Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792

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

Noticeboard archives


Sandbox defamatory vandalism[edit]

SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify (talk · contribs) has been adding YouTube links to the sandbox with the summary '[name deleted] is a loser'. Someone please block him/her.--Launchballer 06:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked... this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu t/c 06:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I took the liberty of requesting a revision delete of most of the edits listed at Special:Contributions/SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: block IP[edit]

Should not have been filed here. If there's future disruption, warn sufficiently and then report at WP:AIV if it persists.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 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.

Today I cleaned up vandalism on [Economy of Romania] from user See:

It seems this user has a long history of vandalism:

In fact I did not find any serious edit on wikipedia:

This user has been warned many times before and even has been blocked once. As I am not very active on the English version of Wikipedia I leave it to this community to think about blocking this IP address again (forever?). Bfwelter (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a very new editor. First, this isn't the right place to report garden variety vandalism. Use WP:AIV (but read the instructions). Second, when you post something here, you must notify the editor, although in this case it probably is of little value. In any event, I've done so for you. Third, although the editor has an extensive history of vandalism and their latest edit is obvious vandalism, it's the only vandalism in quite some time, so it probably doesn't warrant a block unless they do more.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 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:Fram directly copy-pasting entire articles with no inline-footnotes, single trailing disclaimer[edit]

No action required. WP:VPP is available. The autopatrolling discussion here is a distraction.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 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 thought that the bad old days of wanton expropriation of out-of-copyright text at Wikipedia had vanished shortly after 2003. Back in the day it was regarded as perfectly fine to copy-paste huge chunks of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a new "Wikipedia article" so long as a disclaimer notice was attached as a footer, acknowledging the hijacking of the text. Of course, this resulted in a huge mess when over the course of subsequent months editors came and went, adding sourced information, changing the prose, removing the non-inline-footnoted original facts. Sometime by 2005, I had thought, this sort of crude, grossly undercredited, copy-paste snitching of out of copyright material had vanished from WP.

As the late User:Franamax, author of the first version of the WP Plagiarism guideline wrote in 2008:

"Large portions of articles have been directly copied from PD sources in the past. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 was used as a source to build many articles in 2002. These articles were noted by use of the { {1911} } template.

"At a certain point in the development of Wikipedia, we welcomed new content no matter what the source. This is no longer the case. As a mature encyclopedia, we now insist that all contributions are properly attributed. (shaky ground here, just putting it out there)

"It is quite likely that many other articles consist of text directly copied from other sources. If you find examples of this and they are not attributed to the source, do something - either attribute the text, change it or flag it with the xxx-template so others can deal with it." Source: Franamax, "Wikipedia: Plagiarism," version of June 21, 2008, 00:37.

Much to my surprise and chagrin, I learned yesterday that User:Fram — a leading volunteer at Contributor Copyright Investigations, it should be noted — is making use of the same discredited and unacceptable editing technique, directly copy-pasting prose from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers: Volume 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1903) with only a single trailing disclaimer to note the expropriation. See ROBERT GARDELLE (Bryan's vol. 2, pg. 215) — which should have been inline footnoted like THIS. That's a short stub, pretty minor in the scheme of things, but you can see the very real problem here, JOSÉ GARCIA HIDALGO (Bryan's vol. 2, pg. 215), which leaves a huge mass of unfootnoted, hijacked prose that will be a god damned mess for the next real content creator attempting to add material.

I asked Fram, who should know better than anyone that this sort of underattributed hijacking of the work of others is ethically sketchy at best, to knock off this sort of editing methodology (GARDELLE, HIDALGO). Fram, predictably, went straight into Wolverine Mode, accusing me of plagiarism for not sufficiently paraphrasing the footnoted material which he straight ripped HERE. He further contends with a combative edit summary that this sort of 2003 Vintage editing technique remains perfectly acceptable at WP HERE.

What I seek is the following: (1) An immediate halt brought to Fram's unacceptable underfootnoted copy-paste content creation methods. (2) A formal consensus here that this sort of editing is contrary to Wikipedia's standards and practices. Fram will be notified of this thread momentarily. Thanks. —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Is there a policy that prevents this appropriation and reference? If not, this would not be the place to enact one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
See this statement and the instructions under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Franamax's obiter dicta may be a good idea, but I do not think they represent policy. Suggest getting consensus to make them policy before demanding Fram be told not to violate it. Choess (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking if there's a policy against plagiarism? Don't you know? Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not clear whom you are asking but the practice, as it has been done, appears to be at: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. So, the point of the question is to find out what the OP had in mind by way of policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I was asking you, but an edit conflict intervened. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I find this report very interesting in the context of this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How does this require administrator intervention? Fram's practices may be outdated and even ill-advised, but they are not contrary to current policies or guidelines. If you want to establish consensus for the (un)acceptability of this sort of editing, the Village pump, RfC, or even Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism would be better venues. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the only way to remove Fram's autopatrolled user right is to desysop him. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
How is this a matter of autopatrolling? Even if Fram's article's would have to be patrolled, I doubt that a new page patroller would be able to find something contrary to current policy. There's no tag for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it has been suggested above by several users that discussions related to a desired change of policy should not be held at this board. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't see how Fram's autopatrolled flag is germane to this issue. Are you suggesting NPP would curb this sort of behavior? That's a tall order wrapped in high hopes, especially as there is no policy or guideline rationale for it at the moment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
As a CCI volunteer, Fram apparently knows quite well that things published before 1923 are fair game for PD-US, so he's not committing copyright infringement, and he also knows enough to place a sufficient attribution tag, {{Bryan|article=GARDELLE, Robert}}. He's doing nothing wrong, so calling for his head is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 6 April 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.

Circassians in Syria vandalism question[edit]

There has been persistent vandalism at the Circassians in Syria page by various IPs within the range of 178.35 (,,, I've been reverting the IPs' edits each time, but it's getting to the point where the edits are occurring on a daily basis. Because a different IP is used each time (assuming this a concerted efforts of sorts), I did not issue any warnings. The edits in question center on adding "Paganism" as a practiced religion and the removal of "Sunni" from "Sunni Muslim." Multiple sources in the article specifically state that Syrian Circassians are Sunni Muslim, none say paganism. Where do we go from here? Personally, I think the best option for now is add no-edit protection to the article for non-autoconfirmed users, but because of my direct involvement in (I started the page) it's probably best I don't take it upon myself to make this move. We could also block the range for a temporary period, but that might not be necessary at this point. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP for persistent IP disruption. Blackmane (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Maduro IP gone ballistic[edit]

IP has been blocked. Now, go edit somewhere else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 6 April 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. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has gone ballistic leaving 3RR warnings and threats on multiple userpages, including mine, and ranting on Maduro's talkpage. Samples:

What is going on here is a criminal strangle hold on his page, forcing him smiling...


Look at this crazy bastard...

and accusing other editors of being bullies etc. He got a week-long block before. Perhaps it is time for another. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. That's why me, as well as other Venezuelans editing this website, avoid such articles. — ΛΧΣ21 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully understand you. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Or when Maduro offered 20 million to a candidate openly, yesterday. Or when he shut down the airport to prevent a candidate from landing to campaign. (Stop me when I'm not right, wait I read UT / La Patilla and watch VZ TV half my day.) You have done nothing but reverts over 4 days. You have not participated in talk. If you think that talking to birds on national television doesn't define what crazy is, deal with it. Now stop wasting admin time, but while an admin is here, address the non-participation of this user in the Maduro talk. (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've no involvement with this matter whatsoever, but I did notice (and revert) a rather trollish message on Bbb23's talk page by the aforementioned ip. If I weren't going to bed, I'd file an SPI. The master shouldn't be too hard to find. If no one else does it by the time I wake (or the ip is likely blocked) ill handle it then.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are confusing editors I am the ;offending' IP - the guy who wrote me up Dr.K is not participating in talk, only reverting others and he did hit 3rr - thus it was done. (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hahc21, you know as well as I that the homophobia and rampant crime are being redacted and censored here. Capriles was attacked viciously using homophobic slurs as part of the general campaign!
I am getting legitimate edits like the devaluation and the crime rate peak this February, using La Patilla and UT links, and they called them 'blogs'
This guy needs to A. stop undoing edits, and instead participate in talk. and b. stop deleting legitimate warnings on his talk page. Ballistic is saying 'crazy bastard' when referencing a guy talking to bird-men on national TV on the talk page. You don't like it, go quote me a byline against profanity in talk.
Here I have a link for you
And to the admin Green Rosette, you are actually claiming - "I would ask you to the talk page. The users are very unhappy about you and your colleague's repeated redactions to the controversy section."
Is "Trolling"? Noticing they have made 5 undo's over 72 hours and given them an edit warning? That's far reaching to say the least. (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Not commenting on this, but I fixed the indenting as LGR and the IP's posts were mixed together. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
@ The issue,, is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make political campaigns in favour or against a political line of view. Whatever my thoughts are on Venezuelan politics are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia, and thus I refrain myself from talking about it, or even expressing such views on my edits, because that would be a breach of the neutral point of view policy. All content on this site must be neutral, and that includes pages about Venezuelan politicians such as Maduro or Capriles. — ΛΧΣ21 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've attempted a few more tweaks here to condense these seemingly random lines. I removed a few postings from the article talk page, since they are nothing more than a poorly written cocktail of personal attacks and conspiracy theories, besides some rambling on the wrong side of the BLP line. The IP editor will be blocked if they continue disrupting--at this point, the word that best describes it is "trolling". Yes, IP, trolling, and you must stop. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos and the most famous three newspapers aren't "conspiracies" - Go check the links before you yourself use offensive commentary on my contributions to talk. Refer to before you remove half a talk page. As you can see there is nothing about me using my own syntax while describing someone who talks to birds as reincarnated people.

To the editor who's views are close to the gay community, if you are to specifically not post content that relates to views you hold, I would ask you to cite that as a wiki pillar or wiki guidance, as the article you posed is not what your personal views are, but what the syntax of the edit is. That is a clear delineation that you must make. Also you might want to cite the actual by-lines when in effect labeling another editor's contributions entirely POV (if this was not the intent I stand corrected). I will not have 1/2 the talk page removed which also yet again included more editors than myself and held over 25 useful editorial links and dialogue. If you have comments you disagree with me on, or that you can cite a wiki pillar via I will remove it. You do not do a service to Wiki by deleting half a talk page. You can check out the JFK assassination if you are curious about what a Conspiracy Theory. Let me spoil it for you, it doesn't include 17 YouTube videos of the grassy knoll shooter talking about magical Parakeets. (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you keep my views on sexuality away from this discussion. That's another topic I have zero desire to talk, write, or discuss about. That said, it is evident that you have a very clear point of view. You are trying to deceive one of the two candidates by adding claims that although true, are not encyclopedic content and only serve, by the way that you write them, to make the person look bad, and this even goes against another core policy: the biography of living persons policy. Look, I don't care if Maduro talks with birds or not. The point is that such things are not worthy of a mention unless they are truly important and valuable. Wikipedia is not a place for trivia, promotion, deception, personal opinions, or a newspaper. Those are things that should be kept for the people to discuss on the streets or at their jobs, and not to be included on an encyclopedia, unless Maduro becomes, seriously, known for talking to birds. — ΛΧΣ21 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In March I blocked the IP for one week for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks related to the Maduro page. Unfortunately, I stupidly became WP:INVOLVED later by removing attack content from the article inserted by registered accounts (not by the IP, who incites on the talk page), including User:Yeah 93, who is a WP:SPA, and User:Periergeia, who has only 530 edits (mostly Venezuelan subjects) and was egged on by indefinitely blocked User:LifeEditorLatinAmerica. Content-wise, I'm at a handicap because of my lack of knowledge of Spanish and Spanish sources, but there's way too much crap going on at this article and at its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What you believe to be "attack edit" is what anyone else will understand as justified criticism and your edits is what other people will understand as vandalism.

Here it is: I added an important accussation carried out by an elected deputy against Nicolás Maduro, an accusation published in three well-known Venezuelan newspapers. Whether the accusations are of your liking or not does not matter at all. They are real and you cannot just delete them at your pleasure. --Periergeia (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Please, stop vandalizing.

    • I used Google translate to read the sources and the allegations against Maduro are vague and also not carried by all three sources. One of the three sources, "El Universal", does not mention Maduro at all which indicates that Maduro is not the focus of the controversy. "Ultimas Noticias" says: Alleged acts alleged by Deputy Palacios occurred while Nicolas Maduro was the president of the National Assembly , so the leader responsible directly to the current Vice President for these irregularities. which does not implicate Maduro directly, other than in his role as leader who should have known better. "TalCual Digital" mentions: Another who was involved in alleged corruption is vice president Nicolás Maduro. [...] The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said that evaluates request merit impeachment against National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano for alleged corruption, then the president of the commission of the Comptroller of Parliament Pedro Carreño, appropriated the video of the press conference where both political leaders admit the allegations. So we have a lone deputy who has made some corruption allegations that do not clearly and directly involve Maduro but rather National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano and Maduro is mentioned almost in passing. These allegations are so vague and isolated from the wider political scene of Venezuela that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at the present time. If they spread to a wider political circle and become more Maduro-specific perhaps they could be included, but not before then. Finally, I know Periergeia is a relative newbie but they should understand that calling other good-faith editors' actions "vandalism" is a form of a personal attack and they should stop doing it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Mine wasn't atteck content. It was what I genuinely thought a valid point and relevant enough to be included in the article. I want the article to reflect a neutral point of view but I did not know it violated one rule of BLP. If there was an incident with this I apologize, because I truly didn't do anything to bash or attack the article or someone else. --Yeah 93 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP is back
  • I don't think he likes us. Personally, I'm pleased to be in such good company. We should collaborate on our extrication speech.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Lol. So am I. Thanks for that Bbb23. :) Meanwhile I am starting on the the write-up of out joint speech. I'll send you a copy as soon as I finish, so you can add your own points and practice on your delivery at the Maduro talkpage. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Gone ballistic Part 2
  • Now he is spamming Latin-America-related articles, including the Portal accusing two editors and canvassing for help from other editors: [1]. We are having some serious problems with a couple editors who are restricting [Nicolas Maduro] when the information posted is negative, even when the information does have well cited sources and is without POV language. It's very frightening because when I saw them plug in a rare, and photoshopped photo of Maduro, smiling, without going to talk first, I knew that something was very wrong. Please, editors, assist us, don't let the page become a shrine to their regime like the Hugo Chavez page became, even Jimbo Whales said he was depressed by that result. Really bizarre behaviour. I think he is asking for a cool-down block. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:09, 6 April 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. and Clan Davidson[edit]

The IP editor has been edit warring on the Clan Davidson article for the last few weeks. Discussion started out reasonable;

But has now degenerated to personal attacks on any who ask him to stop warring and cite from sources.

I've imposed a 31-hour vacation, both for cooling off (it's clear that the IP is very agitated) and for studying the rudiments of scholarly method (which seem missing). -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Little green rosetta[edit]

In what is highly reminiscent of Belchfire's previous disruptive reverts and hounding of Roscelese before he was blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, Little green rosetta (talk · contribs) has now taken up where Belchfire left off and has begun following me around to articles he has never edited before to revert my edits and has generally been uncivil and combative.[2][3][4][5][6] This behavior consists of deliberate hounding, blanket reverts, and ignoring requests for sources on Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability. Little green rosetta was politely asked to stop hounding me and he was invited to use the article talk page to discuss his concerns.[7] His response was to tell me to "Go away and don't come back"[8] and to tell me to "fuck off".[9] Further, he did not add sources as requested[10] and he quite blatantly continued to follow me to pages he has never edited before, simply to revert me.[11] He was given a second warning,[12] which he promptly ignored while continuing to revert me.[13][14] After multiple requests on his talk page, Little green rosetta has refused to stop hounding and reverting me, and he has refused to respond directly to the discussion on the talk page. Finally, he has falsely accused me of "vandalism" because I used his talk page to ask him to stop this behavior once again.[15][16] Therefore, I have no choice but to ask for administrative intervention. The user has been asked twice to stop following me around and has refused. The user has been asked twice to stop reverting me and has refused. Finally, the user has refused to engage directly on the talk page and to provide the requested sources supporting his reverts. This is not a content dispute but a documented case of disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

  • This user told you to stay off their talk page, you ignored it, so that bit IS vandalism. What about diffs that show they weren't reverting dodgy edits, but reverting good ones? From what I've seen, the hounding may be the other way around... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid you are mistaken. Per dispute resolution protocol, I am required to communicate with the user. There has been no vandalism of any kind. As for the hounding, the diffs clearly show that Little green rosetta followed me to two different articles (Michael & Me and Larry Elder) and reverted me twice. How could this possibly be the other way around? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind people that vandalism is the deliberate defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Ignoring a request to stay off a talk page, though possibly disruptive, is not vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not "disruptive" or "hounding" to ask someone to stop hounding. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
the 1st dif you provided was of you deleting an entire article about a documentary? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Not deleting, redirecting to the parent topic, Larry_Elder#DVD, which is sourced to the author himself. The film article has been unsourced since 2007 and LGR can't bring himself to add any sources, just revert. As I have already shown on the film talk page, there are no reliable film sources to support this encyclopedia article. Feel free to take your queries there. This incident report isn't about the content, it's about LGR's behavior which consists of following me around and reverting me and then telling me to fuck off when I ask him to stop. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Viriditas, the two articles are related as are the content edits. You want to redirect an article, and lgr disagrees. Each time you revert each other, the redirect target has to be changed as well. So, we really only have one issue. lgr's use of FO was ill-advised but not really that big a deal; at least they didn't spell it out. I know of no "dispute resolution protocol" that requires you to communicate with lgr on their talk page. If they tell you to go away, go away. Finally, the reference to Belchfire is a bit coatracky and unsupported, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Bbb23 in that we're really talking about one issue here, and that I don't see the direct relevance of Belchfire to this situation. That said, given the fairly substantial personal hostility evident in lgr's posts/edit summaries, I am somewhat curious whether he's willing to indicate whether he came to the Michael & Me article by way of Viriditas' contribution history. MastCell Talk 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I think the question is whether LGR can account for arriving at the article via a path that doesn't involve Viriditas's contribs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Has LGR really "picked up where Belchfire left off?" As I recall, you and LGR have a lot of overlap in areas of editing especially on conservative politics. I think it's likely that you've been able to devote more attention to LGR now that Belchfire is gone. So associating LGR with Belchfire is just an attempt at guilt by association. I see no reason to have sock puppetry and LGR's name so close together in your OP. Might be worth considering striking or removing that part altogether and focus on just your complaints about LGR.--v/r - TP 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, they have close to zero overlap in areas of editing. See my analysis at the bottom of this thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear from lgr as well, but, at the same time, I don't follow how this started. Viriditas begins with the claim of hounding, but, generally, for hounding, there has to be something that precedes it, that sets up the supposed retaliation. According to Viriditas, why do they believe lgr went after them in the first instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I couldn't tell you what started it. From my own experience, Viriditas is a smart guy who is very often correct in his arguments, but he's hardly the most pleasant fellow. Maybe LGR got put off at some point? Hard for me to speculate on anything other than my own experiences and I generally try to ignore the political cross-bashing wherever possible.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can tell you is that this has been going on for a long time. Just last week, LGR was hounding me. He was monitoring my talk page and when Deskana contacted me and left a comment, he then contacted Deskana about that comment. He's been closely following me for a while, and this is just the latest bad behavior. As for the comparison to Belchfire, I don't see why the analogy is disputed. The both of them did/do the same thing: follow editors around and revert them. This is particularly true with reverting editors involved in the LGBT topic area, which I do not edit, so for me, the analogy holds. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My experience with both puts them in dramatically different categories. I don't know what you've experienced that puts them in the same category and from my perspective, it seems your trying to use some of the negative emotions around Belchfire to stick to LGR as well. If you can't address LGR on his own merits, then you shouldn't have opened a thread here.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wrong approach here, but it's your call. As for Deskana, apparently lgr didn't like this. I'm now beginning to understand why there's so much bad blood between you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I also noticed that lgr has a habit to follow other users around. This can't be a coincidence. He/She also followed user Scientiom in the same manner.--В и к и T 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Intersection of edits without more doesn't demonstrate hounding.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was about to say the same as Bbb23. A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data. I'm sure he's not houding me (I'd hope). Need more context here.--v/r - TP 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas.--В и к и T 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
My analysis: An interaction check[17] shows 14 examples of Viriditas making a first edit to a page and Little green rosetta showing up and reverting him/her as his/her first edit to the page, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] two examples of Little green rosetta reverting Viriditas a second time on the same page,[32][33] 1 example of the opposite happening,[34] and 1 example where it looks like the two just happened to edit different parts of the same page.[35] My conclusion: this is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING by Little green rosetta.See comment by Kyohyi below --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Doing the same analysis with TParis and Little green rosetta[36] shows 6 interactions (3 of which were over a year apart) and 0 reverts of TParis by Little green rosetta,[37][38][39][40][41][42] which means that the claim "A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data" is factually inaccurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"... is factually inaccurate" Apparently you and Wikiwind share a common ailment in that you really have no sense of context. Wikiwind gave a link to a editor interaction analyzer. I said, paraphrasing, "So what, mine and LGR's look like that too, need more context" to which Wikiwind replied "It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas." (Thank you, Wikiwind, having given context I can see what you were getting at.) At the time of my comment, it was factually accurate given the lack of context. Your analysis enjoyed a bit more context than mine did, so before you call me factually inaccurate, examine the extra bit of information you were given. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for my choice of wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
From reviewing the diff's of LGR's and Viriditas interaction, on December 28th of last year, Viriditas inserted quotations around the term ex-gay in 12 of those diffs. LGR reverted citing MOS. Of the remaining 3 articles, 2 are the subject of this ANI, and 1 is unrelated. If Veriditas was violating MOS in his edits on the 28th, I'm fairly certain this is not WP:HOUNDING.--Kyohyi (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. I am going to assume that this one[43] was a simple error. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Wether or not it was an error on someone else, I missed that when I was looking through the diff's earlier. Thanks for pointing it out. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That diff is not an error, but a great illustration of the blanket reversions made by LGR after stalking my contributions. He never followed up to remove the scare quotes,[44] he just reverted my edit without ever looking at it. Finally, the MOS does not proscribe scare quotes, it just discourages them because they can be misused. And since there is no such thing as "ex-gay", I believe they were used correctly. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
In Viriditas' favor, I would have liked it a lot better if Little green rosetta had consistently removed quotation marks and consistently added [[ and ]] to create a wikilink. Although I struck my "clearly" comments above, it does look like Little green rosetta just reverted whatever changes Viriditas made. Is that hounding? I could argue either way.
As for the question of whether there is no such thing as an ex-gay and thus the quotation marks were correct, that's a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. It certainly was OK to mention it in passing while arguing that the reverted behavior was correct, but I would really like to see the content dispute dealt with in the appropriate venue rather than through reverting. Perhaps one of you might want to open a case at WP:DRN on the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing anything seriously problematic here, I think warnings are all that's needed. I'd strongly suggest LGR avoid tracking Viriditas' edits in the future. (And I'd advise Viriditas not to watch LGR very carefully.) Even if it is not technically WP:HOUNDING, it is likely to lead to further conflict and be generally unproductive. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree; this diff, taken in context, suggests that LGR is tracking Viriditas' contributions and reverting them as sort of a knee-jerk reflex. Whether or not we choose to call that "hounding", it's really not a good idea and should be discouraged. MastCell Talk 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with this outcome. I think both editors need to be more careful with each other and distance themselves from whatever past problems they've had. That said, lgr has not made any edits to Wikipedia since this discussion began. As MastCell mentioned earlier, it would be helpful to hear from lgr before closing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think that if this happens again, we'll all be a lot more likely to take action. Hopefully that realization will cause people to be more careful in their interactions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone concerned that Viriditas effectively deleted an article without going through Afd? NE Ent 23:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Redirects are not deletion. If the change to a redirect is objeted to, any editor, even an IP, can return the article to an article with a maximum of three clicks; deletion is, well, deletion and removes the history, too. For simply changing to a redirect, though, WP:BOLD applies (and, by extension, WP:BRD) - I've seen far too many AfD discussions where boldly redirecting in the first place would have been the better move, they should be encouraged, not discouraged. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
For the record there was a discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Michael .26 Me and, as near as I can tell there a consensus had not been reached regarding deletion or a redirect. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Slightly concerned, yes. "Redirect-deletion" should really only be done in uncontroversial cases, after you're reverted once you should go to Afd instead of reverting to a redirect again as happened in this situation. Again, not block-worthy but far from "best practice". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I must strongly disagree. Redirecting non-notable topics that lack sources indicating their notability is standard best practice. I even said I would restore the article myself if the notability criteria was met (two reliable reviews) and I repeated this good faith offer in two different discussions. Further, LGR was given the opportunity to add these putative sources on two occasions and failed. He was also asked to do so on the talk page and ignored the requests, preferring to edit war and revert to an unsourced article. He has repeatedly claimed that sources indicating notability exist, but he refuses to provide them. That is certainly not best practice. The burden is always on the editor adding or restoring content to show us their sources. LGR has refused. Further, I have not been able to find two reliable reviews of the film nor have I been able to find anything other than passing mention, in other words, insignificant coverage. Meanwhile, LGR hounded me here, refused to show sources supporting his reverts, and is disrupting multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I must say your self-righteousness and repetitiveness are offputting. Worse, you're wrong. You redirected and were reverted. At that point, the burden was on you to gain a consensus for the redirect. Reverting back to the redirect was inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The edit that made the article a redirect (diff) is not a problem at all because the edit summary ("Redirect unsourced and non-notable film to author") is extremely accurate. Best practice would require a good-faith attempt to determine whether suitable references are available (not two dead links to, neither of which appear to even claim notability in the WP:N sense), and it is very likely that such an attempt was made (see Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability). It is ok to revert such a redirect, but best practice for the reverter would involve more than finding mentions in Google. Assuming the accuracy of numbers mentioned above (Viriditas makes first edit in 90% of the interactions and LGR reverts in 100% of the cases), it is clear that LGR needs to be told to drop the pursuit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, that's nonsense. Discussions about notability do not occur in edit summaries. This is an article that has existed since 2007. That doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping, but it most likely means it shouldn't be redirected without discussion. I don't object to the bold redirect by Viriditas, but once an objection was registered, either a discussion must occur on the talk page or at AfD - not just, "I'm right."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion occurred on the talk page and LGR failed the burden. It's very simple. Three times, LGR claimed "sources exist" and three times he has refused to provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (edit conflict) Thanks for the explanations -- I had falsely inferred that since Afds may result in redirect as outcome, a redirect shouldn't occur without an Afd. Reviewing the policy WP:ATD-R it does state "an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." As the only participants in the discussion appear to have been lgr & Viriditas, this second insertion of the redirect seems inconsistent with the policy. NE Ent 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. I was stalked by LGR and my edits were reverted with the justification "sources exist". I had already justified the redirect on the project page when this act of hounding occurred, noting the dearth of sources. I did not automatically revert in return. What I did was I started a duplicate discussion on the article talk page and invited LGR to participate, also warning him not to stalk me. In both the article discussion and in the user talk pages, I requested sources justifying the revert. None were ever provided and LGR ignored the request for sources in both discussions. After this refusal to justify his blanket reverts, I restored the redirect. LGR then reverted again. Returning to the discussion, LGR then ignored the request for sources for a third time, once again failing the burden. Now, what action of mine was "inappropriate" or inconsistent with policy? None. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
So what are you looking for, Viriditas? Are you looking for a block or intervention? Do you want a formal interaction ban or would voluntary "stay the heck away" be workable for now? Would you like LGR to be reminded to explain and support his reverts better especially when challenged?--v/r - TP 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but IRL fun was to to be had last night. A few points to address some issues en masse, not necessiarly in order of importance

  • Per WP:VANDTYPES. Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism.. Since the talk page in question was "my" talk page, who is best suited to decide if Viriditas is unwelcome on this page?
  • Per WP:HOUND The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.. Viriditas re-insertion of scare quotes, which IMO is a violation of the MOS is also (IMO) an overriding reason.
  • As anyone who has used Stiki/Huggle or recent changes can attest to, one should not be surprised to see prolific editors contributions appear in such views. Curiosity often wins out and I'll examine the article in question. What happened in this situation is similar, though slightly different. Due to the recently caught socks of banned editors Acoma Magic (talk · contribs) and Benjiboi (talk · contribs) I've been interested in writing a sock-bot that monitor's contributions to pages favored by a sockmaster. I belive TParis can testify that I asked him about the API's weeks ago for this purpose. In the process of evaluating various technologies I was programatically (http scrape) reading recent changes and my job encountered an out-of-memory exception. Examining the output I saw three things that caught my eye. 1) A familiar username 2) an article title that seemed familiar -- Roger & Me stood out (correctly it seems) 3) A large numberof bytes removed. By the comments made here, it seems that several editors feel my revert was reasonable. Though in essence this is a content dispute. The wholesale redirect of the article was unwarranted IMO. Viriditas asks for sources, but fails to mention which specifc content needed citation. No one is seriously questioning that sources exist. But this conversation doesn't belong here but rather on the article's talk page.
  • Is this a WP:BOOMERANG? As as others have pointed out (here and elsewhere) Viriditas may be the one doing the hounding and making personal attacks, being combative etc. I'm not going to bother submitting the diffs here, as I've been advised by a few admins (both on and off wiki), that discussion might be better held at WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas3. WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas and WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas2 already appear to be occupied and contain other complaints of harrassment.
  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been following this and I haven't seen anyone suggest Viriditas was hounding. Luke made an early comment completely unsupported and someone else said that Viriditas shouldn't track you but it wasn't hounding. You should strike that.--v/r - TP 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Making this report is not boomerang worthy as there does appear to be legitimate underlying issue here, although it is rather hard to conclude anything with the information given. You appear to acknowledge you follow the editor in one paragraph but you say it's not in a problematic way, and then imply you didn't in another paragraph. You mention scare quotes, but here, where you reverted [45] they aren't in quotes, but italics, and they are present in your version as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
@TP, Clearly I'm not asking for anything to be done here as I've already stated what my suggested remedy would be, so there is nothing to strike. I've been contacted by a few editors who have asked "what's the deal between you and Virididtas" already and they have made the harassmenent allegation. Obviously I'm annoyed with Viriditas. Being called a homphobe for jesus is kind of offensive after all. Him chiming in on talk page/noticeboard issues I was in discussions with was "in your face" belligerence. Once again I'm not asking for anything here, so I'm not bothering to provide diffs. @IRWolfie --- I'm certainly not "getting up in his grill" as it were. He's got a certain POV in some topic areas -- and shows it. Fine, no big deal, but obviously we overlap on some subjects, so I should be able to comment in those areas of common interest. Either people here are going to AGF and believe me when I found this edit by random chance (bully for them), or they aren't (shame on them). As for the Larry Elder article, I just reverted the removal of the wiki-link. I didn't notice the scare quotes.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, LGR, let me give you some advice. We get along well so I hope you take it. And if Viriditas is offended by what I say, well so what. Anyway, my take on people is that I try to see their value. If they have none, then I dont bother with them. Viriditas is not the friendliest guy here. I've bumped heads with him several times, he's recently called me a troll, ect ect. He's not someone I'd go drink beers with. But, he's incredibly smart and usually has insight into particular issues that I don't. The way he articulates himself is clear and understandable. If I were on a debate team, I'd want someone like Viriditas with me. My point is this: find a way to get along. It doesn't have to mean agreeing, sometimes it means ignoring, but find a way to get along. You may have use of Viriditas some day, you might find yourself on the same side of an issue, and he can be a resource. Start by not reverting his edits. If you have a problem with scare quotes, seek a wider consensus at MOS to remove them. And be clearer in your edit summaries why they are scare quotes. If challenged, try to get a 3rd opinion instead of reverting. Clearly, coming here isn't a very happy experience for either of you.

I just don't see this thread progressing toward an administrative action, so it might be time to close it unless Viriditas has any other comments.--v/r - TP 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

He may be smart & articulate, though IMO he commits too many logical fallacies that I'd caution you for your debate draft. The scare quotes issue has been hashed out many times; I'm fairly certain consensus is they are not acceptable (quotes are for attriubtion, not emphasis or disaproval in Wikipedia's voice). I could be wrong, but this is besides the point. Viriditas has bloodlust and has been trying to satisfy it via sanctions. Filing a 3RR report on an article he has never edited? Soliciting a (sockpuppet of a banned editor) for more of the same? The filing of this report reminds of a book that Judge Judy wrote called Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining. Your advice is of course sage, and I'll try to heed it in the future, especially the ignore part. I make no promises (short of an IB being placed), but will try. Hopefully we are both adult enough that is not necessary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with filing a 3RR report on an article you have never edited. In this case the report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive208#User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned) and the result was that little green rosetta was warned about edit-warring and Viriditas was told that his rhetoric was over the top and was asked to tone it down in the future.
As has been explained several times, whether or not the quotes are acceptable is a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. I suggest a WP:RFC so that there is no doubt about what the consensus is on this particular content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
As to pointing out the 3RR report and the solicitation to file an ANI report should be obvious; Who's stalking who? As to your other points, yes content disputes are best handled elsewhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Who is stalking who? Well, clearly this report shows you stalking me. Exactly which articles are you editing right now where I'm showing up to revert you? None? You dishonestly claimed there were loads of sources supporting the article you reverted but failed to offer those sources. Perhaps you should attempt to meet the burden outlined here. I don't buy your "I make no promises" claim. You either promise to stop hounding and reverting me for no reason (that's right you've offered no sources to support your justification for reversion) or this needs to escalate further. You do not get to continue this behavior. You should also think about using your account for constructive purposes, such as creating new articles and contributing actual content, not for hounding and reverts. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


This is going on way too long. Now that we've heard from lgr, I'm still in favor of an outcome along the lines of what Mark and MastCell proposed. I don't see either editor coming off as a saint, either outside of ANI or in this topic. I propose formal warnings to both editors that they need to behave and stay clear of each other more, sort of a mini-IB, or there will be sanctions. I'm open to someone else crafting the warning. If that's not acceptable, then we should just close this and hope that both editors get the hint.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support As much as I like LGR, I think continuing the feud with Viriditas will cause unnecessary tension and grief between them. IMHO, a short IB will hopefully settle the bad blood between them. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Both editors have behaved questionably towards each other, as much as Viriditas has tried to play the saint at times here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think LGR is most at fault due to following Viriditas and the knee jerk reverts highlighted by MastCell. But Viriditas also needs to distance himself from LGR too (as highlighted by Mark Arsten). They should stop following each other, and that should be an unacceptable excuse in the future, but not formal interaction ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


User:GermanDude100 (Talk-Contributions) keeps on edit warring, adding some unsourced stuff about the alternative versions of several Kidz Bop compilations, see Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop (album). He was asked several times to provide a source for these additions by me and by User:The Banner, AGF he has been made ​​aware of how Wikipedia works and he was even warned about his conduct, but his final reply to the related discussion was " If you keep changing the page I just gonna keep changing it. I'm right and most of the Wiki pages don't have references. GO BOTHER ANOTHER PAGE!" [46]. I'm concerned if he is just a troll or just a newbie that refuse to take the point, but surely his behaviour is becoming disruptive. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • After being notified, the above user reported myself and The Banner at WP:AIV. [47] Cavarrone (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
1, 2 (WP:BROTHER), 3, 4 (WP:HARASS). I'm sure there's more. --GSK 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked 3 days for edit warring and left GermanDude100 a note about about referencing and civility. His very first discussion with Materialscientist didn't look good, to begin with, so let's see if this temporary block works. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
For those with OTRS access, please note 2013040510010984. Mike VTalk 03:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I assume (if someone with OTRS can confirm) that this was his version of an unblock request? "Well I just talked to the Wikipedia I will be unblocked soon," <-- from his talkpage. I think there's a bigger WP:IDHT issue here, as he shows no indication of stopping his quest for lack of a better term. gwickwiretalkediting 17:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
FreeRangeFrog on behalf of the OTRS team has made it clear that this is none of their business. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2011-2013 Iranian protests[edit]


Irānshahr made a series of major edits, removing content and asserting the protests to have been only in 2011, moving the page. Silver seren reverted, claiming the removal was POV. Irānshahr reverted that, asking for an explanation, which SS re-reverted, seeking a discussion on the talkpage. Irānshahr reverted, stating s/he had, at which point HistoryofIran came in and reverted, restoring the material. HistoryofIran was blocked for 3RR a few weeks ago, on a different article.

Irānshahr and HistoryofIran have warned each other on their talkpages, brought discussion to User talk:Arctic Kangaroo, removed each others' comments, and reported each other to AIV. This is way way out of my normal area of expertise or interest, and I am having a hard time making heads or tails of who has done what, so am bringing this here. I considered WP:ANEW but was surprised and put out by how focused that page is on 3RR only and not edit-warring in general; please move it there if you feel it more appropriate as I will be leaving shortly. ~ Amory (utc) 16:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So we are going to discuss here if i am right? just wanted to tell you that i need to go from the computer in some time, i'll be right back, then we can discuss, with respect. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: I made only two reverts - which is my personally-set limit. I then wrote this on the talk page (which I'd already been using for discussion since the first revert):
"I've made two reverts today, I will not make another. Instead, I'll give you time to put forward a counter-argument to my points."
I've set out a position on the talk page. Anyone is free to present a counter-position in respect of the points I've raised. HistoryofIran seems to be incapable of doing so. Please see Talk:2011-2013 Iranian protests.
This was posted to my talk page by HistoryofIran upon first seeing my edits at 2011-2013 Iranian protests:
  • "Oh come on, no need to remove it all, this would show how the Iranian people actually feel so there would be more people finding out that their regime is corrupt :("
Thereby declaring non-neutrality, conflict of interest, and inciting me to edit with a political bias.
HistoryofIran went and immediately reverted everything (disruptively; without due discussion) when he jumped to the conclusion that 'I support Iran's government', on the basis of this reply where I simply stated a fact. Irānshahr (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok now i am back, and yes, i was blocked some time ago because i broke the three revert rule, i didn't know about during that time, but now i do, if i knew it before i got blocked i wouldn't have done that and never would have got blocked, i am not looking for trouble.

And he isn't so neutral at he says he is, this was what he wrote to me:

  • "You want to see what's happening in Syria happen in Iran? What an Iranian patriot. There are millions of hardcore government loyalists in Iran who will go to war to defend the Islamic Republic. Foreign-backed ethnic separatists will have a field day on the back of a civil war. But great work, patriot.".

───────If English was your first language - as opposed to Danish - you'd be able to see that my statement there is neutral. It's a statement of fact; nothing more, nothing less. I'm not declaring support, I'm warning you of the ugly consequences of civil war in Iran. Irānshahr (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

English may not be my first language, but i can still see what you wrote is not neutral, and by the way, it's not a fact. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not neutral? Have a go at explaining why then. Why does it suggest I support the Iranian government, as opposed to the well-being of Iran and its people. You've already been labelled a troll by a senior anti-vandal user earlier. You're just trolling out of boredom it seems. What points have you actually got to make here? Put forward a position or go home and stop wasting everyone's time. Irānshahr (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No i am not trolling and calm down, no need to insult me by calling me a troll, i am treating you with respect so please do that too, and user that said i was trolling later found out that i was not, so please stop lying, and plus you still have no reason to remove almost everything from the Iranian protests page. And it's hard to explain about what you said, you know yourself that English is not my first language, and if you don't want to waste time just accept what you removed was wrong.

Seriously, i don't know why you see me as a troll, is there something wrong with the way i write? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a senior anti-vandal Wikipedian that called you a troll, I only reminded you of it. Wasting my time is not treating me with respect. This is my last word here, you're postings are nothing but childish bickering. You have no position. I've said what I need to say, the onus is on you to put forward a counter-position, and you've been given ample time to do so. If I come back tomorrow or in two days or whenever and you haven't rendered a proper refutation of my points, with reliable references to support your position, I will revert the article. Irānshahr (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved comment I have neither the time nor the will to go through the name calling. However, the actions of Irānshahr are clearly troubling. A quick look at the user's edits show that only today, Iranshahr has probably deleted more content than most users do during a lifetime on Wikipedia. While some removals may have been justified, many others include removing sourced content from neutral, reliable sources. I must confess to seldom having seen a user go on such a rampart deletion-crusade, and it's particularly worrying that it's in a troublesome area. What is more, Iranshahr seems to remove sources simply based on the country where the source is, another clear violation of policies. In any more was needed, Iranshahr also breaks WP:NPA repeatedly. Based on what I can see, Iranshahr definitely needs a break from editing, both the user's actions and behavior are completely out of line.Jeppiz (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Both HistoryofIran and Iranshahr should preferably stop posting in this discussion. This is for others to discuss the issue, not for continued fighting between you two.Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, nothing has been deleted, because it was all reverted. I laid out reasoning for all my edits and made it clear that I was willing to discuss them on their merits and concede if a proper case is made. The talk page should demonstrate to any neutral and intelligent person that my position on the article is in the right, and that I've argued for nothing other than the truth to be presented.
Anyway, this is not my battle. Do what you want with it. Irānshahr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, others restored what you deleted, true. That has not mean you did not delete it. And yes, you gave "reasons" but frankly, those reasons were appalling. One reason was that the source was "Israeli", one that the source was "Saudi" and so on. What is more, in your comment above at 19:15, you claim you will continue edit-warring if your deletions are reverted. In short, you're violating at least WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:OWN and WP:POV. And that's just today. I won't comment further as I have no wish to get involved, I simply restate that Iranshahr's actions are troubling.Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Middle Eastern politics? The Saudi and Israeli regimes are staunchly anti-Iran. Their news agencies are not NPOV in regards to reporting on Iran. We don't use North Korean news sources for American matters.
As I said; this is not my problem, not my battle. I withdraw my involvement in that article. I do not normally even edit political articles. I edit cultural articles. I just got carried away fighting for honesty, but of course that is a battle one will not win in this environment. Irānshahr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Iranshahr, if you were familiar with Middle eastern politics then you would also know that many other Iranian televisions say the same as the other countries do, there is no anti-Iran about this, and sorry for posting when you said we should stop, this is my last post in this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I really don't want to deal with POV activists for either side, so this is just annoying in general. Iranshahr seems to believe that any information that isn't directly about a protest specifically isn't relevant to the article, even though one of the main reasons for the protests were the house arrests of the opposition leaders, which the article covers. Furthermore, it is meant to be a more broad discussion of protests that occurred during this time frame, as there were several all at once, with different groups involved, but pretty much all instigated by each other and by related Arab Spring events. I can certainly agree that there is information that has been added by other users over time into the article that doesn't belong there and there are definitely some sources that should be switched out for more neutral ones, but it's pretty hard to have a discussion about that when one side removes all the information in the article completely after a certain date with no regard for content or sourcing. SilverserenC 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep it the way it was. In fact: make it worse for all I care. It's not my problem. Good luck. Irānshahr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2 and a history of inappropriate edits[edit]

Blocked by Sandstein for one week. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:46, 7 April 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.

User's edits are reverted with disconcerting frequency; this may be the third time they've been the subject of a report here in the last month. Recently blocked for warring and disruptive edits. Reacts to disagreements and loss of consensus discussions by trolling and claiming mob rule; the equations of consensus with the Holocaust indicates a lack of perspective and sensitivity to anyone's viewpoint but their own, and that's putting it nicely. Pre block examples: [48], [49], [50], [51]; post block today: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Wikipedia is a patient community, but there's a soapbox and subtext to these edits that is inappropriate here. JNW (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for repeadedly introducing nonsense into a policy page ([57], [58]).  Sandstein  17:48, 7 April 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.[edit]

For one year for disruptive editing and refusal to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 7 April 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. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing. The most recent block was for six months; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Resumed disruptive editing by The user came off the block a few weeks ago and has resumed the same behaviour (unexplained blanking of sections, removal of content, breaking formatting and markup, inserting unhelpful or incomprehensible material, etc.). Several other editors have warned the user and asked them to desist but they have never communicated.

Though it's an IP account it's clear the same person has been editing with it for the past few years. The user is probably well-intentioned but incompetent and hasn't demonstrated any improvement in their editing ability or willingness to engage. Could I suggest another long-term block to prevent further damage? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:10, 7 April 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.

Dominique Young Unique[edit]

User blocked by Daniel Case. Blackmane (talk) 22:56, 7 April 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 am making a request that User:Dominiqueyoungunique be blocked because of repeated creation of the same promotional article with slightly different names, including Dominiqueyoungunique,Dominique Young Unique, Dominique Young Unique wiki and Dominique Young Unique bio. Also this user gave me gave me a supposed "barnstar" on my talk page, This "barnstar" is another copy of this article and was given to me for marking these articles for deletion. Since the other pages were deleted, you can view the article there. Does User:Dominiqueyoungunique have a blocking history? ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

They've been blocked. Blackmane (talk) 22:56, 7 April 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.

Main page fix[edit]

Crossposted from an: Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news NE Ent 00:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please look at comments and edits by User:Herzen re article and talk page for Pope Francis[edit]

I have never brought an issue to ANI, but there is an issue that just will never be resolved without help "from above," regarding comments made by Herzen regarding a quote about Pope Francis in the article by that name. here is the discussion I would ask an administrator to look at, which centers around what I think (and other editors who have expressed their opinion on the talk page think) is a positive statement about Francis and his relationship with the Jewish community based on his experience in Buenos Aires. Here is the quote, taken from an editorial in The Jerusalem Post: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." My understanding of that quote, as well as the understanding of other editors involved in the discussion, is that John Paul II, the pope who had the closest relationship with the Jewish community in the past, could only have that relationship as a young man because the Jewish community in Poland was not strong after the Holocaust; on the other hand, Francis had a life-long relationship with a strong Jewish community in Argentina, as the first non-European pope -- and so he will be the pope with the best understanding and closest ties to the Jewish community of any pope in history. Herzen has repeatedly deleted the quote and continues to make comments on the discussion page that I think has crossed the line of appropriateness, focusing on these three major points:

  • mentioning the Holocaust is "contentious" in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs
  • using a quote that mentions John Paul II and Francis, without mentioning Benedict XVI, implies that Benedict XVI was a Nazi
  • using a quote from an Israeli "secular newspaper" like the Jerusalem Post is inappropriate because Israel is an apartheid state.

Of course, please look at my comments as well, and let me know if I have crossed any lines in terms of appropriateness -- although I hope I have not. I have tried to discuss this issue with Herzen on the talk page, and also on his user talk page, here. I notified him that I might take this issue to this page -- ANI, and will now notify him that I have done so. I admit that I first was a little "mystified" (the word I used in my discussions) with some of his statements, but now I think they have crossed a line into the realm of inappropriateness and unreasonableness. I would appreciate an administrator with fresh eyes taking a look to see what might be done to prevent further reverts and further inappropriate statements (that is, if the administrator also deems any of his statements to be inappropriate). Thank you. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article section was changed to Talk:Pope_Francis#Relation_to_Jewish_community_in_Brazil_Argentina. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This appears, at this point, to be a purely content-based dispute, which administrators do not resolve. If you post about this issue on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, you will get a lot more help. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll bring this to dispute resolution, but I think the comments on the discussion page I've linked are worrisome...and now Herzen deleted the phrase based on the claim that the "contentiousness" of alleged attacks on Benedict XVI (that NOT mentioning him is a claim he is a Nazi -- Herzen's wods) or mentioning the word Holocaust (in and of itself "contentiousness" because of the views of "Muslims and Arabs") allows him to make the deletion regardless of talk page discussion. Other editors who have taken part in the discussion agree there is no contentiousness except in Herzen's mind. I have never been in a discussion where the other person made claims that were (at least to me) just...a little off-balance and weird.... Again, I'll look at dispute resolution, but if you could take one more careful look at the discussion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, NearTheZoo (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • After looking at the linked section, I don't see anything particularly uncivil about what Herzen has said, but I do see unnecessary hostility from NearTheZoo. I think the interpretation by NearTheZoo of what Herzen has said shows a lack of assuming good faith. For example, Herzen did not say that "mentioning the Holocaust is 'contentious' in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs". This seems written to imply he is a holocaust denier, what he actually said was "Anytime the Holocaust is brought up when it is not directly relevant, contention will likely arise", which appears self-evidently true. I think the post here has made a mountain out of a molehill by not having assumed good faith, and by the appeals to ridicule in the posts. As an aside, NearTheZoo, who primarily appears to edit Israel related articles, insisting on trying to insert an editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which mentions the holocaust (for no apparently relevant reason) in the Pope Francis article seems decidedly like POV pushing, particularly considering the edit warring: [59][60][61]. WP:BOOMERANG should be considered IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
All the other editors (including myself) who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote. The article talk page consensus is clear that it can be kept. I don't think it's fair, therefore, to say this is about POV pushing by NearTheZoo. Let's not make more of this than it is. Yes, NearTheZoo has made a mountain out of a molehill by bringing it here, which was a mistake, but let's not add to the mountain with a few more molehills. This is just a run of the mill content dispute, where tempers got frayed. I suggest closing this and let Herzen take it to DRN if he wants to change the article talk page consensus. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not true that "All the other editors ... who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote." Another editor deleted the quote twice [62][63]. – Herzen (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
On his Talk page, he wrote, in response to NearTheZoo: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed. Furthermore, it says nothing that is not already in the article." – Herzen (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You're quite right. Apologies. DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


Blocked by Bbb23. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:01, 8 April 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.

There is an ongoing problem with Bluerules (talk · contribs) regarding his edits with Film-related articles due to his disruptive editing. He chooses which credits he prefers depending on who is listed higher (either the film or poster) and is adamant that even though he is flip flopping between the sources if you can check his history, his way is correct and he adamantly edit wars over this fact to get his way. His actions at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, which involves Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs), eventually lead to a edit war report filed by Darkwarriorblake, resulting in a block for 48 hours. However, he has continued to push the same edit and claim he is correct at that film even when other editors have gone against him, and when BattleshipMan independently noted the same problem and posted on his talk page about it, BlueRules response has been to post on Battleship's talk page essentially threatening that he will get his way on Olympus Has Fallen no matter what ("I proved my order was correct over at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and I'll prove it's correct at Olympus Has Fallen if I have to."), and is repeating his actions at Burt Wonderstone. I think some serious intervention needs to be required here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Plus, Bluerules is falsely accusing user:Darkwarriorblake of being an immature user as well as a disruptive editor as well only he has been reverting edits due to the disruptive editing that Bluerules has been doing. He had essentially threatened me in this section of my talk page regarding my views of his disruptive editing when I saw one of his edits on Olympus Has Fallen, while in the way reverted that edit, and his edits on The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. He is becoming out of control and needs some serious intervention. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
His response to me posting on his talk about about an open discussion concerning his behavior was to open an alternate discussion to complain about me instead of responding to the issues raised about him. He did the same when asking to be unblocked for his edit warring ban, to which the admins correctly stated that blaming others does not explain why he should be unblocked. He now asserts if asked nicely he would stop, I assert that he was not treated poorly initially and still continued to edit war and push his "my way or the highway" style of editing. Today two other users independently became involved, one who reverted his edit at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone about the same issue, and another, BattleshipMan who complained about BlueRules editing style on another film. BlueRules response was to warn him about being involved with me when Ihaven't spoken to the user about the topic or recently, and threaten that he would prove his way was right as he has at Wonderstone. I offered him an opportunity to discuss at the FilmProject here as I am fully aware he is not an individual I can in any way deal with as an individual, he chose to not defend his actions but attack some of my own. I fully admit I lose my temper when I have to explain something multiple times over to a user clearly not interested in listening, this is not exclusive to my life on the internet, and this was not the best way to go about it, but this was not how any discussions opened, and the user was edit warring before he was even aware OF an open discussion by his own admission, and when I have asked him to just leave me alone he has continued to post on my talk page and continued to edit war at Wonderstone over this despite the opposition of editors other than myself, none of whom I have expressly asked for specific aid. The user is content to ignore warnings, violate guidelines and openly conflict with other users to get his way over minor issues such as cast ordering and larger intervention is required because a 2 ban was not enough to make him move on or accept the actions of multiple other editors regarding only a single article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have already personally addressed Darkwarriorblake's allegations. Opening a discussion is not the same thing as appealing a block. I did not attack Darkwarriorblake on the discussion about him, I opened a discussion about him because I felt he needed to be controlled. The articles on Gettysburg and Chinatown are proof that I do not push my edits when the issue is handled maturely. I have not made any threats and I have not edited Olympus Has Fallen recently. Yes, I am guilty of causing edit wars, but I make the effort to be involved in discussion to prevent them from breaking out. I never ignore the points raised by other editors. I listen and I address them. If a consensus can be reached and it's done in a civil manner, I will move on. Bluerules (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You realize that people will check your edit history. You were linked to WP: BRD four times on a single article yes, you ignored each one, you actively and repeatedly have edit warred with myself and others over the same thing following a ban and refused to acknowledge points made in the discussion that didn't gel with you getting your way. And this is on a single article, just one, you are doing this across multiple articles and the only reason I can imagine that you haven't been brought here before is that no other user has challenged your edits through to the end before. You will move on with a consensus because four editors have actively challenged you and your comment on my talk page was "If two people think a tomato is a vegetable and one thinks a tomato is a fruit, does that mean a tomato is a vegetable? The number of people in favor of something means nothing." Reasonable people do not continue to add blocks of text to someones talk page when asked not to, and equate me to a nazi "Saying you're not wrong does not mean you're not wrong. The National Socialists sure got a lot of support in Germany; does that mean they were right?". You have actively made me feel depressed with your unrelenting actions and the way in which you conduct yourself and I asked you to leave me alone and you refused. You have only 'engaged in discussion about cast' AFTER your ban and you've done it once, pretending to be good when people are looking is not the same as being good. I've made numerous attempts to warn you before you got banned again, I opened a discussion at the film project and provided you with an opportunity to prove me wrong to an audience and you chose to be 'mature' about it by ignoring the discussion and going on a tirade. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know. Even now, you continue to sling mud at me and spread false allegations. I have never ignored points I don't agree with. I address them and explain why I don't agree with them. I actually opened a discussion over at Heat when the editors were disagreeing with my edits. I also opened one at G.I. Joe: Retaliation to discuss the status of the cast order and the starring section. I did not push my edits on Chinatown, Gettysburg, and The Dark Knight Rises because I was addressed in a mature manner. I did not equate you to a Nazi, I used National Socialism as an example of how people holding the same beliefs does not mean they are right. I did not post in your discussion because I had nothing to prove anymore. You were getting away with breaking the rules for far too long and something had to be done. Bluerules (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, both of you! Bluerules, sometimes we can't always get what we want in the consensus and such. Dividing cast credits in order in this site is not that important. This site can be a tough neighborhood online among editors and we can engage in edit wars and disputes. This issue is already gone into a full-blown edit war as is, mainly by you. Sure, there are many editors can lose their tempers over issues that can cause this kind of situation. That happened to me in the past when I was in a edit war and that was proven justified to a point. Blue, you have to understand my point. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sjones23, if you really look at my edit history, you can see that's not true. I always use the end credits for the cast order as long as they are by prominence. I stopped pushing my edits on Gettysburg because you addressed me in a mature manner. I did not threaten to get my way on BattleshipMan's talk page, I said I was going to prove my way was correct. That does not mean I'm going to push my edits, it means I'm going to explain why my edits are correct on the talk page. I even stopped pushing my edits on Olympus Has Fallen for the time being. I am willing to engage in a discussion to stop an edit war from taking place there. Bluerules (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's doesn't matter how the cast order should be listed. It's not that important how it should be in order. You just don't see it that way. There are cast sections that have many not-yet know actors who appear on that list and they can be further down to the list then what is listed in the end credits. There are also uncredited cameos on many actors in various movies that are not listed in the end credits and listed in the cast sections in various movies. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If the order is not important, why even bother editing it? Why even have a cast section? A cameo would not be placed high in the ending credits. Bluerules (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Bluerules for one week for a resumption of edit warring since their last block, specifically at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, and generally on a smaller scale at other articles, as well as for repeatedly refusing to accept consensus. I have added a warning below the block notice on their talk page that if this pattern continues after the block expires, they may be indefinitely blocked for their disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 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.

Missed AFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Malcolm seems to have fallen through the cracks. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor determined to insert his own original research[edit]

User:L2j2 seems determined to include his own original research on certain formulae involving prime numbers, particularly at Lhermite's models. This page was deleted after clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models where it became clear that it is original research by the user himself. Since then the material was added again at Prime number and Lhermite's models which was speedily deleted G4, and the user is currently edit warring to include it in the existing article Formula for primes: see [64] and [65]. The editor has been warned on numerous occasions formally and informally [66], [67], [68], [69]. Their last attempt to insert this material comes after all the warnings cited. The user in question has made no edits on other topics and is clearly here for the sole purpose of promoting their own personal research. Their persistence is becoming quite disruptive. Perhaps the time has come to restrict their editing privileges, maybe via a topic ban or a block until they agree to find some other topic to contribute to? Deltahedron (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional: since I posted this and notified the user, a notification they have seen [70], they have yet again tried to insert this material at Formula for primes: [71]. They seem to have no interest in engaging with the multiple editors who are trying to explain policy to them. This is getting rather disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And again on the edit warring [72], in addition to pointlessly copying the entire article to its own talk page [73]. This behaviour is seriously disruptive: please can this editor now be blocked? Deltahedron (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet again on the edit warring [74]. Help, please! Deltahedron (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Again again [75]. I make that 7RR now ... Deltahedron (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it isn't restricted to English Wikipedia (see [76]) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee beat me to the punch with the exact same block I was about to do. This is certainly disruptive. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to point them in the right direction, via WP:3RR and WP:OR. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Just based on experience, that won't work. In a few days, he will be back doing the same stuff. He's been pointed to those pages SO many times, and won't stop. We may wish to consider an indefinite extension until he assures us he will stop. gwickwiretalkediting 16:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I've warned him that it will be indef next time, and I'm watching the articles in question -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Gwickire, you might be right, but we try to give everyone a second chance if there is any possibility they will "get it". If it only works one time in ten, or even twenty, then it is worth the extra effort. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • True true, and now that they've been notified of the strong probability of an indef next time works for me. Now the only question is who speaks Haitian or French enough to take care of the messes there? gwickwiretalkediting 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Not our dept. Our admin bits stop at the gates of enwp. I have no idea what those other Wikis allow or don't allow, that is for them to decide. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I know we can't do anything on the other wikis, but it may not be a bad idea to let them know. If their situation is as bad as enwp in terms of new patrollers etc., then they may not even know this exists. Regardless, all that's going to happen has happened for now, so this seems pretty well resolved. gwickwiretalkediting 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The French have briskly deleted all his contributions ("Tous vos articles sont systématiquement supprimés") and so have the Italians. The Spanish hadn't noticed him yet: I have started a Spanish AfD for his main article there, and alerted the Spanish Mathematics WikiProject. At the moment, that just leaves Haitian... JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone who helped out. Deltahedron (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Cross-wiki vandals are dealt with by WP:STEWARDSs. You can contact them at Meta. If there is evidence this is going on across multiple WMF projects they would be the ones to do something about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy-vio, socking, rm. tags, recreation of deleted article, etc.[edit]

Article has been deleted per CSD A7. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 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.

Need some admin's attention at Eylül Esme Bölücek. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

+ the BLP article is unsourced.TMCk (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's not a copyvio anymore. It also has an interview, although under "External Links" that means it can't be sticky/BLPPRODed. I slapped a normal prod on it therefore. gwickwiretalkediting 17:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
On another look, this person isn't here to cooperate, and the interview is so mediocre a source I've BLPproded it. If need be, this can be taken to AfD. Someone needs to explain to the accounts involved they are not to remove any more CSD or BLPPROD tags without reasoning. gwickwiretalkediting 17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently they moved the English part of her biography just now which doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a copy-vio. Also the text can still be found on the very same FB page, left side down under "Eylül Esme Bölücek" March 12 [77].TMCk (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to go re-tag it, I forgot that I have like every beta thing on facebook possible enabled, so I'm not seeing all of anything (at first glance I didn't see any english to be a copyvio, but it wouldn't load the rest). Leave the BLPprod and tag for {{db-copyvio}} :) Someone still warn/block these people for removing tags tho :) gwickwiretalkediting 18:07, 7 April 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.

Warned for 'attack', without explanation[edit]

Nothing is going to come of this. It is acknowledged that IP addresses are often treated poorly. It should also be noted that most adminz do their best to protect and help the project. All editors are real people; and everyone is reminded to treat others with the best of faith. — Ched :  ?  03:27, 8 April 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 was warned by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) for attacking other editors [78].

There was no diff given, but I have to assume it was due to this - in which I said a statement was stupid, and that I thought NYB was good for Wikipedia; there's no attack there.

I asked about it on my own talk page [79] and let Bbb23 know I'd enquired [80]. Their response was to undo that, edit summary read on your talk page - don't expect a response [81].

This isn't a massive deal, but it's annoying because I really wanted to add that to my previous comment, so that it was totally clear I was not criticizing NYB. Note the next comment on AN was someone thinking just that [82] - but I think I cleared that up by talking to that user directly [83].

I'm annoyed by the warning and the 'undo'. If it was invalid, I'd like the addendum reinserted. (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have hurt Bbb23 to have responded, but he is under no obligation to respond. Considering your edit history, it seems you are either on a new ip address or have edited using an account before. Or you are a really fast learner. That might have something to do with his terse reply.  <