study, but It's a study to be used or to keep into account. It isn't raw data, because the result of population who speak Spanish is equal to the percentage of the population older than 15. Mathematics says it. This is the reason Eurobarometer present us always the population data older than 15. Eurobarometer presented us percentages instead of figures, because there are many data tables and It is more summarized to present us only percentages.

This data also was used in the List of countries by English-speaking population, but in that list It was used the combination of two sources because It was used the total population from another sources, and It wasn't used the population older than 15 from Eurobarometer 2012. Migang2g (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone put a 'blocked' template on their own talk page?[edit]

User:Filmmaking has just done so - any guesses? [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The editing pattern is also kinda weird. He seems obsessed with removing entries and flags from several TV shows list articles. I'm unsure if they're improvements or not.-- cyclopiaspeak! 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps in an attempt to fool anyone about to report him to be blocked that he was already blocked Cabe6403(TalkSign) 14:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed it - Andy, did you attempt to ask the editor themselves before running off to ANI? GiantSnowman 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No - and you are right, I probably should have done. I seemed not to have notified User:Filmmaking about this thread too - I thought I had, but obviously didn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think she likes TV shows so she edit TV show articles. Squidville1 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a wierd vibe to all this, notice the edits by Bretonbanquet(who also has a block for vandalism) who seems to be up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more).  A m i t  웃   15:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Bretonbanquet's edits to User talk:Filmmaking appear to have been perfectly reasonable responses to some terrible edits by NewFranco. I haven't looked very deeply into Filmmaking's edits yet, so I won't put forward an opinion on that, but this may explain why NewFranco went after Filmmaking. Neither of the two has covered themselves in glory, I think. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Amit, would you care to explain your comments? I do not have a block for vandalism, and just what the hell are you insinuating? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
just because it is old doesn't make it vanish, and get off my user talk page.  A m i t  웃   17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, you do - but the fact it's from 2005 makes its mention here slightly...curious. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Amit, did you bother to check that out? First day of editing in 2005 where I made a couple of innocent mistakes and was blocked with no warning, nothing. I think the word you were looking for is "had" a block. It ought to be struck off, it was so blatantly unmerited. But clearly you think that makes me some kind of "problem editor". Now, what do you mean by my "edits are quite different too"? If you can't explain the accusatory comments that you make, you have absolutely no business on this page. And I'll take that apology for a massive violation of WP:AGF now, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looking at Bretonbanquet's edits in 2005 I can't see any vandalism, but hey, the blocking admin has long since retired and although the wisdom of digging up a brief block in 2005 is questionable, we're not going to make that issue any better by poking at it with the AN/I stick. Let's try a different point; a.amitkumar, could you explain why you think that Bretonbanquet is "up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more)"? bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Going back to the original question, Filmmaking's decision to label themselves as blocked must surely be related to the absurd threats of blocking they got from NewFranco. I think the best explanation is that Filmmaking is an inexperienced editor who made a mistake and got badly bitten. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the impression I got. Filmmaking seemed to be an inexperienced, slightly bewildered editor who was receiving some rather undeserved threats from another editor, hence my input. Another thing, Amit, I have no record of being informed by you about the mudslinging aimed at me on this page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
But you are here aren't you(but yes I missed it)? I mentioned your contributions to his user pages weird because that's the only contributions you did to his user talk page. I obviously should have mentioned the warnings too which you responded to. And don't expect an apology from me. You had a block(a fact) which I mentioned though it might have been irrelevant as others mention, AGF is a policy that works both ways, which you don't show either.  A m i t  웃   18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm here because I had Filmaking's talk page on watch and bobrayner posted on it linking to this. I don't need to explain to you why I posted on his page, and others have found my input perfectly reasonable, which it is. There are others who have only posted there once, what exactly does that have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to apologise for mentioning the 7+ year-old block which you inexplicably found relevant to this discussion, I'm asking you to explain and then apologise for your vague accusations against me. You have now accused me of not showing AGF, maybe you'd better explain that too. I've got nothing whatsoever to say about you. If you've got something to say about me, have the guts to actually say it and stop dancing around it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As an uninvolved editor reading this, I'm struggling to understand Amit's grudge. Bringing up Bretonbanquet's block log would only be relevant if the offences were both recent and numerous. A single block in 2005 fits neither of those things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is the "The Free Encyclopedia" which means anyone (including Filmmaking) can edit anytime a day. Which means the user you mentioned, she can edit anything she wants. Squidville1 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Anyone can edit" is not quite the same thing as "Anyone can accuse other people of problematic editing and then clam up when other editors think the accusation is unfounded". Whether that's NewFranco or a.amitkumar. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I gotta admit that she is falsely accused of editing two article just because she edit many articles doesn't mean that she edits articles with only two topics. She is just a newcomer. NewFranco and/or AnomieBOT should apologize for what they did to her. Squidville1 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Kinda hard for a bot to apologise for anything... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for being a mere bot 7SeriesBOT (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1-2-3 doing the botty-bot! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Users circumventing topic ban[edit]

DocIger67 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has shot himself in the foot and has been blocked indefinitely for username impersonation (in this case, it's Dodger67 (talk · contribs)) and disruptive editing. Now, go edit someplace else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Lucia Black and Ryulong have been collaborating in an effort of evade the three month topic ban levied at Lucia Black. There is evidence of this on Ryulong's talk page (and probably a great deal more done via PM) [21]. Ryulong has also deleted a previous conversation with Lucia Black in which she gives him instructions on what to do [22]. It seems that there is meat puppetry going on. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Will notify with next edit. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No, acutally, because you have been blocked for username impersonation. And a quick look at the evidence indicates that your case is wholly without merit, as the "deleted previous conversation" is still there and the diff used indicates a warning that Ryulong believes it would violate Lucia's topic ban. Suggest this be closed forwith. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should feel flattered or insulted to have been impersonated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Call me cynical but this might indicate that Special:Contributions/99.251.120.60 (being discussed above for hounding Ryulong) has changed their MO. They appear to have taken a shine to both Lucia Black[23] and Ryulong. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
They tried this tack earlier; there should be reference to it in the ANI archives of a while ago, to someone claiming to have been Chris Gualteri but posing as Lucia Black's sock though pretending to be Chris's sock or something like that. A clear attempt at trolling, to exacerbate an already bad situation. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I'm not entirely sure this was an impersonation of Roger (Dodger67) as DocIger67 made no attempt at least in this discussion to try and pass himself off as "Roger", which until recently (because he felt generous after I pointed out that not including his real username in his signature and the fact that there really is a User:Roger, that the signature was confusing at least) was the only name in his signature. Doc Iger, while if mashed together just right (which he made no apparent attempt to do with css) doesn't seem to have ever included "Roger" in his signature. Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You didn't see his talk page before I nuked it. DocIger67 had cut-and-pasted Dodger67's talk page, in its entirety, onto his own. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough... If that account is confirmed to be a sock of Technoquat, then my point was moot anyways... Good day. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
        • If it was Technoquat that explains it - I had a run-in with it/him/her some time ago. Case closed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2013 (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:R-41 and various IP addresses[edit]

R-41 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked back in May by User:Dennis Brown at their own request, following a run of problematic content additions and general behaviour, and on the basis of evident issues, including edits that had to be oversighted. In blocking, Dennis Brown suggested that in six months they could request an unblock but that in the meantime any IPs they continued to edit through should be blocked also. Since then the editor has returned to editing through a succession of IPs. In doing so, they have made no attempt to edit in different areas or amend their behavior, ie to make a fresh start (and even if they had of course, they would still be falling foul of the terms of the block). They are still editing in a combative fashion – for example shouting in full caps in edit summaries and telling other users, ie me, that they "hate [my] guts" and that I am a "smart-ass" – and are edit warring even when mistakes in the content they add are politely pointed out to them. They have also made several further talk page comments that have had to be oversighted. There is also the underlying issue that their continuing to edit here is clearly not helpful for them as an individual. I guess this could have gone to SPI but I'm not sure that is technically the problem and arguably it goes beyond that anyway. The following IPs are the ones they have definitely been editing from recently, with the most recent/current one at the top.

Not sure what can be done if they insist on editing from constantly altering IP addresses, but something clearly needs to be done with them, if only for their own good. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I've just blocked User:70.26.155.42 for a month for making threats on both this and N-HH's talkpage, and have rev-deleted the edits. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they pop up in a few days under another IP address. They rarely deny it's them when challenged, and the editing patterns and writing style make their identity rather obvious. N-HH talk/edits 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Request delete and salt of Sanad Rashed[edit]

Problem solved, with our thanks to Dpmuk. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 07:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Sanad Rashed is a BLP which has been deleted on two separate occasions and has been recreated by the same editor Dubaismart three times now. I am requesting a delete and salt of the article, and whatever the appropriate measures are for the editor who keeps recreating the same article. I have already tagged it for CSD G4. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Links to the previous discussion. First discussion, Second discussion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Article deleted and salted. Warning given to user that recreation will lead to a block. Dpmuk (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2013 (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.

Paddington (UK Parliament constituency)[edit]

User:Sam Blacketer is restoring content to the above article for no good reason, and for no benefit to the article or the UK parliamentary project. The information I want removing deals with the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies which has been abandoned, making the information irrelevant and pointless to the article itself.

The information has been removed, without any reverting or reversal or protest, from around 100-200 other articles. I therefore find that Sam Blacketer is purposely choosing this one article to revert and re-revert for his own pleasure, or for purely disruptive purposes.

Further more, you will notice that he has removed a 3RR warning from his page that I put on there as a friendly wrist-slap, and a further removal of advise that I would being his constant edit warring to an administrators attenion (see [24]

doktorb wordsdeeds 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A. don't link to off-site harassment pages. B. You've broken 3RR and he hasn't, so you don't really have "clean hands" here yourself. I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page instead of continuing to edit war or you'll likely be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not in the wrong. Over the history of the Paddington article, I have not broken 3RR, he has. I will continue to fight my corner, because I am in the right. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you won't. You do not have to breach WP:3RR to be in a edit war, and being "in the right" does not entitle you to "fight your corner". Right now you are at 3RR, he is at 2RR. Stop the edit war now and discuss. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no discussing with that editor, as you should be able to see, he is an edit war editor, and I am not. I will not be bullied into submission here. No other UK Parliament constituency article contains the information he wants to include. No other editor agrees with him, else they would be putting it the 650+ articles. That proves - not merely implies - that I am right. So I will keep reverting because I am not in the wrong. I did not come here to be warned about banning when there's a proven sockpuppeter re-reverting everything! doktorb wordsdeeds 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF - and WP:POINT. Also provide your proof of the other editor being a sock. And let's repeat this: being 'in the right' does not entitle you to edit-war. Your promise to "keep reverting" and claims that you are "in the right" indicate a complete refusal to listen and will result in a block if continued. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just echo what The Bushranger has said: you seem to think you have the right to continually revert but he doesn't... the fact is neither of you do. You need to start a discussion on the article's talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is madness. I have looked after hundreds and hundreds of UK Parliament constituency articles. I'm damn proud of articles being looked after and tendered well. I revert vandalism. I add election results from the 1940s onwards when they are missing. I clean up pages when I can. Now this! I can't believe that *I* am being threatened when someone else is in the wrong! I want all UK Parliament constituency articles to have the same content, that's all I'm doing, it's not vindictive, it's constructive! How can you be twisting this against me - can't you see my side of things? I won't back down on this - Sam is in the wrong, not me, and I have to revert his edits, it's a matter of principle. I'm not backing down. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you do not "have" to revert his edits, and "matters of principle" have no place on Wikipedia. I could very easily block you immediately for threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and gross refusal to listen. However, instead, I have reverted the article Paddington (UK Parliament constituency) to the state it was in before this edit-war began, and full-protected it, as the two of you have been the only editors, batting this back and forth, for the last 45 days (indeed, the last edit before this started was 1 January). You both need to discuss the contested content on the article's talk page to reach consensus for its inclusion or non-inclusion, and you need to start by dropping the contention that you are automatically right and he is automatically wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Also both of you need to avoid having this edit-war spill over to other articles like Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency). - The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, what The Bushranger says is absolutely correct in terms of Wikipedia policy, but I do want to point out that we set up a very difficult dilemma in human psychology by asking editors to give their all to improve articles, to the point of their taking pride in their work and feeling not WP:OWNERSHIP of the articles, but a positive sense of stewardship regarding them, and then not giving any recognition of that feeling when situations such as this come up. It is far too easy for casual editors to put vested editors in the position of having to restrain themselves for fear of being blocked for edit-warring. Some recognition of "stewardship" ought to be taken into account by admins when sizing up these types of situations (and perhaps it has here, given that Doctorbuk has not been blocked), and more care should be taken to gently "talk down" the vested editor to get him or her to the talk page. Contrarily, those casual editors who provoke these situations (probably without meaning to) should have the situation explained to them, and be put on a shorter leash if they continue to revert. Because the relationship of the editors to the article is asymmetrical, there should be a similar asymmetry in how the editors are dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, no one should take my comment as criticism of anything that The Bushranger has done in this case. It's really a general comment and not specifically about this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you BmK, that's exactly how I was feeling. I can spend an hour putting in past election results and all of the rest of it, knowing that I'd not get thanked. Then this happens. Feels like a lot of hard work has been for nothing. But as you say, I've not been blocked, so that's a positive sign at least. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Doktorbuk: - in your opening statement you accuse Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet. I strongly suggest you either retract your accusation, or back it up with conclusive evidence. GiantSnowman 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The alternative account (which finally was User:Fys) was explained in 2009 when Sam Blacketer resigned from arbcom.[25] It's hard to see that it has any bearing here. Sam Blacketer is a long term contributor on politics and politicians in the UK. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I* am a long term contributor on politics and politicians on Wikipedia, does that not count? doktorb wordsdeeds 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Please see WP:OWN. In these particular circumstances, I think you should take Sam Blacketer's contributions in good faith. As a side remark, asking that articles conform to a particular mould is not something that you can insist upon. That just leads to problems similar to disputes over WP:MOS or infoboxes. The issues here are best discussed calmly on the article talk pages or on a suitable wikiproject page connected with UK politics. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Not really"?! So Sam is good, Dok is bad, despite us doing the same thing? I've worked damn hard on the same kind of pages that he works on, so why "not really"? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that is your misreading. You started this thread with bad faith accusations about Sam Blacketer, which have been removed by an administrator. You needlessly personalised things and escalated the dispute to this dramaboard. You have been advised to continue your discussions calmly at more relevant venues (see above). Please do so. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Why hasn't this been taken to DRN? The existence or lack thereof of material in one or another article is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is never a valid argument. You have a content dispute with another editor, take it to an appropriate venue ([[WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc) and get an outside view. Histrionics isn't going to get you far. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend doktorb to take this much less personally. It is clear to any neutral observer that both users are involved in a long and tedious edit war. I won't comment on the actual content dispute, but it is painfully clear from the long edit warring and the lack of discussions on the talk page that none of the users is adhering to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, doktorb seems to take any comment from uninvolved editors as a personal insult, as seen by his/her replies above. That attitude is not productive, neither is claiming that you will continue to revert because you know you're right. I would strongly recommend a short break, and re-reading key Wikipedia policies and procedures such as WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:AGF and WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And the whole point of a wiki is that everybody, in every moment, can modify what you have written. That's the very concept behind it. We all follow the same rules, no matter if we edited the article for ages or just yesterday.-- cyclopiaspeak! 17:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Adam Hills[edit]

Problem solved, with our thanks to Legoktm. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 07:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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 Adam Hills article needs to be protected. On the live TV show The Last Leg he challenged people to update his Wikipedia page, and guess what? It's happening. Mostly it's nonsense/vandalism. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's OK, someone just did it. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (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.
Actually leaving it in a vandalised state would be pretty good "punishment" for his stupidity. If he wants an article about him to consist of mostly bullshit, then so be it. Even better if some lazy journo ends up spreading the vandalism around as "The Truth". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, tempting as it might be to "enforce the Golden Rule", it's still a WP:BLP violation and if somebody raised a stink about it they'd probably still win... - The Bushranger One ping only 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yelena Isinbayeva[edit]

Page now semiprotected. In future, WP:RFPP is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Apparently just after winning the World Championship in the Pole Vault, Yelena made a statement about gay rights in Russia. In the last hour or so the article has been vandalized [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] multiple time by different, IPs or new editors. We might reduce further damage if we limit editing to experienced editors until this blows over. Trackinfo (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (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.

Concerns with Jessica Christy and Hgjkfl[edit]

Both accounts indef-blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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 tried to report this to AIV despite rock-solid evidence, but no action was taken despite a history built up of the problems (there's more frustration with AIV involving serial vandal reporting I won't go into here).

Supermariofan12 (talk · contribs) was blocked a month ago for creating a series of false articles around the false television station WKOL-TV. I thought it was resolved, but last night an edit involving a new false television station WBCG on List of The CW Television Network affiliates (note the Charlotte area already has a CW affiliate) popped up. I reverted that and was about to warn the user, Jessica Christy (talk · contribs) for their falsehood and suddenly found they edit to Hgjkfl (talk · contribs)'s userpage with regularity...with the same information about WKOL that got SMF12 blocked. Likewise Hgjkfl was also editing WKOL information with Jessica onto their userpage, while Jessica's talkpage also contains a false station infobox. There had been a mess of non-free images I removed of the WKOL "userpage" and on another WKOL farm on Hgjkfl's talk page, flaring up my suspicions of both of them being WP:DUCKs of each other with SMF12, along with the usual concerns that other editors have no business messing with each other's userpages to begin with. Nate (chatter) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hgjkfl is a complete duck for Supermariofan12 (aka Supermariofan, and who knows what else) and I had no hesitation in blocking indefinitely. Jessica Christy looks to me more like a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, and she does have some constructive edits in her history, so I have blocked her indefinitely too, but with a custom block message which is intended to give her more encouragement to request an unblock, if she is willing to drop the unconstructive parts of her editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (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.

Grossly insulting edit summary needs revdel[edit]

[32]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Edit summary removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerns with Jessica Christy and Hgjkfl[edit]

Both accounts indef-blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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 tried to report this to AIV despite rock-solid evidence, but no action was taken despite a history built up of the problems (there's more frustration with AIV involving serial vandal reporting I won't go into here).

Supermariofan12 (talk · contribs) was blocked a month ago for creating a series of false articles around the false television station WKOL-TV. I thought it was resolved, but last night an edit involving a new false television station WBCG on List of The CW Television Network affiliates (note the Charlotte area already has a CW affiliate) popped up. I reverted that and was about to warn the user, Jessica Christy (talk · contribs) for their falsehood and suddenly found they edit to Hgjkfl (talk · contribs)'s userpage with regularity...with the same information about WKOL that got SMF12 blocked. Likewise Hgjkfl was also editing WKOL information with Jessica onto their userpage, while Jessica's talkpage also contains a false station infobox. There had been a mess of non-free images I removed of the WKOL "userpage" and on another WKOL farm on Hgjkfl's talk page, flaring up my suspicions of both of them being WP:DUCKs of each other with SMF12, along with the usual concerns that other editors have no business messing with each other's userpages to begin with. Nate (chatter) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hgjkfl is a complete duck for Supermariofan12 (aka Supermariofan, and who knows what else) and I had no hesitation in blocking indefinitely. Jessica Christy looks to me more like a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, and she does have some constructive edits in her history, so I have blocked her indefinitely too, but with a custom block message which is intended to give her more encouragement to request an unblock, if she is willing to drop the unconstructive parts of her editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (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.

Grossly insulting edit summary needs revdel[edit]

[33]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Edit summary removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Avanhard resort article and self-promotion[edit]

I have noticed that someone tried to pad this article several times with various links to a foreign commercial third-party websites, such as this one, this and this. All of these commercial sites are using self-published basic info about resort (and few photos of unknown source) for a self-promotion of their own commercial services (namely selling the tours or rooms at the hotels at this particular resort). Am I correct to assume that such sources (which have the only purpose of self-promoting their own commercial service) should not be used due to WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:IS or am I wrong? I have tried to remove these but they were reverted and I was straight away accused of vandalism. I do not really want to break any WP:3RR rules (and if I already did - I apologize for that) or engage into further pointless conversations at an article's Talk page so please help me figure it out here... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID this is exactly breaking point 5. Also some content in the page was focusing more on a resort than the town/village itself. I have removed the content but not the external links yet though.  A m i t  웃   02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
What's the problem? Clear-cut advertising case. Just delete the links again and ask the user to discuss on the talkpage per WP:BRD. You're not the one edit-warring here, so I don't see anything worthy of ANI just yet. He's only posted on the talk page once. I'm sorry I no longer have the time to just help you with this, but I don't see any reason why I (or anyone else) would need to at this point. Also, try pointing out to him that "vandalism" is a label that should never be applied to anything but obvious bad-faith edits and so is clearly being used wrongly. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It would hardly be fair to leave 173.68.110.16 to deal with this alone; naturally, they're worried about 3RR. I've warned the user on their page. Thanks for raising this, 173.68.110.16, and feel free to alert me on my page if there's more trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

Negative, the user 173.68.110.16 has never tried to discuss his edits, but rather had intentions to delete the whole article without any discussion. The article itself is not a "clear case" of commercial advertising, but I agree that a lot of links may have lead to such assumption. However, I am willing to improve the article in near future. Also, please not that the article is not about a town, but rather a ski resort that is located in the town of Vorokhta (a bid difference). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are intentionally trying to accuse me of WP:ABF, my dear friend... Why? I did start the discussion on an article's Talk page, right after I reverted all of the spam second time. I started it with an intention of preventing you from reverting my edits and preventing you from adding in more of self-promotion sources. I did NOT start WP:AfD and never intended to (if I wanted to I would've nominated this article right away). I gave you time to improve it and make it more useful for general readers. What did YOU do? You basically said "fuck you" then promptly reverted my edits again, marking them as "vandalism"... Just like you did before. And only NOW you are "willing to improve" it in a proper way... Why such dishonesty? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please could an Ukrainian/Russian-speaking admin take a look at the links?[edit]

Both the references and the external links, please. They're in languages I don't understand. However, having looked at the article more closely, I now consider the whole of it falls foul of WP:NOTADVERTISING, and have nominated it for deletion here. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

You can ask Ezhiki, he can understand and translate all of the links or recommend someone else to do this. And WP:AfDing it was somewhat premature, as I have explained it on its nomination page. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the AfD that IP address is sketchy as hell, and possibly related to the two brand new accounts (well, one of them registered in 2008, then just came back, five years later) which showed up at the AfD.Volunteer Marek 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I agree - this IP address is very "sketchy", all it does is vandalizing "foreign topic"-related articles as well as other "non-foreign topic"-related articles! Most likely a troll or a vandal. You should definitely investigate it further! Let me know what you will find, ok? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: [34](ru), [35](ru) and [36](ua) all say broadly the same sort of thing. They all describe the hotel (along the lines of: "It is situated in abc; it contains the facilities xyz; ..."). Some of them provide the option of booking rooms. However, in their descriptions they broadly avoid WP:PEACOCK terms ("this is a fantastic hotel" etc.), if that is important. It Is Me Here t / c 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Sanctions enforcement[edit]

Blocked for one month under WP:CASTES. Recommend topic ban or indef should there be a next time. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Jattnijj (talk · contribs), a new user, has been disruptive in the field of Indian caste material, especially on Jat people. This field is under community imposed discretionary sanctions, as can be seen at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. The user has already been blocked twice for edit warring (once on a Sikh religious article, Sarbloh Granth, and once on Jat people). The user has been warned many times (see the user's talk page), and given a formal sanctions warning by me in this edit. Despite these warnings, the user has continued to edit war on Jat people. Most recently and tellingly he has attempted to invoke "freedom of speech" (see edit summary on this and this edit on his talk page in response to a warning). Clearly this user is hellbent on making the article conform to his own personal opinions about Jat people, regardless of what sources say. Also, based upon this edit summary and the contents of this talk page edit, I believe the user is fundamentally opposed to the use of western scholarly sources, asserting that they may be biased (this is true, but that does not mean that we just remove them in preference for people's personal opinions).

At this point, since neither warnings nor prior blocks have had an effect, I think we need a topic ban. I leave it to the community's discretion as to how widely the topic ban should apply. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Give them a nice long block (two weeks or so duration or a month perhaps?). Not a fan of this new fad on India-related pages of biting newbies with topic bans (which only lead to more ANI theatrics from editwarriors and wikilawyers). To clarify Qwyrxian, this is in general, and not directed towards you as I think you've exhausted good faith in dealing with a misguided user.Pectoretalk 03:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I support User:Pectore's recommendation of a block of at least two weeks. User:Jattnijj has already had 24-hour and 72-hour blocks as well as a sanctions warning. We've exhausted what can be done here by persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is wiki here to promote democratic learning or allow bullies to write bias? WP:REFBEGIN and WP:RELY.
I am a jatt of the jatt race And a sikh some we are not a caste nor hindu. The caste system is a creation we did not and do not live by, its dangerous and fictitious. Some claim that jatts are a caste or labourers or peasants is not proven. It is a pov promoted people who propagate dogma or those up to mischief.
If that is the point of wiki then I will fight you. If not then learn something of the subject matter ! Would you allow non Jewish people dominate the writing about them ? Which side do support copernicus or the church?
If you persist to allow this material without context, balance and researching what is already on the page you leave me with no choice but to escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred. The least you could do is read my comments - I am not anti western or academic but anti bias. Jattnijj (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The comment above was posted to another thread above this one so I moved it here (it seemed quite obviously like a response to this thread). I have tried to clean it up a bit for clarity without removing any context. On the face of it, this seems like a fairly obvious case of WP:NOBLE and WP:NOTHERE. Stalwart111 07:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for moving, still trying to get used to wiki and my phone 08:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talkcontribs)
  • Im on the talk page waiting to have a reasonable debate wIth whomever to explain why this article's claims are too strong. I'd ask the editor team here to read all my comments and if they are unclear I will clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talkcontribs) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Jattnijj, taking it to Talk:Jat people is A Good Thing and follows our chat here. Do you agree to let the article talk page discussion develop and not to edit war now? Respect for consensus is important here on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Jattnijj, anyone can edit any article on any subject on Wikipedia; "non-Jewish people" can, and I would venture possibly do, "dominate the writing about them" on Wikipedia. Now, sometimes this can be frustrating when you're a genuine expert on the topic and you're seeing the article being edited by Randy in Boise, but that's how Wikipedia works; nobody owns an article or topic, regardless of whether or not they're part of the group being written about (indeed, in many cases it's better if they're not). Now, one other thing you might want to be careful about are your suggestions that you will "escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred" - this sort of thing is frowned upon here, and can lead to a block if it's determined you're trying to force a chilling effect on other editors. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Having just returned to Wikipedia after a year long absence, I'm struck by how much time is wasted by productive editors in reasoning with aggressive, unrepentent, and ignorant ideologues. No one in the real world would give them this kind of attention. Yes, a block of at least two weeks is in order. She or he should use that time to bone up on Wikipedia policy and etiquette. I don't believe discussing things on Talk:Jat people will be productive at this stage. After a block, hopefully chastened and wiser, they can continue the discussion, if they so choose. Being a newbie is no excuse; we were all newbies once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a block for two weeks. I've tried both on their talk page and at Talk:Jat_people#Opening_claim but it is clear that Jattnijj either has not read our policies etc or has little intention of abiding by them. Let's give them a chance via a block to read and/or reassess. The signs are not good to those of us who are familiar with behaviour in this area of WP, so if there is no real change when they return from the block then I would support a long-ish topic ban from caste articles because they're already proposing to get involved with others of that genre and, really, I for one am becoming increasingly tired of having to deal with this sort of stuff. We're losing good contributors because of it. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support two week block. Shows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in comments above. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - and a month's block. I am sick to death of India related articles being attacked like this. People are taking great care over these articles, and people are coming on here with real WP:COMPETENCE issues and destroying them. Sorry about the rant, but with this and other Inida related articles, I'm just sick of it. Thanks SH 17:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support any block from two weeks to an indef. The number of POV-pushers editing Indian articles is already too high; this new user is clearly lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, clue, and isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm 'aggressive, unrepentent, and ignorant ideologues'

Please explain.

Thanks

Jattnijj (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been explained to you quite clearly on the talk pages and your user talk page how you meet those criteria. You definitely need to review and absorb Wikipedia's rules quickly, or more punitive measures are justified.Pectoretalk 03:35, 16 August 2013 (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.

Serial vandalism on Indonesian football clubs[edit]

Hello. On 4 August, an Indonesia-based anon editor started adding false information to Persekam Metro FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an Indonesian football club, e.g. the playing staff included Karleigh Osborne, who plays for English club Millwall and did so last week, and the coaching staff included Jim Magilton, recently appointed to a post with the Irish FA. This continued with increasing fantasy from IPs in the range 114.79.16.xxx to 114.79.19.xxx, and one registered account, Arfian anthok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who stopped contributing after getting a message in their own language. (FWIW, I'll notify them.) The page was semi-protected for a week, but once the protection expired, the fantasy additions started up again, and this time it was protected for a month and the most recent IP 114.79.19.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours.

This morning, very similar edits have been made to a different football club page, Persires Rengat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including Magilton as coach, Osborne as player, and a member of the Maktoum family as chairman. On the basis it's probably not feasible either to protect or to watchlist every Indonesian football club page, is there any possibility of a range block, or would it knock out half the country? Or does anyone have any other constructive suggestions? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Block of Samuelled for copyvio[edit]

I've just blocked Samuelled (talk · contribs) for repeated insertions of content that violates copyright at INS Sindhurakshak (S63). As there's a possibility that some might consider me WP:INVOLVED after nominating his content fork of that article, INS Sindhurakshak disaster, at AfD yesterday (where it was speedy-deleted for the same copyright-violating content (word for word, even) being included), I've brought it here; I believe that even if WP:INVOLVED would apply this falls under the 'any reasonable administrator' exemption due to his apparent complete lack of understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's copyright policy, but if there is disagreement will not object to a trout and an unblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your edits to the article, the spinout, and the AFD I would say that it speaks well of your judgment to be concerned about WP:INVOLVED. If this were just an edit warring block I might say it would have been better to have let someone else handle it; it would depend on any other involvement in the topic area or with Samuelled and with avoiding the appearance of impropriety. For blatant and repeated copyvio, though, this block is perfectly reasonable. I can re-block if we really need to, but WP:NOTBURO. If they continue to disregard our copyright requirements, an indefinite block would be in order until some indication is made of intending to follow policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to reblock - honestly, I likely would have done the same in Bushranger's place. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Me, too. I've given him a bit of the {{uw-copyright-new}} explanation, which hopefully will help avoid issues going forward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks MRG - that's a lot better than I could have ever explained it. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I, obviously, think the block was warranted, as I warned the editor earlier. Seeing his denials that the content he added was unacceptable reinforces that and, further, raises questions about how he'll proceed after the