Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776

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

Noticeboard archives



blocked, tpa removed NE Ent 10:42, 21 November 2012 (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.

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

Obvious vandal-only, needs a block. Shaz0t (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
[1] Shaz0t (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
...and you called them a prick in your edit summary as you added that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, was just referring to this. Shaz0t (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
By which I mean I used 'prick' as ed-sum to remind me/others what it was about in my history; not as any pa. Sorry. Shaz0t (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Please revoke their talk-page access. OS emailed. Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't edit war with a user on their talk page, Shaz0t. Report them and move on. Tiderolls 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Reported here. No EW for NPA's. And, I've moved on. Ta. Shaz0t (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Tiderolls 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, thanks, tide. But srsly; calling me out on 'edit-warring' over someone repeatedly saying, "<redacted (it was boring, anyway) NE Ent>"? O_O Shaz0t (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not Dodge City, this is the Administrator's notice board for incidents; I don't "call out" editors. You reported the incident, that was sufficient. There was no need to continue to revert the user. Your reversion actually interferred with administrator action. I was hoping you'd get out of my way so I could act on your report. As to the essence of the "attack", it's confusing that you would mention OS and then repeat the objectionable post. Tiderolls 02:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

[2] Tiderolls 02:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, didn't read it as OS in that context. Shaz0t (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Abdelaziz bin Ahmed Al Thani[edit]

Floquenbeam warned and unblocked the IP. BLP violations revdeleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2012 (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.

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

Someone's already warned the user who vandalized the page (added unsourced material which clearly violates BLP at a minimum). The legal threat is clear though. a13ean (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The IP appears to not be shared, so I've indefinitely blocked the IP. Feel free to change the block settings if necessary. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the block, but I didn't think we indef'd IPs. Perhaps I missed the memo. BencherliteTalk 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. BencherliteTalk 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks to me like it's registered to an ISP for ADSL use -- why do we think it's static? NE Ent 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right. I don't check WHOIS stuff that often, so I think I was confused. My bad. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It is static. [4] Keep in mind, when that site says "dial up static", that is a different thing, but this is adsl. I also tested for proxy, not likely. Dennis Brown - © 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 - © 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 - © 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 - © Join WER 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

flag Redflag OS/suppression missed some diffs (e.g. the first one) (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. BencherliteTalk 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 That subnet was once the realm of a banned user I call "LC", but that was a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Editing restriction[edit]

Two administrators have suggested raising this question here.

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

I'd consider that a violation of the restriction and have removed the tag. Esoglou is to be commended for reverting their own challenged edit. NE Ent 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I posted no content, I posted a tag. Esoglou however posted original research with no sourcing. He is also posting in a Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) theological article under a Greek word (theoria), his own opinion. The Roman Catholic church uses the word contemplation theres an article for that. He can post his original research there. Why is he taking over an article that is in a modern sense about a Greek Orthodox theological term and is under the Greek the word, name for it? No one in their current language uses the word theoria but the Eastern Orthodox. Esoglou has decided he has to go into that article and take it over and that is what got both of us having to contribute here under restriction. You don't see me going to the immaculate conception article stirring up a fuss. Esoglou just loves to go into Eastern Orthodox subjects and obfuscate them. I am not the only whom has complained about him. He has gotten topic banned from other subjects [5] Where he has already been accused of the same original research and edit warring. It has been requested already that there be a separate article for theoria just for the Greek Orthodox. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Generally speaking editing restrictions are interpreted very broadly, so any edit is most likely going to be considered a violation. Theoria has referenced both east and western catholicism since its creation by Trc (talk · contribs) in 2004. I encourage both editors to just edit the appropriate section of any articles which cover both traditions -- my guess is continuing issues with this would most likely lead to expanding the topic ban(s). NE Ent 22:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification by admins[edit]

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

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

Blocked 48 hours. Seems a pretty clear-cut case of tendentious fringe-pushing, and obvious edit-warring. Fut.Perf. 17:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The user has immediately reappeared on Rus' people as IP (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[edit]

admin not required, BMK moved NE Ent 23:43, 21 November 2012 (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.

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 [1] Minden jacob (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Attention needed at WP:UAA[edit]

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[edit]

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": . 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: . 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 , 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 (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. (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 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Karl Rove[edit]

Article semi-protected. BLP violation removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2012 (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.

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

Initial addition: [9]

1st revert and expansion: [10]

2nd revert: [11]

3rd revert: [12]

1st ip revert: [13]

2nd ip revert: [14]

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

The page needs to be semi-protected, and that will suppress the votes of BLP violators. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I have posted a request at WP:RFPP in case no one does it here first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have semi-protected the article for a week and removed the BLP-problematic section.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat[edit]

Blocked for continued disruptive behavior (posting how much he hates Wikipedia and wants to leave instead of just leaving). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2012 (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.

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

  • I'd say that a block is not necessary at this point (the talk page has been deleted, and I'll explain to him why suing Wikipedia wouldn't have made sense). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • More of a case of clue than anything. I am cool with whatever you choose to do. As long as his disruption doesn't spread or continue, a hearty talking-to and a suggestion that he go to Teahouse or the help desk and ask for help should be sufficient. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Koalagcf is not happy talk Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
        • And yet another 45 minutes of living I'll never get back. Oh, well. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It was a valiant attempt to help in some ways, but the way his talkpage reads, I'd have probably left in a huff too (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by LittleBenW[edit]

Blocked for 48 hours, mainly for the completely disruptive behaviour at WT:BLP rather than the (doubtful) legal threat. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2012 (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.

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

I wouldn't consider that a legal threat, just another example of his extreme battleground mentality and incivility when confronted with normal criticism. Some action is necessary, perhaps mentoring or something similar, but retaliating with overreactions isn't going to help either. He just needs to back off and turn down the rhetoric substantially. Leaving the diacritics area alone for a (long) while and focusing on other topics may be advisable as well. Fram (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
He needs to lose that term "libel", which is a legal term and thus violates the NLT rules. Although he might be blockable for other things anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Right. I don't feel threatened, mind you, it's just that I've regularly observed a pretty close to zero-tolerance ANI approach to people bandying about claims that they have been "libeled", "slandered" or "defamed", with blocks being pretty much automatic and immediate. I'm not sure I even agree with the policy (I feel WP is legally paranoid in several ways for no real gain), but WP:OFFICE set that policy, not the community, so it's not something that can be WP:IAR'd. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I think he is definitely blockable at this point. I am involved in the thread where this happened so I will let another admin decide if that is true. But I think its pretty clear at this point he is blockable for something. If not for NLT reasons any of a number of the things pointed out over at the AN3 section linked to above are valid reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Describing something as "libel" is not a threat per se, but it is certainly heading in that direction. GiantSnowman 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Historically, ANI has appeared to treat it as a legal threat, hasn't it? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
If it has, it shouldn't have - and when I was accused of libel a few weeks ago and it ended up at ANI the editor was blocked for disruption, not legal threats. There's a big difference between saying "that's libel" and saying "that's libel, I'm suing." GiantSnowman 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not recently, kind of depends who's around that day. "Libel" by itself is not a threat just because it's a legal term. We say copyright all the time and that's a legal term. NE Ent 12:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Typically, yes, it's considered a legal threat, and it's often bundled with other blockable behavior. As soon as someone starts yelling "libel!" they have to be told to remove and disavow that comment or they'll be blocked for it. The NLT rule is as much about intimidation as it is about actually taking legal action. The editor in question MUST lose that word from his comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was something like that. Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to remember that. (Last time I brought this here it was an actual "I"m going to sue you, expect to hear from my lawyer" unmistakable threat.) PS: LittleBenW made both slander and libel claims (not understanding the difference) in the same post, just for the record. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin closure of invalid RfC requested[edit]

Done, in relation to the above section. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2012 (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.

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

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

Usage share of web browsers[edit]

Subject article fully protected, editors directed to dispute resolution venues NE Ent 20:47, 22 November 2012 (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 user A3e6u9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: As you can see, there was no basis for the percentage of Windows 8. He has wreaked havoc on this page: deleting almost every chart, you can see his latest deletions in history, which I have undone. A3e6u9 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. All I can see is unsourced information was added, and Free ottoman may be just slightly confused by our verifibility policy. There's certainly no proof he attempted to maliciously manipulate figures for his own amusement. A bona fide case of vandalism would be more along the lines of replacing the percentages with a message like "micro$oft sucks linux roolz yah" (don't try this at home). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, he may not be malevolent, but he is disruptive. Hopefully, this dialogue will persuade him to stop his disruptive edits. A3e6u9 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I need help. this user is non stop harrasing me here, and on talk page, non stop discussing about me. (not my edits) asking other people to stop me? Please take the necessary action, administrators. He is obsessed with me. He is not discussing disputed material, he is reverting my edits, and he is talking about me non stop. Please send him a warning about this.
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.
I beg administrators to enforce this. Please. Thanks.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Who on earth do you think you are coming on here and demanding people do things? Remember that Wikipedia is a voluntary project, and stomping your foot loudly won't necessarily give you the desired effect. I've managed to convince A3e6u9 that you're not obviously vandalising anything, but you are adding unverifiable, unsourced information and any other editor has a perfect right to challenge you on that. Why can't you just get along? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not the one adding unsourced information. I am removing the material.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Using the direct example given above, in this diff, you added an unsourced claim that the share of Windows 8 as an operating system was 26.35%, without leaving an edit summary. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about Usage share of Web Browsers. A3e6u9 is trying to install back disputed material, showing non-mobile and mobile shares together in the statistics. He doesn't discuss on talk page of the disputed material. He even opened an extra chapter on talk page with my nick on title and made the issue personal. Still making it personal here.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
My patience has limits. Please stop deleting that chart, the information in it is correct and up to date, only you are disputing it because you think that there should be two charts, or whatever. That page is not your personal playground. When you edited the chart to show only non-mobile usage, the numbers were wrong, because you have to recalculate when taking out the mobile usage share. A3e6u9 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi Bwilkins, he is attacking me personal, (I never attacked him personal) He is aggressively trying to install disputed material (I am removing contested material) . He is not even responding on talk page. Tell me what I should do. Thanks.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
He is saying that "his patience has limits", even on admin noticeboard here. Nothing can be said more.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Give him a FEW minutes at least to read what I wrote, digest it, and fix it. Both of you are partly at fault here - so re-read what I said, start from square one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You are whining like a little girl. I'm washing my hands of all of this, you can go and delete all the charts, I don't care. Or maybe you would like to replace the correct numbers with incorrect numbers, whatever you wish. If nobody wants to do anything about it, it's wikipedia's problem, I have my own. A3e6u9 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, after the way you're going on, my patience is beginning to fray a bit too. Stop whining, the pair of you unless you'd both like to be blocked per Bwilkins' rationale. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

User continuous removal of contents and disruptive edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese islands and more...[edit]

NE Ent 20:50, 22 November 2012 (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 would like to ask Administrators to convince Wiki-editor User talk:DAJF to comply‎ with Wiki-rules, university and international standards, dictionaries and handbooks when editing articles on Japan. His activity causes a mess in the Japanese transcription and Japanese names. He should rather avoid the subject. --Seibun (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bad faith account -- pls consider blocking (etc)[edit]

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[edit]

WP:BOOMERANG. Factcolony blocked and then retired.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2012 (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.

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 · edit 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 " seems you have no idea what you are dealing with." I've always tried to edit in good faith and I've had a number of productive discussions with many other editors in the past. Sean.hoyland's tactics all just seem uncouth, excessive, and unnecessary. Factcolony (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  • I closed the report a WP:ANEW with a 24-hour block of Factcolony. The report here is nonsense. If anything, Sean went out of his way to help Factcolony. The unfounded sock puppetry accusation leads me to believe that Factcolony's problems may continue after expiration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Can't say that Sean Hoyland's approach was "bullying". As you say that many of your early contributions were as an IP user, there is no way for anyone to know this and thus having a look at your short list of contributions it is only a reasonable assumption that you are a new user. From that perspective, Sean Hoyland's responses are perfectly reasonable in attempting to make you aware of the sanctions that are in place surrounding articles in this particular area, which are also displayed at the top of the talk page. Also, a revert does not have to be via the Undo button; manually deleting text is also considered a revert. Thus your deletion of the text in the table, followed by Sean's revert, which you then revert would count as 2 reverts by you and as such Sean's comment that you self revert, which effectively counters that second revert you made, is entirely correct. I highly recommend you go to the top of the talk page and have a look through this link, where the Arbitration committee remedies are laid out in detail. If anything, rather than bullying you, Sean was actually trying his level best not to get you topic banned off the article. (By the way, a topic ban is different to an outright ban. The former is a community decided sanction forbidding you from editing an article, which cannot be done by any admin tools. An outright ban is an admin tool enforced block of you from editing anywhere on the site. Please see WP:TBAN and WP:CBAN for the difference. Blackmane (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Follow on comment Suggesting that Sean Hoyland may be a, or may have, sockpuppet is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Failure to present this evidence is considered a personal attack. Rather than exacerbate the situation, please consider retracting that statement so that one thing can be dealt with at a time. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallura, Wikipedia operates on verfiability, not truth. What we need are reliable, independent, secondary sources that can confirm that information. Your declaration that it is the truth is not enough. A tweet from someone associated with the video game is not a reliable source. There is also a conflict of interest issue that you should consider as well. Changing information in an article to be about you and your siblings without reliable sources is often a sign of disruptive editing, even if that was not the intent here. So it is easy to understand why Khanassassin believed that the editing was disruptive. I would suggest avoiding directly editing articles that you are in a conflict of interest with. Instead, start a discussion on the article's talk page. I would also suggest looking for reliable, secondary sources that can back up your claims.
I would suggest to a reviewing admin that if Gallura can follow my suggestions above, this thread could be closed. Singularity42 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
My question above was directed to Khanassassin. As the instructions at the top of the page say, people should discuss issues with the other user before bringing them here. I couldn't find any sign of Khanassassin having done that (on either article or user talk), which was why I asked for a link before engaging the issue prematurely. Apart from that, I agree with everything Singularity42 said, and would emphasize that content issues should be sorted out by discussion on the relevant article talk page, not here.
Gallura, I hope your experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy has not left you too disheartened. I hope you appreciate that we have to deal with a constant onslaught of vandals, and that erroneous changes to actor names is very common. One approach you might take is to ask your contact to make sure that the correct information is published somewhere that could be cited as a reliable source, for example somewhere on the Revolution Software website. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that Khanassassin should abandon his ownership of articles, explain his rationale for reverting and discuss it with the person. I have been watching the article on which he just reverts without explanation and even inappropriately uses the rollback feature. Nothing has been changed since then, the same behaviour. Claiming that this was vandalism is utter nonsense. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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 (talkcontribs) - 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

An internet movie about wikipedia. Wow. That should get the same level of viewership as videos of cute kittens and trendy dance moves, right? Or maybe not?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably about the same viewership as those watching people hurt themselves, which is more or less the same thing when it comes to wikipedia, for some people at least. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion (agreeing with you) has not changed since last June. An extraordinary claim, being the "first" Internet TV station, must be backed with multiple high quality reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 in home video[edit]

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?-- (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I don't know. I just know that the edits belong to a IP address not a registered user. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers 2[edit]

No admin action is required. Participants should follow the standard procedures for building consensus. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 23 November 2012 (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.

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

Please discuss it on the article talk page. AN/I is not the place to solve the underlying content dispute that resulted in the protection. Generally we prefer to stop edit wars, even if that means the wrong information is in the article until talk page consensus can be reached. Once you have established consensus for a particular version, make an {{edit protected}} on the article talk page. Monty845 06:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, if you don't mind wrong information being displayed, that's fine with me. A3e6u9 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No one wants information that is wrong in articles, but edit warring is not the solution. What you should do is go to the article talk page, and present your case for why your version is right. Be sure to include Reliable Sources that support the factual changes you wish to see made. If after making a clear case for why your version is correct, you are still unable to convince the other editors to the talk page, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on how to proceed. Monty845 07:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There was no problem with the edits until someone came along to delete every chart from that page. I'm not the only one who was irritated by this. I've just looked at an up to date chart that is missing from the page for whatever reason. Because of one individual who made that page his personal playground, all the editors are having problems submitting their correct changes. I've tried to talk to the individual, but he did not stop. I'm not a babysitter, to revert all his disruptive changes all the time, I'm fed up with all of this, really. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Going off of Monty's point, BWilkins referenced this essay when he fully protected the chart. If you haven't read it already, you may want too: While humorous/sarcastic, the point it makes is that this page has been protected precisely because there is dispute over what is or isn't "the wrong version." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Any half-wit can see that the chart is wrong, simply because it's missing over 20%, which is no small loss. Plus, if you look at the code, the maths is simply wrong. If someone wants to remove the mobile stats, the stats need to be recalculated. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The chart is missing 20%, that is clear. But you are also not listening, the way to fix it isn't to tell us here on this notice board. The way to fix it is to explain it on the talk page of the article, and follow the dispute resolution process. Monty845 07:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
What is there to dispute, that 3x3 is not 13? Math is not disputable, I'm sorry to say. If no administrator with basic math knowledge wants to fix that chart, that is wikipedia's problem, not mine. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the talk page regarding both this issue, and the issue that was the focus of the edit war. If no one objects, I will make and edit request to fix the percentage and bar length issues with the current chart in a day or two. I suggest you offer your views on the merits of both issues there, and will leave the other involved editor a similar invitation. Monty845 08:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

The earlier ticket was closed to discuss the issue on talk page. Why did he open a duplicate ticket for the same subject?--Free ottoman (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A3e6u9 is asking for an edit request through the protection, despite the fact that this is not what ANI is for. Please do not resume the bickering that was closed in the previous ANI. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Smartmo blocked for edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 23 November 2012 (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.

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

Prediction of IDC is not failed, is last and still valid. IDC predictions is credible research and is officially published in past (it is fact), and is related to article, there no reason to suppress. Information about market outlook is on this page for some years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talkcontribs) 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you have, perhaps, misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and so we only need information about things that can be verified to be accurate. It appears that you are reading some predictions of what may happen, and reporting them as factual statements of what will certainly happen. Since the future growth of a company has not happened yet, it cannot yet be verified to be accurate. Next year, when Android has indeed gained market share, add the information about what happened, and how. You've been accurately informed about the rules -Wikipedia does not predict the future, but simply writes about the past and present. Are you willing to follow the rules, and confine yourself to writing about things that have happened? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Smartmo (talkcontribs) continues vandalizing wikipedia. What can I do next? -Davidkmartin (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Smartmo has misunderstood the rules, and is edit-warring. I've asked him to stop, explained the edit-warring rule to him, and added the relevant article to my watchlist, so I can see if he does indeed stop. Your use of the word 'vandalism' indicates that he is also vandalizing, I assume, but I don't see any vandalism in his contribution history. Can you provide a diff to the vandalism edits? It is important not to call an edit vandalism unless it is genuinely a malicious and intentional defacing of the encyclopedia. Putting a giant picture of a penis in the middle of the article would be vandalism; what I see happening is not vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Smartmo (talkcontribs) is not doing vandalism. He is edit-warring. -Davidkmartin (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This chapter in this article is not only about future on the market, this chapter is about relevant and interesting information published by IDC world leading company, and this information is published in past, not in future. Also this chapter is there for some years, there no reason to remove it, and without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talkcontribs) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the rules so quickly? Do you want to say anything specific about them? From this message, I can't tell whether you have read the rules yet or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I read this rules, especially WP:CRYSTAL I not see nothing wrong on a short chapter with related information from the world leading agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talkcontribs) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

If you're responding to a previous comment, you don't need a new section heading; I've corrected the problem. I've posted more specifically on your talk page, with a link to some of the rules you might be misunderstanding. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:3RR would be useful reading for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, information in this article is not related to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:3RR, it is relevant information to article published in past. There no reason to suppress. And not at all replaced with rumors. Also this information is on page for some years, where is reason of one user to remove it, again without any discussion, and attack me for "vandalism", I'm keeping information on this page in past, not vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talkcontribs) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! thank you for reading all of the rules closely. Now that you know that you are expected to get consensus before making your desired changes, you won't restore this information to the article again until you have shown the other users exactly how the rules support this information as part of the best, most accurate possible version of this article. You won't be edit-warring any more, and so we won't have to block you. I'm afraid I don't understand quite how a published source, even a very good one, can verify accurately what will happen in the future, but if it's true that published predictions are guaranteed to be accurate, and that no prediction of this sort has ever been wrong, then I'm sure you'll be able to help others understand how those sources achieve that level of reliability. The discussion of the specifics of that belong on the article's talk page, since I don't really know enough about Android, operating systems, or market shares to contribute usefully, and the people who do have the knowledge will be more likely to see it on that page. We're just here to help you understand the rules. Thanks, and I wish you the best of luck in creating the most accurate and neutral version of this article possible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I thought you said you read WP:3RR closely? I think you misunderstood it. Since you are in clear violation of that rule after being clearly informed of it, I've blocked you for 31 hours. However, you'll be welcome to join the conversation on the talk page when the block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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


Strange report (tense-wise) requiring no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2012 (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.

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

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

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

COI Role Account[edit]

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

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

Why didn't you (Hu12) ask them if the account was shared on their talk page before opening an ANI thread? NE Ent 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I've included (above) diffs showing the account signing comments as, "Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates" and editing on behalf of "Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates". They have received notice of this thread. --Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader explains " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." (emphasis original). Ask them on their talk page first -- maybe they don't understand the policy about accounts only having one user. NE Ent 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps to resolve a grievance or dispute but this is neither, nor would doing so make appropriate the continued use of Role accounts in this case. I'm an involved with the user on separate matter and it would be best to pass this to another administrator. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and notified the user of the possible problem here. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandal with the "my little brother did it" excuse.[edit]

Editor has been blocked by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2012 (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.

Coolkidmoa (talk · contribs)

Excuses, excuses

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

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

User:Tanzeersaji: AfD removal warning and subsequent abusive message[edit]

Indef for overall disruption (hoaxes, attacks, etc), his recent hoax speedied and salted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 24 November 2012 (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 issued this user with a Warning-level notice on removing the AfD notice from the Tanseer Saji article: [21]. The user has subsequently changed my User page thus: [22]. It is also worth noting that the article history shows a couple of IP addresses being utilised to the same attempted end of removing the AfD notice: [23]. Overall this is a pattern of lack of civility and willingness to adhere to editing norms. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Anti-Nazi League and Squadism articles[edit]

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

Your revert on Anti-Nazi League looks a bit harsh, although the sourcing left something to desire. But other sources could quickly confirm the contents of the book, like this one or [24].
Squadism was one mess of WP:OR, seeing the comment From personal experience/knowledge I have provided a lot of background information to clarify and enlarge on the brief. simplistic, outline of "Squadism" previously provided. So the revert was, in my opinion, valid.
The tendency to fight back is certainly true, as I have seen first hand years ago in The Netherlands. The Banner talk 20:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on what we currently have, Squadism appears to fail WP:N quite miserably. I happen to know its not something someone has just made up, but we need more than a blog entry that doesn't even have the word "Squadism" in it. Maybe it could be merged to Red Action? Formerip (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman[edit]

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

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

First, user:Emmette asked user:Tiamut to participate in discussion on PNA page [31], but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread [32].
He also approached user:Int21h with the same request [33], but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread [34], but with an opposite opinion.
Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc [35], regarding his post on Pt/PNA [36].

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