Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Special:Contributions/80.47.181.51 - Troll using his talk page to troll more[edit]

I request this user's talk page access be revoked. He has been repeatedly blocked for obvious bad faith edits and his unblock requests be declined. Currently he's again trying to get unblocked in bad faith. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've procedurally declined the unblock request. I did not notice significant disruption on the user talk page. I'll watch for further developments. Tiderolls 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Blocked that one too. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pel Mel (2nd nomination)[edit]

The above AFD discussion seems to have slipped through the cracks and hasn't been closed, despite being open for almost a month now and with no edits for weeks. Can an uninvolved administrator have a look to determine consensus and close it? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC).

  • As every vote except the nominator's was "Keep", I have non admin closed this. There seem to have been some problems with the AfD template formatting, which might have resulted it falling through the cracks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    The math templates which show the number of open outdated AFDs have recently been malfunctioning. Thanks for closing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Wonderful, thanks User:Ritchie333! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/80.47.181.51 - Troll using his talk page to troll more[edit]

I request this user's talk page access be revoked. He has been repeatedly blocked for obvious bad faith edits and his unblock requests be declined. Currently he's again trying to get unblocked in bad faith. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've procedurally declined the unblock request. I did not notice significant disruption on the user talk page. I'll watch for further developments. Tiderolls 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Blocked that one too. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Restore my username please[edit]

Situation is resolved, as the user in question has been reunited with their account, and has since logged in. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 22 July 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.

Hi, can my user of Whispering Wind be restored please? 91.125.151.10 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that you've ever registered by that name. There was a "Whispering wind" who created an account nine years ago, but made no edits. Why do you think you have that account name?—Kww(talk) 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Because I created this account and made some edits on it. 91.125.151.10 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
What articles? About when?—Kww(talk) 22:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
We do have a User:The Whispering Wind. Is that the account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, that's the one! Thanks! 91.125.151.10 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pel Mel (2nd nomination)[edit]

The above AFD discussion seems to have slipped through the cracks and hasn't been closed, despite being open for almost a month now and with no edits for weeks. Can an uninvolved administrator have a look to determine consensus and close it? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC).

  • As every vote except the nominator's was "Keep", I have non admin closed this. There seem to have been some problems with the AfD template formatting, which might have resulted it falling through the cracks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    The math templates which show the number of open outdated AFDs have recently been malfunctioning. Thanks for closing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Wonderful, thanks User:Ritchie333! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/80.47.181.51 - Troll using his talk page to troll more[edit]

I request this user's talk page access be revoked. He has been repeatedly blocked for obvious bad faith edits and his unblock requests be declined. Currently he's again trying to get unblocked in bad faith. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've procedurally declined the unblock request. I did not notice significant disruption on the user talk page. I'll watch for further developments. Tiderolls 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Blocked that one too. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Restore my username please[edit]

Situation is resolved, as the user in question has been reunited with their account, and has since logged in. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 22 July 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.

Hi, can my user of Whispering Wind be restored please? 91.125.151.10 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that you've ever registered by that name. There was a "Whispering wind" who created an account nine years ago, but made no edits. Why do you think you have that account name?—Kww(talk) 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Because I created this account and made some edits on it. 91.125.151.10 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
What articles? About when?—Kww(talk) 22:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
We do have a User:The Whispering Wind. Is that the account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, that's the one! Thanks! 91.125.151.10 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pel Mel (2nd nomination)[edit]

The above AFD discussion seems to have slipped through the cracks and hasn't been closed, despite being open for almost a month now and with no edits for weeks. Can an uninvolved administrator have a look to determine consensus and close it? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC).

  • As every vote except the nominator's was "Keep", I have non admin closed this. There seem to have been some problems with the AfD template formatting, which might have resulted it falling through the cracks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    The math templates which show the number of open outdated AFDs have recently been malfunctioning. Thanks for closing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Wonderful, thanks User:Ritchie333! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated POV-pushing and removal of sourced content[edit]

The user Fareed30 is currently involved in deleting sourced content on a number of articles, all of them seem related to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am no expert on these issues and would not involve myself in a content-dispute, but what Fareed30 seems to be doing is deleting all claims that are critical of Afghanistan as well as changing peoples' ethnicity as he sees fit. Appealing to the WP:TRUTH, he feels he can delete sources as he wants cause he's "an expert on this". [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7](this last edit added much but also removed a sourced claim critical of Afghanistan).
While some of these edits could be content issues, all of them consist of important changes without any discussion and most of them include deleting sourced content. This user seems to be here to push a certain agenda, not to improve Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted a dead link and fixed some other minor stuff at Women in Pakistan. That article is dedicated to Pakistani women but someone is adding in it unverifiable allegation against Afghan, Maymar and Bangladeshi women being sold in Pakistan. The sources are over a decade old and one is a dead link while the other is over 100 pages of PDF file, with no page number so we don't know if if the allegation is true or false. See Talk:Women in Pakistan--Fareed30 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You removed much more than that, as anyone can see for themselves. If you did not like the sources, the way forward would have been to discuss them instead of just deleting them by WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Jeppiz (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Experts on the issue state: "Acid attack violence occurs in many countries but is particularly prevalent in: Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Cambodia." p.5 (Also see Acid throwing for details). Jeppiz believes that Afghanistan must be added in that list, without explaining why. This person appeared out of no where and began to criticize my edits. He is very hostile, calling me a nationalist and this and that, unnecessarily reporting me here and leaving false warnings on my talk.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved, non-admin editor Fareed's above comment appears to be a gross misrepresentation of what's in his source. The quote itself seems not to appear anywhere in the text, and especially not on page 5. Fareed seems to assume that because the report (which centers on Cambodia) also mentions those other three countries (and not Afghanistan), it must indicate that "experts" say these (and not Afghanistan) are the four worst offenders. Additionally, no evidence is presented that Jeppiz is trying to alter some list somewhere on Wikipedia. Jeppiz also has a considerably longer edit history than Fareed, and has been editing articles related to Pakistan since 2009, so the assertion that the former "appeared out of no where" is clearly wrong. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I accidently posted the wrong link. I justed corrected it so check it again.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Sarumaru. Yes, the accusations Fareed30 throws at me are somewhat odd. If a user is from country X and repeatedly alters articles to give a more possitive impression of X, then perhaps the user should not be surprised that others note this is nationalistic POV-pushing. As for "false" warnings, I warned Fareed30 over repeated removal of sourced content, I don't know what Fareed30 is "false" about that. And as Sarumaru correctly points out, the source added here by Fareed30 is not relevant to the discussion. Just because someone mentions a few countries where acid throwing is common and does not mention Afghanistan does not disqualify another source that explicitly mentions Afghanistan in that content. That, however, is a content disputed and not suited for WP:ANI. The problem is not the source, the problem is that Fareed30 edits a lot of articles with a particular POV and that he repeatedly removes sources he dislike in doing so.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In Women_in_Pakistan#Trafficking, you added "Trafficking of women is on the rise in Pakistan. Foreign women from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar are brought to Pakistan and sold" (Women in Pakistan: Country Briefing Paper. Asian Development Bank. 2000. ISBN 971-561-297-0.) (http://www.crvawc.ca/docs/pub_khan2001.pdf"). This allegation may not be true because one is a dead link and the other is over 13 years old report, and presented on a 67 pages-long-PDF file. Why don't you make it easy by providing the page number so others can verify it? I modified the statement to read "In addition, women from Bangladesh and Myanmar have also been reported to have been brought to Pakistan and sold" (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/pakistan.htm). Can you reject the source that I provided? And do you see a mention of "Afghanistan" in there? That's why I removed that country. About accid throwing attacks, these are very serious and whenever it happens they are reported in international news, just like suicide attacks which are prevalent in particular areas of the world. As editors we must be as accurate as possible when presenting information to the wider world and this is a standard policy not POV-pushing.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot false positives flood[edit]

Hazard-Bot is flooding false positives, see for example 10 of them in my talk page. I think it is prudent to shut it down. --Muhandes (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Hazard-Bot is again tagging orphaned images, but false positives are happening again like they were last month where images say they are not being used but they are currently being used like File:Dixie Beehives.jpg being used in Dixie Beehives. Three people have already alerted User:Hazard-SJ but he seems to not be online and the bot is still continuing its tagging in total numbering in the thousands. The bot needs to be shut off until the false positives can be avoided. Aspects (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked the bot until such time as the problem can be investigated and fixed. No objection to any administrator unblocking once this has been done without coming to me first :-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC).

It appears that the fault is not in the bot, but in the fact that Wikipedia is reporting "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file," when that is not correct; and the bot is believing it. For example, File:Fayrayover.jpg said it was not in use when it clearly was in use in Over (Fayray song). Making a minor edit to the article (a tip I picked up from Gadget850 who mentioned it on the bot's talk page) fixed this. So the real question is: why is Wikipedia reporting these images as "not in use" when they really are in use? And can that be fixed? Because otherwise, the bot is going to take Wikipedia at its word and begin flagging again once turned on. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and added a report below which duplicates this one. This problem needs to get to Wikipedia's database administrator, and fast. If the database indices are corrupted, things will get worse. --John Nagle (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Put a note about this on the 'bot operator's noticeboard: Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Database_problem_-_all_.27bots_which_use_certain_information_should_be_suspended_temporarily. Please cancel that warning once the problem is fixed. Has someone notified the database administrator? How do you do that? --John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I've let dev/ops know. As posted below: the response from dev/ops is "I don't know what's causing this, but I'd dearly love to find out". In the short-term, making a null edit to the page (not the file or file description page) as suggested, works. In the long term, Opsen are working hard on this problem. If you want to help, listing affected images here would be most helpful :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What a mess! Should I write a script to go back over all the edits it made for that period and revert if the last edit was made by my bot, else, skip (or if a new page was created, and hasn't been edited by anyone else, just replace it with a welcome template (or just skip if since bot-welcoming is frequently denied)?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do. I think we could consider this an emergency exception to our normal bot-approval process, since it's such a fundamental problem. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend—that would be very helpful. Theopolisme (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Just an update, the cleanup script had been started earlier, and it's still running.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Vadim Kiev[edit]

First he engaged in revert wa againsty deletion of unreferenced materia in page tagged since 2008. Now when I complied with his demands and tagged questioned items inline, he continues reverts, but now with insulting edit summaries. Unfortunately it seems that nobody else in interested in editing these articles, so I have to resort to complaints. - Altenmann >t 14:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noticed this "invitation". Obviously this person in complete denial of wikipedia ways. - Altenmann >t 14:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

After [8] I feel that a cool-down block for a couple of hours is warranted if only because of the edit summary. The editor was warned at least once about each of three rules he routinely breaks: WP:No personal attacks, WP:Edit warring, and WP:Verifiability. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


The claimer Altenmann deletes lots of useful information in wikipedia

Info I have about the claimer Altenmann:

Altenmann is a long-time editor who became an admin. He used multiple sockpuppets to influence discussions, was discovered, and was desysoped and banned from editing. He requested a lifting of the ban, which was granted by ArbCom after community discussion, but was restricted to one account.

[9].
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim Kiev (talkcontribs) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Multiple editors have supported the tagging/deletions. Smearing Altenmann won't change this. As I stated on your talk page, the easiest (and really, only) way to stop the deletions and tagging is to add reliable sources to the articles. Why won't you do this? --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
So what? All this people, me included, are sockpuppets of Altenmann, you think? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

His supporting accounts can be his sockpuppets. Vadim Kiev (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The claimer Altenmann is a troll and sockpuppeter that have been banned for it. Now he deletes lots of useful information in Wikipedia and attackes Dacha article inserting 40+ CN tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim Kiev (talkcontribs)

See WP:NPA. You're not helping yourself. --NeilN talk to me 20:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You know what they say about extraordinary claims... I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I went to give this user a final warning for edit-warring, to find that it had already been given in the past 24 hours. He's been blocked for 48 hrs, primarily for EW, but obviously his NPA's don't help either. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unblock without consulting me (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, Vadim Kiev got the links he cited from me, but I don't think they're relevant at all to the edit-warring complaint. Altenmann and I did have a disagreement recently, but I have not seen any evidence that since he was unbanned he's repeated the behavior that got him banned, and if I knew that VK planned on using the links to try and smear Altenmann, I wouldn't have answered his questions. I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell Altenmann has straightened out his act in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"What links here" info incorrect, causing 'bot misbehavior.[edit]

In When Religion Becomes Evil, the infobox contains the picture File:Whenreligionbecomesevil.jpg. But the What Links Here link for that image page [14] doesn't show the link from the article. This caused Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) to tag the image as orphaned.[15].

This is an old image and an old article, from 2006. The image hasn't changed, the article was last edited a month ago, and it was a trivial edit. So we're getting false alarms on images that may well have been uploaded by long-gone editors, and thus may be lost through deletion. Recommend temporarily stopping 'bots which do orphaned link detection until the problem is diagnosed and the database gets fixed. Not yet sure how many files have been affected. --John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first to report this.[16]. It looks like it's the database, not the 'bot. Time for some CHECK TABLE and REPAIR TABLE operations? John Nagle (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Also maybe a note to the bot noticeboard? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Database_problem_-_all_.27bots_which_use_certain_information_should_be_suspended_temporarily. John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
CHECK TABLE and REPAIR TABLE wouldn't work; the problem is that the links aren't making their way into the database. The response from dev/ops is "I don't know what's causing this, but I'd dearly love to find out". In the short-term, making a null edit to the page (not the file or file description page) as suggested, works. In the long term, Opsen are working hard on this problem. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it of any value to list those pages that have already been corrected by making the edit? I have 3 of those, but don't want to list them if they're not helpful now that they've been edited. TJRC (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Still helpful! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by 74.76.189.154[edit]

Can an Admin please block IP address 74.76.189.154 for persistent vandalism? I've had to manually undo their vandalism on 3 or 4 articles on shopping plazas and malls in the Capital District just in the past 20 mins.Camelbinky (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I was inclined to warn instead of blocking until I saw that the address had two recent blocks for similar actions; it's clearly the same guy who knows that we don't like what he's doing. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Continent containing Georgia[edit]

Obitauri blocked one week for edit warring by RegentsPark. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 23 July 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.

Obitauri (talk · contribs) is trying to goad me into breaching the 3-revert-rule at Jehovah's Witnesses by country. Despite the fact that only 4% of Georgia is on the European continent, he wants to insist that it should be listed as being primarily in Europe, though the article is divided into continents geographically. There is no good reason why Georgia should be treated in a special manner whilst all other countries in the list that span borders are listed according to the largest geographical portion. The user's objections seem to be related to political motivations. The user appears to have a very recent history of edit-warring (see user's Talk page), including on topics related to Georgia. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] --Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Note - I would normally have taken this to the article's Talk page, however the editor in question has a recent history of edit-warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Georgia pushing revisited: see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User Obitauri undoing redirect to unsourced article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216#User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected). - DVdm (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't even debatable IMO; Georgia is not a European nation. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Georgia is an European nation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries. Also other things out of continental some lands in so called "Best border of Europe and Asia". According to The Georgian Chronicles, the ancestor of the Kartvelian people was Kartlos, the great grandson of the Biblical Japheth. Ancient Greeks (Strabo, Herodotus, Plutarch, Homer, etc.) and Romans (Titus Livius, Cornelius Tacitus, etc.) referred to early western Georgians as Colchians and eastern Georgians as Caucasian Iberians. Most historians and scholars of Georgia as well as anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists tend to agree that the ancestors of modern Georgians inhabited the southern Caucasus and northern Anatolia since the Neolithic period. Scholars usually refer to them as Proto-Kartvelian (Proto-Georgians such as Colchians and Iberians) tribes. Some European historians of the 19th century (for example, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Paul Kretschmer) as well as Georgian scholars (R. Gordeziani, S. Kaukhchishvili and Z. Gamsakhurdia) came to the conclusion that Proto-Kartvelians might be related linguistically and culturally to the indigenous (pre-Indo-European) peoples of ancient Europe including the Pelasgians, Etruscans and Proto-Basques. Georgians are classified as Caucasoids (Europoid or Europid), and often have brown hair and brown eyes. Georgians who have historically lived in alpine areas of less sunny western Georgia — especially Svans and Mingrelians- tend to have lighter features, with higher frequency of blond hair and light blue or green eyes. Alpine type of Georgian is Svan. According to Orthodox tradition, Christianity was first preached in Georgia by the Apostles Simon and Andrew in the 1st century. It became the state religion of Kartli (Iberia) in 337. Georgian is the primary language for Georgians of all provenance, including those who speak other Kartvelian languages: Svans, Mingrelians and the Laz. The language known today as Georgian is a traditional language of the eastern part of the country which has spread to most of the present-day Georgia after the post-Christianization centralization in the first millennium AD — today Georgians regardless of their ancestral region use Georgian as their official language. The regional languages — Svan and Mingrelian&nbsp — are languages of the west that were traditionally spoken in the pre-Christian Kingdom of Colchis, but later lost importance as the unified Georgian Kingdom emerged. Their decline is largely due to the capital of the unified kingdom, Tbilisi, being in the eastern part of the country — known as Iberia — effectively making the language of the east an official language of the Georgian monarch. --Obitauri (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Like Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, Georgia is a transcontinental country. A small part of it lies in Europe. Other countries like Armenia and Cyprus are geographically in Asia but have strong cultural and historical links with Europe, so are often considered European. Mathsci (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of the rant above by Obitauri is irrelevant. 'Europe' as a continent is not defined either by light skin or by Christianity. The suggestion that any part of the Caucasus region is necessarily part of 'Europe' is also simply wrong. The subject of the article (statistics about a religion that has members throughout Asia and Europe) has no direct relevance to 'European' culture.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
With the exception of Australia all continents are subjective and are not a hard-core scientifically defined. You can have a geographically based definition, where in this region you are calling the Caucasus Mts the "border", or you can have a politically defined where you use political boundaries. This idea of splitting Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakh between Europe and Asia is taking the geographical definition a bit too far, to the point of fringe, since very few sources would do that. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union I would agree that Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are more and more likely to be put in Asia on maps and classification due to political, cultural, and historical definitions, along with obvious geographical reasons of the Caucasus. However, to call it "4% in Europe" would have to be backed by multiple reliable sources. Basing it on strict geographical reasons we would have to call Egypt, Indonesia, and Panama trans-continental as well, even the USA with Hawai'i and an argument could even be made that some of the islands of Alaska are in "Asia". Basically I'd like to see some very reliable definitive sources on geography on what the consensus amongst those with professional status say Georgia is "where".Camelbinky (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
According to the Council of Europe, "Georgia is a relatively small country, situated in the south west of Asia, bordering the Black Sea, between Turkey and Russia. Geographically, Georgia lies mostly in Asia, but part of northern Georgia is located in Europe."[22]
According to the United Nations, Georgia is part of West Asia.[23]
Should I continue?--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether the 4% figure (as stated at List of transcontinental countries#Georgia) is exactly accurate is immaterial to the fact that by far, most of the country lies in Asia, and international bodies agree that it lies predominantly in Asia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The other examples of trans-continental countries listed above also demonstrates the point, as none of those other countries is being contested regarding in which continent most of the country is situated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Jeffro for those sources, that was indeed helpful. I was wondering though if you have time, if you could find sources by experts in the field of geography, as those are political in natural and not exactly definitive sources for information regarding geography of Europe. The UN and the Council of Europe, despite its name, are not exactly the authorities on what is and is not Europe.Camelbinky (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, anonymous editor Camelbinky. I think the burden of proof at this point would be on the other editor to support their alternative claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Culturally, Georgia is European country. How you can say its not European with religionary, cultural, nationally. If you consider everything with locations lets start from here: Continentally Europe and Asia dont needed to be splet. Continent is land mass, rounded with water from 4 sides, not splitted with mountain ranges or rivers. I disagree splitting Europe and Asia with geographical conditions, as its not alot difference with nature and geography. If we split Europe and Asia, simple things to discuss: How close is country to Europe and if haves some land in it. Cultural conditions, national conditions, natural conditions, etc. Then they can choose if country is European or Asian but here no way to talk about this cause people strongly disagree this ideas.

I will stay on topic and say to you who says Georgia is culturally not European, or nationally Georgians are not Europeans. Georgians are Europeans nationally, culturally and historically. As I already wrote this, read it: "Georgia is an European nation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries. Also other things out of continental some lands in so called "Best border of Europe and Asia". According to The Georgian Chronicles, the ancestor of the Kartvelian people was Kartlos, the great grandson of the Biblical Japheth. Ancient Greeks (Strabo, Herodotus, Plutarch, Homer, etc.) and Romans (Titus Livius, Cornelius Tacitus, etc.) referred to early western Georgians as Colchians and eastern Georgians as Caucasian Iberians. Most historians and scholars of Georgia as well as anthropologists, archaeologists and linguists tend to agree that the ancestors of modern Georgians inhabited the southern Caucasus and northern Anatolia since the Neolithic period. Scholars usually refer to them as Proto-Kartvelian (Proto-Georgians such as Colchians and Iberians) tribes. Some European historians of the 19th century (for example, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Paul Kretschmer) as well as Georgian scholars (R. Gordeziani, S. Kaukhchishvili and Z. Gamsakhurdia) came to the conclusion that Proto-Kartvelians might be related linguistically and culturally to the indigenous (pre-Indo-European) peoples of ancient Europe including the Pelasgians, Etruscans and Proto-Basques. Georgians are classified as Caucasoids (Europoid or Europid), and often have brown hair and brown eyes. Georgians who have historically lived in alpine areas of less sunny western Georgia — especially Svans and Mingrelians- tend to have lighter features, with higher frequency of blond hair and light blue or green eyes. Alpine type of Georgian is Svan. According to Orthodox tradition, Christianity was first preached in Georgia by the Apostles Simon and Andrew in the 1st century. It became the state religion of Kartli (Iberia) in 337. Georgian is the primary language for Georgians of all provenance, including those who speak other Kartvelian languages: Svans, Mingrelians and the Laz. The language known today as Georgian is a traditional language of the eastern part of the country which has spread to most of the present-day Georgia after the post-Christianization centralization in the first millennium AD — today Georgians regardless of their ancestral region use Georgian as their official language. The regional languages — Svan and Mingrelian&nbsp — are languages of the west that were traditionally spoken in the pre-Christian Kingdom of Colchis, but later lost importance as the unified Georgian Kingdom emerged. Their decline is largely due to the capital of the unified kingdom, Tbilisi, being in the eastern part of the country — known as Iberia — effectively making the language of the east an official language of the Georgian monarch." Hope you at least agree, Georgia is culturally European as other articles and sources agree too. If you just made list with Geographical conditions, I cant do anything here then cause Wikipedia agrees different borderings than I do. Georgia is culturally, nationally, historically, naturally European. If you just do this with Geographical conditions which wikipedia agrees, ok keep it here but I will NEVER agree people who says Georgia is not culturally, nationally, naturally European. Georgia is like this with Wikipedia conditions: Located mainly in Asia, but culturally, nationally and historically is European --Obitauri (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your subjective comments about 'culture' have no bearing on the geography of Georgia. Further, you have only provided one 'source' (a Wiki link), and it states in the footnote for Georgia that "Georgia and Azerbaijan are mostly in Asia with small portions north of the Caucasus Mountains divide in Europe".
And you've just pasted a large irrelevant passage that you already previously provided above. As I already directly responded to your rant the first time you said it, I really don't see why you thought you should paste it again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You can check article "Georgian People", also "History Of Georgia", you can read Georgian history books, also look Georgian flag, religion, coat of arms and history of kings. Georgia is christian since 300 AD. Also people are considered as European. If you know Europeids are also called "Caucasoids". Origin of European people is in Caucasus region. Geographically difference only according to even wikipedia. Even wikipedia agrees that Georgian people are Europeans. --Obitauri (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Australia is mostly populated by Europeans as well. Should I insist that Australia be listed as part of Europe as well? Obviously, that would be ridiculous. Georgia is predominantly part of Asia. This is a reality you need to deal with.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how it's remotely relevant whether you personally consider Georgia to be anything in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this has any bearing on the current dispute, but as a historical fact that people today are often ignorant of: For thousands of years, until about 300 years ago, Europeans considered Europe to end, and Asia to begin, at the Don River, which put all of the Caucasus in Asia. Around 300 years ago they "expanded" the concept of Europe past the Don, as extending all the way to the Caucasus. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you think of a good reason why Wikipedia articles should apply a 300-year-old definition of Europe that ignores plate tectonics and modern definitions used by international organisations?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course it shouldn't - current consensus is how we define Europe today, not pre-1700 traditional definitions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC) It's actually the newer definition that is "300 years old", buut I knew what you meant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I obviously meant 300 years out of date. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not something that has to be discussed afresh every three months. There are multiple sources (National Geographic, BBC, CIA Factbook, UN, etc) all with slightly different interpretations. These are all mentioned in the detailed footnotes for Europe. Where there is ambiguity, the usual method for as long as I can remember has been to clarify matters with sourced footnotes or explanations in the main text. That applies for example to Malta: situated geographically in Africa, but considered part of Europe. The standard academic reference is: Lewis & Wigen (1997), The myth of continents: a critique of metageography. University of California Press. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The map at Europe#Definition also shows that very little of Georgia is actually located on the continent of Europe. However, the broader issue here is the edit warring by Obitauri on various articles relating to Georgia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Obitauri's edits were already reverted on Ethnic groups of Europe by Chipmunkdavis. There were similar problems recently in that article with Armenia and a different user. The solution was to add footnotes about the Southern Caucasus. Could this be another sockpuppet of Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not sockpuppet and stop saying this things which you dont know. Want check my ip? --Obitauri (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If we're gonna have content debates, let's talk about Cyprus, too... Actually, why do we have to emphasize that either of these places are in Europe or in Asia? They are border states, geographically one place and culturally another. Or both geographically and culturally one place, depending on the source that is consulted. Come up with compromise language that deemphasizes the question, since sources can be mustered for either locale. It's Eurasia, maaaaaaaaan... Carrite (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no country that has exactly 50% in each of two continents. This is why the least ambiguous way of stating where a country is physically located with respect to continents is geographically.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Long term consensus in the article Europe is to do exactly as Carrite has suggested (except for Eurasia), using footnotes. Jeffro77's explanation is not quite correct as these things depend on context. Certainly Armenia and Cyprus, which at the time of the Crusades were separated only by the Mediterranean, are examples of countries geographically in Asia which are usually considered European. The United Kingdom on the other hand is a country geographically in Europe but which ... Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously some contexts are cultural. That has no bearing on the matter of Obitauri dogmatically changing geographical lists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I haven't had time to look at all his edits, but the early ones all seem to be the same: removing references to Asia in Georgie-related articles and replacing them by Europe. This diatribe/rant is an example of his arguments.[24] I do still wonder whether he is related to Polgraf/Satt 2, etc, but that takes longer to check. If the Asia--> Europe changes are all that he does on en.wikipedia, then he is a drain on other volunteer editors' time and WP:NOTHERE applies. Why should he be allowed to continue editing? Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Georgia listed as European[edit]

  • The European Commission's Joint Research Centre: European Soil portal lists Georgia as an European country.[25] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Georgian NOC is a member of the European Olympic Committees.[26] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Georgian FA is a member of Union of European FA.[27] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Georgia is a member of Eastern European Regional Group of the United Nations.[28] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Within the context of where Georgia is physically located, it is predominantly in Asia. Your reference to associations within the region has no bearing.
  • Your first source also lists Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Uzbekistan, which are each mostly or entirely part of Asia.
  • Your second source also lists Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Israel, Russia and Turkey, which are each mostly or entirely part of Asia.
  • Your third source also lists Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Israel, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey, which are each mostly or entirely part of Asia.
  • Your fourth source also lists Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, which are each mostly or entirely part of Asia.
A 'cultural' definition of European is both ambiguous and irrelevant to whether a country is predominantly part of the Asian continent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I think that OP's argument that considering Georgia European is POV pushing and so needs sanction cannot be accepted. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends. Where it is a matter of only saying Georgia shares cultural aspects with Europe, this is not a problem. However, Obitauri is dogmatically asserting that Georgia must "NEVER" be associated with Asia. That perspective is, geographically, just plain wrong, and seems more like bigotry than anything else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@Jeffro: (1) Would you please bring the discussion here and locate it appropriately. You are arguing about the content of lists created by the EU, the UEFA, the IOA, and the UNO. I don't think that is what we are for, that is OR; the UN, the EU soil portal, the UEFA, the IOC treat Georgia as European, Obitari is in good company. (2)Did he claim "never"? Please present diffs. (3). Please if possible present a contemporary list of "Asian Georgia" of equal weight. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't 'inappropriately located' anything (either the discussion or Georgia).
I am not arguing about those lists. I have stated, quite clearly, that those lists are not strictly geographical. Where a list is geographical, the sources you've supplied are not the determining factor (and they're not in agreement anyway). The geographical definition of Asia has been established for hundreds of years, and is based on plate tectonics, which aren't really subject to change in the same way as arbitrary cultural distinctions for any particular purpose. Your third question is essentially a strawman argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to dig up a diff for you because his statement is already on the screen. Just scroll up. He said: "If you just made list with Geographical conditions, I cant do anything here then cause Wikipedia agrees different borderings than I do. Georgia is culturally, nationally, historically, naturally European. If you just do this with Geographical conditions which wikipedia agrees, ok keep it here but I will NEVER agree people who says Georgia is not culturally, nationally, naturally European."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And the UN does not consider Georgia to be part of Europe. The UN lists Georgia as part of Western Asia.[29]--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the diff demand. So one UN department places Georgia in E. Europe, another in W. Asia. Obitari and you seem to agree than disagree, you talk about geology he about other multiple attributes. Obitari says he is unhappy with the consensus, but respects it. What is the issue? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I am hopeful that he will not dogmatically change geographical lists in the future.
It's not a case that one department of the UN says something different to another department. One is a list of how the countries are geographically divided, and the other is a list of regional committees.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree the way you weigh this ambiguity. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That's okay. You're allowed to be wrong. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You site this diff[30] countries are political divisions, I see nothing wrong in his edit, unless there is against a consensus? A general consensus on how to treat Georgia on Wikipedia, a DR result, if there one? Can a diff be provided? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I cited a series of edits, not just that one. The issue here (at ANI) is that the editor has a history of edit warring over issues related to Georgia.
The article in question is a list divided into continents. There is no reason why Georgia should have special treatment in the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Georgia obviously should be separately listed as trans-continental. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it should not. We have zillions of lists in Wikipedia, which are geographically ordered, like List of World Heritage Sites or List of railway museums, and it does not make sense to add to each of them a separate section for trans-continental states. Obviously the article on Georgia should explain that the country is trans-continental, and articles on Europe and Asia as well, and they all do. But the lists conventionally follow the geographical division, which places Russia in the Europe section, Georgia in the Asia section, and Egypt in the Africa section. (Note that the lists do not use Middle East section). There is a consensus about it. If someone wants to challenge the consensus, they should open an RFC rather than start edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And indeed the only ANI issue here is edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also if you say Russia can be Europe listed, why if you support idea that if country is mainly located in "Continental Asia" must be put in Asia. Russia is located in "Continental Asia" if I agree you in this kind of discuss. We can move this disuccsion out of here as I got notice on talk page to dont start whole discuss on AN/I. We can move this discuss to EU country list --Obitauri (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Why is everybody debating a content issue here? Please stop doing that. Fut.Perf. 10:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Further content discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your arguemnt of thinking I am other sockpuppet is clueless. Also now about Georgia. Culturally and nationally Georgia is European country, as well as Russia, Cyprus (not as much nationally) and Armenia. First European prehistorical people are found in land of Georgia. Also Georgian people are considered as "Caucasoids", also known as "Europeids", mainly Alpines. Also just look word "Caucasoid", called to European people. It also shows that home of Europeans is Caucasus. With language structure, Georgian language is considered as "Caucasian Language", main similarity still is to European languages. Also Colchis was one of the oldest kingdoms. It was very strong at time of Ancient Greece. After 1801 annexation by Russia, Georgia was part of them till 1917. Then independent for 3 years, 1918-1921. After red army annexation and occupation, Georgian people continued fighting for long time for independence. In WW2 times 40000 Georgian served in Wehrmacht, SS or Luftwaffe. 10000 volunteer rebel people was also in Mountain parts of Georgia. One person said that cause Georgia was part of soviets, it must be put on Asia map as of "political" issues. Thats Wrong. After 1991, in 2003 revolution Georgia got modern democratical goverment and now in 2012 October, Georgia elected new goverment with democratic way.

Now again about culture of Caucasus. 2 south caucasus country, Armenia and Georgia are European countries with national issues. Also some people talks about old Europe-Asia borders. Old look by ancient Greeks of splitting Europe and Asia was way putting border at Kura river. Modern Europe-Asia splitting is useless with Geographical issues. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg We got Eurasian plate, not European and Asian plates, where plate borders are not on Caucasus range, but souther, taking Armenia and Georgia on Eurasian plate. About secondary and other plate types, no of them contains Caucasus region. I think some people who agrees splitting Europe and Asia with "Geographical" and "Geological" issues, are many on this website. In my opinion if we split Europe and Asia, we must split with cultural issues. Also if country is close located to Europe or Asia and so on. Not how most landpart it got in "Geographical Europe" or "Geographical Asia". With natural conditions, Georgia is also European. If you look Georgia's animals and plants, you can notice it, but people here "Agrees official borderings", not science variants of bordering and discussing it. --Obitauri (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What admin action is requested?[edit]

Picking up FP's point just above, please can we stop the content discussion and focus on administrative action? What, if any, is being requested or would be justified here? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I brought this to ANI is indeed not merely because of a single content issue, but because the editor has a history of edit warring about topics related to Georgia—apparently based on his own nationalistic ideology as reflected in his various comments, including a recent block for edit warring. I'm not sure whether a topic ban is in order, but it appears that there are issues with Obitauri's ability to work collaboratively that he should address.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You ask for banning everyone and notice it to administrators who haves different look than you? --Obitauri (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am hardly the only editor who has had issues with your edits. Your User Talk page indicates a recurring pattern of edit warring, for which you have previously been blocked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The editor has again attempted to retributively edit the initial article for which he was reported for this ANI, this time including a bunch of other countries he considers to be 'culturally' European.[31]. Another editor has already reverted his change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
And again. I just reverted him. This is getting out of hand. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor for a week. --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 22 July 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.

Hounding of Niemti by Daufer[edit]

Yesterday, Daufer was upset Niemti was reverting his edits and so started to revert Niemti on other articles. He got blocked for his troubles: [32]. Background: [33] User_talk:NeilN#Daufer. Today, after coming off a block, we have more reversions of the article that caused the conflict [34] [35], an attack [36], and continued hounding of Niemti [37], [38], [39]. --NeilN talk to me 01:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've blocked Daufer for a week for continuing the hounding of Niemti. The tactics were different, but the only motive for Daufer's "contributions" was petty retaliation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. And the contributions were pretty poor, requesting cites for pictures and straight-up game descriptions. --NeilN talk to me 01:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, for some of them, there were sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I took a look at each article and concluded reverting all his edits was the best course of action. --NeilN talk to me 02:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed talk page access for personal attacks. GB fan 02:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this person is a neo-Nazi (his sources and his use of "Polish subhuman" against me), so I'd recommend checking Daufe's earlier edits (what content was added or deleted, and what sources were used). --Niemti (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User Consiliul use of internal links[edit]

User:Consiliul is an avid editor of articles concerning Romanian popular culture, including Teo Trandafir, Paula Seling, Delia Matache, and others. In his/her zeal, the user frequently adds internal links to common words such as music, woman, or various years, as well as multiple links to the same article. Some of these links go to disambiguation pages, which is how I became aware of the editing pattern. (I often disambiguate links to a number of DAB pages.) I asked the user on 17 June to be more careful with links, and asked again on 12 July and 14 July to stop adding certain links. Nonetheless, the user continues (example diff) adding links to years, common English words, and the like. Perhaps a word from admins or additional users can be more effective. Cnilep (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Both the username and the user's common subjects of editing show that Consiliul is from Romania, not from an English-speaking country. How good or bad would you say this user's English is? Whenever someone (1) racks up lots of file-permissions warnings on his talk page, (2) persists in minor problems like this one despite warnings, (3) appears to be editing in good faith, and (4) is from a country where English isn't much spoken, I'm very very hesitant to levy further sanctions for fear of a language barrier. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The text added by this user (e.g. here or here) is understandable, but contains some vocabulary and grammar problems. On the other hand, the edit summaries are usually missing or strings of nonsense characters. I assume the user can understand English as well as she/he writes it, but is making considerable effort to do so. I agree that "sanctions" such as temporary blocks are probably not called for. What is needed is someone who can communicate the problems to the user. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
@Nyttend, you are hesitant to sanction an editor if there is a language barrier?? Excuse me while I go over to the German wiki and cause all kinds of disruption and then expect no reaction because my german sucks(my English could use work as well, and I am a native). Sorry for the sarcasim, but this doesn't seem right, maybe I am misunderstanding(not the first time). --Malerooster (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to ask one of the users listed at Wikipedia:Local embassy#română (ro) to have a word with the user in Romanian. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Malerooster, I was addressing a situation (like this, seemingly) in which the problems are minor and seemingly being done in good faith — I'd be very surprised if anyone saw WP:OVERLINK violations as reason for serious sanctions, and nobody's shown reason to believe that Consiliul's trying to cause all kinds (or even one kind) of disruption. Language barrier is no excuse for vandalism, but it's a good explanation for small-scale problems done in good faith, and it's a good reason to hold off on blocking until we've tried everything else. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Consiliul about the problem of adding copyrighted media, unsourced data, edit summaries and the need to communicate on wikipedia. That are the problems I have noticed from his talk page. I hope this will help this user. If there is another problem I haven`t addressed please direct my attention. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Consiliul is the indefinitely blocked User:Mateescu. At Commons both accounts have done nothing but upload copyright-infringing photos of Romanian celebrities, here both accounts often use strings of nonsense characters in the edit summaries, and Consiliul has repeatedly identified himself as "Mateescu" (e.g., [40] [41]). The block log gives no indication of the reason for the block other than that it was a checkuser block, and I can't find any SPI reports or other pages referencing the Mateescu account. I have asked the blocking administrator, Timotheus Canens, to comment here. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at my logs, I blocked Mateescu for being the same as Beleiutz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). T. Canens (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll also say that while the technical data is not strong, I will say the connection between the two accounts (Consiliul & Mateescu) is  Possible. Tiptoety talk 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions for all three accounts, I'd say the behavioral evidence is rather conclusive. I have opened an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend,Tiptoety and others users who try for this months to blocked my actions

I am the director of Shepperton International, dubbing director, my WORK IS TO CREATE THIS ARTICLES, this think you don't understand, and you're attitude is the problem, not mine. When I search thousands of time to every talk page NOBODY wants to help, you're work was only to deleted my pages, my articles, i work for this pages, are from the Romanian celebrities, and their managers. YOU,WIKIPEDIA DISTROYED A WORKD THAT COMES FREE, we never ask for money to do this thing.

Yesterday, i want to search help again, I simply want, somebody to find a photo with Delia, and uploading on the article with the same name. WHAT YOU DO HERE IS A VIOLATION, FOR THE ROMANIAN ARTISTS!!!!

I work with rights, but when somebody doesn't undersatand this policy, SOMEONE, try to explain this facts. So people, we are humans, not only persons who are here, the ones who do the games. If you do the same with all the new users, I am sure that Wikipedia's credibility will be losed in few years.

!!!! I ask you, for the last TIME, to help me contribute at Delia Matache article, with a image with her, yesterday, I notice, that it's not a problem, we will pay your actions. Despite of this, I will give up, because I didn't want to say the things clear: BUT I HAVE A FAMILY, AND KIDS. I do this actions, for the Romanian managers, but now I let YOU to have lack of informations, about Romanian artists.

If you think, you can repair what you destroyed about our Romanian culture, by blocked a user who wants , only to help, but HE NEVER KNOW HOW!!!, I am happy to help again, since now, I will never do anything to Wikipedia!


All the best, and thank you for your "cordial welcome" --Consiliul (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Consiliul. I think it has been explained to you several times now, in both English and Romanian, that Wikimedia projects are for hosting free content—that is, material for which the copyright holder has granted others the rights to redistribute and modify the work. As far as we can tell, the files you have been contributing are not "free" in this sense of the word. This is why they have been deleted. If you want to contribute a file, you need to provide proof that the copyright holder has released it under a free licence. (On Wikipedia and some other projects there are some "fair use" exceptions for non-free content, though they don't usually apply to photographs of living people since these could in principle be replaced with free photographs.) If there's anything in particular you don't understand about this please ask and we will do our best to explain things further. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I see now that Consiliul has reached out for help on several user talk pages (including my own) and on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#WIKIPEDIA USERS PLEASE HELP the article Delia Matache, please help me and Delia managers ,we need your help. I've suggested to him that he confine discussion related to his uploads to the latter thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Although he has probably been acting in good faith, I think Consiliul/Mateescu is unfortunately lacking the required WP:COMPETENCE to contribute to the English Wikipedia. It is evident from their post above that his English is pretty poor, which probably explains why they have been ignoring the advice he received on topics ranging from wikilinks to image licensing issues. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can assume good faith any more. He just uploaded File:Delia Matache 2013.jpg, claiming in his own words that he took the photograph himself, and providing the supposed date and location of the event. However, there's ample evidence on the Web that the photo is much older and was taken somewhere completely different. It's also been previously published on major Romanian entertainment websites, and on the subject's own Facebook page. Nonetheless I've given him the benefit of the doubt one last time and have listed it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files rather than nominating it for speedy deletion as a copyvio. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why Consiliul thinks I'm out to get him. We've all been trying to help, and I in particular was saying "no block, unless things get worse". That being said, I'm in agreement with Psychonaut on File:Delia Matache 2013.jpg (especially because of this edit, and also I see the socking issues. No block coming from me right now (I'm about to get on the road for the day), but perhaps it should be coming from someone else. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaving a note here pointing to their departure ("I quite") message without further commentary [42]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
He is now blocked indefinitely. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he's back as 2A02:2F0E:D01F:FFFF:0:0:4F74:C24E (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Psychonaut (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked. GiantSnowman 11:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Guidance for Uncooperative User Theinsidefacts on Death of Shane Todd page.[edit]

On Death of Shane Todd, Theinsidefacts keeps adding self-published pdf documents in his edits, then claims that these were "independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited."[[43]]. Looking at the original source documents (even assuming it is genuine), one can clearly see that it is in fact some form of personal correspondence between the doctor and another party rather than an actual report (such as [[44]] in his edits [[45]] on pg 4 and pg 10 which show the correspondence) and not some professional report as he claimed. The document seems to have been edited to mask the identity of the party the doctor was corresponding with, which means there's no way to be sure if anything else in the document had been edited prior to uploading.

Additional points:

1) Assuming the article is genuine, there is a potential conflict of interest as he/she is publishing some confidential material that no one except the parties involved would have access to.

2) The editor seems to be a single purpose account, as the account seems to be created solely for the purpose of editing this article.

I have tried repeatedly to explain to the user the inappropriateness of using self-published sources, but he just keeps reverting and claiming that I have some form of bias; My only "bias" is that because I had been following the case closely and contributing content to it so I just want to make sure the article stays neutral with clean sources, and just want to hold off including dubious sources until it can be verified to be reliable. I posted this yesterday on WP:RS to question the use of the pdfs of dubious origin, but have not had any replies yet.

Not asking any punitive measures to be taken against him, just that some neutral party other than me try to explain wiki-policy to him since editor in question seems to think I have some form of vested interest in the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The pdf documents being used by Theinsidefacts are from this website. Click on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
IPs now editing warring over this materiel.Suggest article be semi-protected. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
IPs welcomed and warned. No further edit warring. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm more worried about Theinsidefacts as the IPs just appeared today, but the reverts from him seems to have stopped. Hopefully this is the end of it and not just a weekend break. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a rule which says that any Wikipedia editor with a name including "truth" or "facts" is almost certainly going to end up blocked for violating WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, Zhanzhao's titling of 'uncooperative user' in relation to this page is hereby challenged. As regards "sources" sought by Zhanzhao (at point 1 above)- the author of the cited report is stated and clearly defined - a competent authority and is available in the public domain unrestricted. I believe there are more and will cite them when I find them. (I need a day or two on this point). While the report may be incomplete and considered an abstract, its content can be considered for what it is. The fact that the material is about a deceased person, it does not violate BLP and therefore should not attract such ferocious attention. COI is also baseless assumption/accusation - you asked the question re a relationship I may have had with the deceased and you got the answer - there is and was no vested interest or relationship. In relation to Zhanzao's point 2 above, again an assumption and a wrong one. I have recently retired and begun editing WP starting with this story in which I am taking an interest in based on a similar parallel event I was involved in many years ago - this is not therefore in violation of any WP guideline. When was your first edit with your account Zhanzhao? Did you have to defend yourself they way I am having to relate to your criticisms?

It is apparent to myself and other observers I have referred this to that Zhanzhao is assuming ownership of the page and feels some compulsion to be the official gatekeeper for any and all contributions. Just reviewing Zhanzhao's other contributions in checking this editor's wiki history, seems that editor indeed has an agenda with this case and the editor's vested interest is limiting reporting on case that fits with his/her own biases. Zhanzhao's agenda in most of the edits he/she is involved in seems objectively to limit embarrassment or uncomfortable realities with respect to Singapore being made public on Wikipedia. Zhanzhao further posted the statement "since editor in question seems to think I have some form of vested interest in the article". Interestingly, up until now, I had never made this comment or inference at all. Perhaps Zhanzhao you have a guilty conscience? My question to Zhanzhao is to declare that he/she is not employed or being paid for his or her services by any linked Singapore government entity, which based on the circumstances surrounding this story would be a COI in itself as well as a violation of NPOV rules that Zhanzhao so quickly calls other into compliance. Finally, I have checked regarding editor names/aliases - while there is guidance stating one should not refer to entries as "facts" or "truth" it is not apparent that this applies to names/aliases. I welcome administrators to comment and correct me if I am wrong and if necessary, I will amend my alias should it be necessary. Theinsidefacts (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets go through this one by one:
  • 1) I was not the only editor to find the source unacceptable. See [[46]]
  • 2) I was not the one who asked about your relationship to the subject. I think you got me confused with 76.189.109.155[[47]]
  • 3) I admit, COI was indeed based on an assumption, due to the fact that instead of providing a link to a formal report, you have somehow provided a link to some form of personal correspondence between the expert and an unidentified third party [[48]] in your edit [[49]]. Which apparently the major search engines have not even spidered yet. Even if there is no conflict of interest, seems like you're privy to some very private info. Please do tell which public domain you got the link from, cos this isn't something someone can just happen to stumble across.
  • 4) If you look at the type of stuff I had edited, you'll notice that I always strive for neutrality, mostly to revert unsourced OR, or sources of questionable reliability. I can't help it that vandals to the sites I've watchlisted always vandalize with a certain slant. And in the odd times when things have escalated to ANI or WP:RS, I've yet to be judged as the errant party. (barring the one time I was banned when I was still a noob and got sanctioned way in '09)
  • 5) And just to humor you, no, I am neither an employee nor paid by any government linked Singapore government entity for my activities. Unless you count working in a company based physically in Singapore...cos its after all where I live. As for my high frequency of Singapore-centric edits, same rationale applies. Its where I stay, and where my area of knowledge lies. To assume that I was somehow linked to some entity is peculiar, considering my long editing history has seen me in fields from animation to live action, Hollywood to Bollywood, Local politics to foreign affairs, Sports to food.... I must have been approached by every single government entity in existance! But I digress. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the posting linked earlier, [50] the document cited by Theinsidefacts cannot possibly be considered a reliable source. This is hardly a controversial statement - it is hosted on some sort of free upload website, and there is no way whatsoever to verify its authenticity. If Theinsidefacts wishes to dispute this, s/he is of course free to raise the matter at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though it will clearly be a waste of time. (And for the record, I'm in no way associated with the government of Singapore, or in any way involved with the subject matter of the article. I merely posted on the talk page to point out where policy stands on such material). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Theinsidefacts, three different editors (Zhanzhao, Andy and now me) concur that the source you are trying to use is not reliable. Andy and I have no prior involvement with this article so please accept our advice and opinion on this. If you are prepared to stop trying to insert information based on this unreliable source we can close this and need go no further. PS: Qwyrxian's note about user names containing the words facts or truth is a bit of a Wikipedia in-joke, not a piece of policy. It has been informally noted that users with these elements in their user names often seem to come here with a particular agenda to push but there is no policy reason to change your name - only your editing style. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK concur with you conclusion re source, hence the case closes if there are no further comments.Theinsidefacts (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Theinsidefacts, I'm interested in finding out where you found the report that you posted as well. Having been monitoring the case, the only report I've seen so far is on the family's webpage [[51]]. Which has a report that coincidentally just happens to be hosted on the same host; is Wix such a popular hosting solution? Except the family website's pdf did not include the personal chit-chat which Zhanzhao pointed out. All you have to do is tell us where you got that link from so that there isn't any suspicion of "being an insider" against you? And since you mentioned re-sourcing, to pre-empt you, the report on the family page sould not be acceptable for the exact same reasons that your original source was rejected. However, if it had been hosted on the website of David Camp (the doctor who put his name to the report), that would be acceptable since it is a first hand source, as long as it is properly attributed in the writeup. As the other editors mentioned, please read up on wikipedia guidelines on sourcing so that we do not have to repeat this. DanS76 (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Scotire[edit]

Scotire (talk · contribs) - some background. I was off-wiki for much of the last few months and on my return I discovered a large number of edits that seemed to be confused and unhelpful by this editor. As is clear from both his talk page history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#A new plague of "traditional counties" activism et seq. he has been causing a few problems.

These include:

Seems obsessed with the historical counties of Scotland and has decided that it is more important that readers be informed that e.g. Aberdeenshire be described not as “ one of the 32 Council areas of Scotland, and a lieutenancy.” But as “a registration county” – a rather obscure phenomenon that many people will not have heard of. See this diff. It’s a bit like changing the lead of say California to “California is an entity responsible for the staking of claims to land” or similar rather than referring to it by its more usual description as a US state. As you can see the edit also means the lead's flow and syntax is broken.

The trouble is that (1) Aberdeenshire and (2) Aberdeenshire (historic) are both the same place and as such are both the one "county". By deleted "county" on (1) you are the one who is confusing others. Scotire (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to listen to advice. See talk page history, history of Aberdeenshire or e.g. history of Category:Counties of Scotland where this user repeatedly adds irrelevant info to the Category description see e.g. my edit removing this and the previous recent history.

Continually adds bare unformatted urls into the text often in inappropriate places [52]

Is occasionally just odd: [53] - an edit which takes a credible paragraph and simply splits it up into different lines.

If anyone cared to read the article they will see that the person who wrote it, put five topics in the one paragraph - 1) merged with Timswall, Shetland; 2) the Hall 3) the Church 4) the school; 5)sport, - that he or she may kindly expand. Hence, I split each of them into a separate sentence. Scotire (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He clearly has no serious interest in WP:MOS and is very prolific. There are edits here and there that aren’t sentences as such that just “Refer [article or reference”. Etc.

There has been a mix-up in posting this. Seems that this message may have been overwritten before it was saved. I will try again.
On the top of some articles is the message "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I have added some references to these many articles, but Ben MacDui has had another shot. Perhaps he himself, "has no serious interest" because if he were interested, he, himself, could take the time and trouble to research and add references to those articles instead of using time to criticize others. My time on this earth is as valuable as his, but I try and use it in a positive, not a negative manner. Scotire (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Over the last few days he has turned his attention mostly to Scottish islands (my specialist subject). My watch list is just cluttered with this user’s edits - nothing wrong with that as such and at least he/she has started to use edit summaries.

You might well ask why I, or someone else has not started issuing blocks or warnings. For myself, I am mindful of the Perth case and have no wish to be admonished by Arbcom for taking admin action when I am clearly “involved” even at this early stage. There are not that many admins still actively involved on Scottish articles and if Scotire’s latest edits are typical the articles he is editing are mostly off the mainstream for the most part.

What action should be taken? I do not think Scotire means us ill, it is rather I believe a case of WP:COMPETENT. Not every edit is valueless – another obsession is adding links to commons categories. I mindful of an old friend of us all who behaved in similar ways, was given a great deal of leeway and ended up taking up huge quantities of time for everyone involved, yet it still ended in tears. Whatever needs to be done now, I suspect a topic ban of some kind is looming unless something changes. Ben MacDui 19:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Scotire is editing disruptively on this page. Not only did he break up Ben MacDui's initial report by interjecting comments, but he split the report into two parts so that the end of the initial report was in a new thread on ANI. Scotire must know how inappropriate it is to manipulate other editors' postings in that way. Please could he stop? Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not an "obsession" in adding links, mainly on stubs, to commons photos. There are 87 stubs in Category:Orkney geography stubs that are mainly towns in Orkney. It is requested that people add to these stubs, which I have been taking the time in effort in so doing. It may get people interested in writing about that town, particularly if they reside in that area. Scotire (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I agree Scotire's edits are often unhelpful and they seem unable/unwilling to take advice on board. I came across this user's edits at AfC in September 2012 when they were either co-opting existing articles and re-writing them about ancient jurisdictions. These were often about small, defunct parishes, but nowadays the edits are more difficult to ignore, having moved on to encompass towns and counties. Sionk (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Concur; doubtless well-intentioned, highly industrious but deluded, unreceptive and I fear to look into the full extent of the damage they've wrought. This discussion and three of the subsequent ones on that page shed further light. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When to link[edit]

Quote : Wikipedia encourages links from wikipedia articles to pages on other wiki projects. i.e. Wikimedia.commons. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#When_to_link. We have found that when people read articles about towns, that they would prefer to see all the photos of those towns and find the link to wikimedia.commons most helpful. 59.167.60.9 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Counties[edit]

There was a discussion about Counties as they were being referred to as "former" counties, when this is clearly not the case. These incorrect references to "former" counties were corrected by the references to the official Scottish Government documents, that have been constantly deleted by Ben MacDui. Scotire (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Counties or Shires and Local Government[edit]

Ben MacDui cannot accept the concept that Governments of a Country, and Local Governments of Counties only administer the country or counties.

The Government of Scotland is not the country of Scotland, and The Local Government Council of a County is not a county. Scotire (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Civil Parishes in Scotland[edit]

Sionk states that I was writing about "small, defunct parishes", and is ignorant of the fact that the Civil Parish are being used by the Scottish government as noted in the wikipedia article "List of civil parished in Scotland" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_parishes_in_Scotland Scotire (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are this morning's edits to Firth, Orkney [54] by Scotire. Superficially sensible, but:

  • the Visions of Britain reference does not confirm that Firth IS a civil parish, only that it was one in 1824. This does not create an error in the text but it is misleading and inappropriate.
  • the phrase "is a Civil parish ( List of civil parishes in Scotland )" contains minor MOS issues but the bracket is poor English and this list should be a "See also".
  • I think Scotire is correct that "The islands of Damsay and Holm of Grimbister, which lie in the Bay of Firth, are also in the parish." but there is no reference for this.
  • the new section "Etymology - Pomona" is just confused. First of all it is a copy of material from Mainland, Orkney without attribution. This would not matter so much if it were not largely irrelevant to the topic (and repeats the link to that crucial List of civil parishes in Scotland for no good reason).

I imagine editors can begin to see why it is somtimes just simpler to rollback all this stuff rather than attempt to retain the portion that is useful. Already, earlier today there were a bunch of similar edits at Deerness. I can barely keep up and there may well be a huge clean up backlog required. Ben MacDui 08:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to close[edit]

I agree that this is disruptive. I have asked Scotire to stop the advocacy for traditional counties and have offered to assist his self-reflection process using technical measures if this is needed. Let's hope it isn't. --John (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John - I think this is all that can be done for now. Scotire's reaction [55] was perhaps understandable, if not exactly encouraging but let's hope for improvements. Ben MacDui 13:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

IP disrupting PROD log[edit]

IP blocked for 31 hours by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:52, 23 July 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.

Are any editors familiar with persistent vandalism cases specific to PROD (or CSD) logs? Some days ago I received some particularly disruptive edits to my PROD log, ([56]), which I did not notice until my own user page was vandalized today ([57]). The editor 67.177.211.156 (talk · contribs), doesn't have many edits, but in all of them, has inserted the name "Charles Matthew Griego" along with some assertion of being the creator of the cloud (see [58] and [59]). I wouldn't normally bring this to ANI except my PROD log seems like a place only an experienced editor would target and I don't link to it from anywhere. If there's nothing to be done and none of this behavior sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone, that's fine and we can just move on to more important matters. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What an unusual kind of sneaky vandalism! Find anyone else doing this and we can treat them as socks. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Well, I suppose for now this is just an alert for folks to keep an eye out for this particular modus operandi. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you're looking to develop an MO, an earlier incarnation of this guy can be found here. -Thibbs (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice find! It looks like the user is continuing to do the same sort of activity per [60] and [61]. I'll report this to WP:AIV. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:26, 23 July 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:RODERICKMOLASAR[edit]

All his edits this month have consisted of adding plot details to movies, all unsourced, and some clearly faked. (I haven't seen all of the movies, so I can't say they are all faked.) I reverted them on July 16 (my time, anyway), he restored the information today, and I removed it. As I must say I'm WP:INVOLVED, could someone else block or issue a more detailed warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think plot summaries require a source. Are every one of his edits unconstructive? I'd say reverting without summary wasn't the smartest first move. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know that all of them are non-constructive; just the ones where I'm familiar with the film. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I just randomly opened a few diffs from the contribution and seems like the editor is entering opinions/talk like content into movie plots, the diffs I checked are as below(with un-related edit summaries too)
  1. The flat
  2. Ethos
  3. Loose change

Some one might want to do a deeper review  A m i t  웃   20:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by User:gu1dry[edit]

User:gu1dry's personal taste how to place space characters led to repeated harsh personal attacks against me. “Are you really that god damn stupid?” and “piss off” are the highlights. On top of that, he isn't even a remotely major contributor to that article. See [62][63][64] for details.

I'm not interested lengthy “dispute resolution” discussions. Just someone please tell him that his insults are not acceptable. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You have the same authority to drop a warning template on his page as anyone else. However, I note he's been edit-warring on multiple articles AND being uncivil today. I've given him a 48 hr break ... note that "piss off" is uncivil, but not blockable ... whereas "that god damn[ed] stupid" is most certainly a violation of WP:NPA (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User Ymblanter Protecting Article for following reason[edit]

A WP:BOOMERANG flies in through the window. User:Obitauri blocked for a week for edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 22 July 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 [[65]] is protecting article [[66]]with following reason given: "(Protected Jehovah's Witnesses by country: Edit warring/Content dispute: will be unblocked if the most active edit-warring user has been blocked ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block al) "/

This is like he is asking for someone's block and bringing reason of this article will be unprotected if he will be blocked. This happens after I prove him that Russia must be in Asia listed if we use Geographical issues when he said Georgia to put in Asia. I know he asks for my blocking which seems inappropriate cause I am no longer Edit warring here --Obitauri (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What administrator action are you looking for, or hoping to be taken, exactly? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 22 July 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.
  • Comment: is this really a valid protection reason?--R.S. Peale (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User claims adding refs and removing cite tgs is vandalism[edit]

User:DerbyCountyinNZ reverts edits that remove cite tags and replace them with refs [67] and [68] then claims I am vandalizing [69] and defying him. I then removed the non cited info as an alternative and he claims I am defying. This editor is freaking me out with hios agressive attitude, doesnt seem at all right. Can an admin please take a look. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The tags were placed in this article, and many others, because the reference cited is in appropriate for the statement, violating W:SYNTH and WP:OR. This was explained on the talk page which also mentioned where the original discussion of this topic could be found. As User:Squeakbox subsequently made the same edit to that article I can only assume that they read the talk page and decided to ignore the reasons given. They appear to be an experienced editor and should be well aware of wiki guidelines, including WP:CONSENSUS. They appear to have ignored this and to me that constitutes vandalism. I also find it difficult to believe that an editor who falsely and clearly inaccurately, accuses someone of "trolling" can be "freaked out" by having a similar description made of them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact, on rechecking the edit histories User:Squeakbox was surely aware why the tags were placed there as this edit mentions the date of this edit where the violation of SYNTH is specified as is the Talk Page discussion where this is explained. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following you, DerbyCountyinNZ. I always thought that doing simple math is allowed, and is not considered to be OR or SYNTH. Please see WP:CALC -- Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the ins and outs of this but if this is a dating issue, simple math is allowed and is not synth.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
"They appear to have ignored this and to me that constitutes vandalism" Well, it isn't so please review what vandalism is for Wikipedia purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding what's going on here — purely because I'm confused by the opposition to including this statement. I see no reason to consider this anything except a standard mathematical calculation. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23[edit]

User has retired. No reason to keep this opened. — ΛΧΣ21 03:37, 24 July 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.

This administrator has been misusing his tools properly ever since I was unblocked, and even before. This admin was personally threating me when I recently nominated Fairy Guy for speedy deletion, because it has no content and it was no reason for it to be created, Bbb23 undid my edit and made a threat by telling me he/she was going to block me indefinite when I didn't even do anything wrong to him. There's no use trying to talk to him/her because the admin won't listen. Also, the admin only blocked me because of edit warring. The user Beerest355 was edit warring too, so I was a little confused why he wasn't blocked. Later, when I posted a unblock request, Bbb23 didn't even state my request, he/she was giving out criticism that it was my fault that I was block. Later when it was removed, he threatened to make my block longer if I removed his comment again, but somehow I was even more confused when he/she told Beerest355 that I had the rights to remove any comment from anybody, especially him. I don't even see a rule about removing a admins comment will make your block longer, no rule that will exist. --拱連鑄機談話 02:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing links to all these accusations, makes it very easy to follow and agree, not! --Malerooster (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Most disappointing to hear that, by your account, "There's no use trying to talk to him/her". However, if this is correct then there's no purpose in discussing it further here, since AN/I cannot force admins to listen or to do (or not do) anything else. Suggest this be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The editor has now indicated he has retired [70]. See no reason to keep this open. Taroaldo 02:55, 24 July 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.

Darkness Shines[edit]

This is about user:Darkness Shines (DS):

(1) DS has accused me of hounding, DS reverted my edit with the summary "Rv, do not follow my edits again."[71]] he has called me disruptive[72], he is indulging in repeated base remarks: "I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh."[73] (2) When discussion was sought on DS's talk page regarding his remarks, he drove me away with the comments "I have >< that much interest in your opinions."[74] He disparaged me and my edit at DYK discussion as "waffle".[75] (2.a) I sought user:RegentsPark's (RP) third party mediation, there DS retorted: "YK I will say what I want, when I want, and were I want, and quite simply there is sweet fuck all you can do about"[76] (2.b) "Are you fucking shitting me?"[77] (3) DS says that certain pictures upset him, and that he has the right to use Wikipedia to express his disgust.[78] (4) He claims that his behaviour is appropriate and that Wikipedia is "NOTFUCKINGCENSORED". (uppercase in original) [79] (5) RP advised that I bring the matter here,[80] he censured DS for calling me disruptive,[81] however he said that he couldn't "block" DS in the matter as he was not allowed to do so by community consensus,[82] (6) Since the edits have occurred in ArbCom sanction areas and as DS is on the warning list, having put himself on it,[83] and considering that the sanction area requires higher standards of editing behaviour than other areas I request him to change his editing behaviour to comply to the standards as expressed in 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 to 8.1.5 of the decision. (7) I seek appropriate coercive measures to ensure the same. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the measures you seeking regarding his way of handling content disputes, or his conduct? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines has a bit of a history with civility issues. I think we should look at the overall conduct here on wiki. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Good news. I am generally indifferent to civility problems in talk pages, but deem Darkness Shines’ indiscriminate twinkling against any edit he doesn’t agree with as a pattern detrimental to the collaborative environment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? You think an RFC/U is in order cos I reverted your addition of unsourced content? As for the actual complaint from YK he is taking stuff out of context here. To begin with, my comments on right wing extremists raping women and children are, I will admit very blunt, but can be backed by RS. I will also point out what YK forgot to mention, another user already bollocked me about that comment, and I said he was correct and have not said anything like it again. On RP's talk page I admin, ya I was angry, and explained why to YK, and for those not bothering to follow a diff it was becasue while researching for an article I saw some images which were very upsetting. I have not claimed he has hounded me, I told him not to follow my edits. What I say on a user talk page is up to the user to decide about, RP has yet to complain over my being upset on his talk page. And that really is the lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I forgot, the reason I said he was being disruptive was for these reasons, removing the views of one of the most prominent human rights activists working to get justice for the victims for the 02 Gujarat pogrom. [84] YK thinks she is only "incidental" source misrepresentation removes academically sourced content, YK seems to think it is "undue speculation " Suggesting that an article with 79 sources, be turned into a list And he is still at it BTW YK sseems to think that adding balancing content for NPOV is excessive detail, personally I find this disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
..one of the most prominent human rights activists working to get justice for the victims for the 02 Gujarat pogrom... The prominent human rights activist is a propagandist [85][86][87][88], has a dubious reputation [89][90][91][92] and does not even enjoy the trust of riot victims [93] to put it mildly. You are only exposing your bias and ignorance by insisting on using her name in the article. Yogesh Khandke is not the one who is disruptive here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • DS, we have, for not just once but on multiple times for now, have seen you, not accidentally but deliberately, misrepresent sources, use inferior unreliable sources and state half facts in articles. So don't try to change the topic of your attacking editors to article editing, because that box if opened is only gonna bring in more worse for you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have always advocated that these kind of ANI reporting has been due to conflict between two groups of people and many times useless or just forum shopping, and have seen that most of these ANI's end up with a comment/reprimand on behavior or to take it somewhere else etc... (which was reasonable too). But at the same time the non-actions seems to have induced a new confidence in the editors involved to do more harm than good to the project. If block are preventative in true terms then there needs to be some here. A topic block (india-pakistan/hindu-muslim) is needed on all the notified editors in the india pakistan arbitration page which includes me (and I am not going to defend this either to prevent any more drama). There is nothing more preventative than this - if any admin(involved or not) is ready to do this. Most editors are pretty productive within the project, but a break for atleast 3-4 months from these topics would give them cool-down time (this should include block from sandbox/userpage usage to create india-pakistan/hindu-muslim related topics which would just mean that the editor is not taking the block seriously and just preparing to create more drama).