Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824

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

Noticeboard archives



User Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong, not related links in articles, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it. That user repeatedly adding original research statement ([1]), which has been removed per discussion at talk page, but he readding it again. Adding non related links ([2], [3], [4]). Besides, reverting edits with uncertain/wrong explainations in edit summary. He was previosly blocked 3 times for edit war in same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Δαβίδ (talkcontribs) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What discussion on the talk page? There's nothing there but a list of WikiProjects (I even checked the history and found nothing). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
[5], [6] that statement has been removed, but that user added it again and again.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor User2001 and Jook-sing article[edit]

A new, so far single purpose editor User2001 is making persistent and repeated major changes (mostly deletions) to the article Jook-sing, without Edit summaries or Talk page discussion, despite repeated requests to do so in my Edit summaries and on the user's Talk page. I have also posted on the article's talk page. No response.

We seem to be facing an insoluble communication problem which indicates possible competency problems.

Can an Admin please have a look? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I support HiLo48 in his concern about this editor's actions. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
As per Jack Greenmaven. Also note similar edits:
In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Temporarily blocked User2001 for 3RR violation. You may want to advise user in his talk page what and why. he can reply there if he wishes as the talk page is open. Should he continue edit warring, then there will be longer blocks forthcoming. -- Alexf(talk) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I note we still have absolutely no response from this editor. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


User Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong, not related links in articles, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it. That user repeatedly adding original research statement ([7]), which has been removed per discussion at talk page, but he readding it again. Adding non related links ([8], [9], [10]). Besides, reverting edits with uncertain/wrong explainations in edit summary. He was previosly blocked 3 times for edit war in same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Δαβίδ (talkcontribs) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What discussion on the talk page? There's nothing there but a list of WikiProjects (I even checked the history and found nothing). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
[11], [12] that statement has been removed, but that user added it again and again.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor creating multiple vanity pages on their family members[edit]

Blocked for 48 hours by User:Alexf. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:29, 28 December 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:Rakesh Ricky Panwar is accumulating multiple pages on himself and various family members (see the multiple speedy-deletions), a process he seems intent on continuing despite being asked to desist. (See also the deleted Talk page entries.) AllyD (talk) 15:36, 27 December 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.

Deleted discussion[edit]

Demetrioscz have deleted a discussion content. With this argument: remove personal comments about the article page. Those are claims of the book's author. Only discussions regarding how to improve the article should be present here. You can cite reliable 3rd party sources. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Demetrioscz is correct in his edit. The comments at the talk page are not related to the improvement of the article, but are someone's rebuttal to the content of the book. Please do not restore the commentary again. Additionally, you should read Wikipedia:Free speech. You do not have the right to free speech on the Wikimedia project. only (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Only - of course Richard Reinhardt has freedom of speech on a Wikimedia project. The United States Government cannot come here and remove his comments! However, any Wikipedia editor could remove them and there is nothing he can do about it. =) --v/r - TP 17:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure there is! He can file an ANI. :D - theWOLFchild 02:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))

James Lindberg[edit]

Originally blocked for one month by User:Favonian; extended to indefinite after threats of violence came to light. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:49, 28 December 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 user is repeatedly removing sourced content. This are the most recent exemples: diff, diff. He was already warned numerous times by several editors, and he has been blocked for the exact same reason on same articles. Usually has been easier just to revert him without bothering to make a full complain here, but it has been a bit enough of same old story with this user again and again. Basically, he removed everything regarding the historical periods and all reference to Yugoslavia, pretending as if Macedonia was allways independent, so we are dealing here with tendentious nationalistic editing. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The same user also re-created article "Macedonian pre-selection for Eurovision Song Contest" that was previously speedy deleted. It was deleted as redundant to Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. But, in this new article, he counts all Eurovision entrants from Yugoslavia from 1961 to 1992 as Macedonian, although they all represented Yugoslavia and none of them was from Macedonia. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, so typical. He did a similar thing some time ago with List of Macedonian football champions. When his edits were reverted (not just by me, one can see that article history page) he just made a new article just changing one capital letter in the title. I´ll try to find a link. His edits allwys go about ignoring the Yugoslav period and pretending Macedonia was independent all the time. He also often edits as IP. FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on, the guy did it again... can´t beleave no one gives a f*** here... FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, he was indef blocked... finally... This thread can be closed. FkpCascais (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) FkpCascais, you have to learn to be a little patient. I'm not an admin, but I can still tell you that there are literally hundreds of issues that admins have to deal with around here. Anyway, I was going to NAC close this, but considering this comment, I wonder if any admin would consider removing James' talkpage, user page, etc per WP:VIOLENCE. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 03:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Erpert for your input. Yes, he made serious personal threats. Jingby, me and some other users have been dealing with him and his attitude for long time. FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 27 December 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:Settai3 and copyright infringement[edit]

Settai3 was warned about uploading several copyrighted images yesterday.[13] Despite this, the user has continued to upload a number of images, sometimes even replacing fair use images for new copyrighted ones.LM2000 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The uploads are happening over at the Commons, not here. I have put a (second) final warning on their Commons talk page and will post something on their talk page on this wiki as well. I have also posted at the Commons admin notice board. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


This image was accidentally reduced to Fair use sizes, but is, in fact, PD-Text (the rationale everyone forgets about). Can someone please restore the full size?

Thank you,

Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is still copyrighted. Title pages are also "other protected type in sense of the local copyright law," according to commons:Template:PD-text. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, title pages may be eligible for British copyright. George Ho (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. No, that is completely wrong. None of the copyrightable music appears in the image. Commons' statements are not relevant: Commons works under international law, only American copyright law matters HERE. Please review Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works.
  2. Only American copyright applies on English Wikipedia. That may well be a reason not to move it to commons, but has no relevance to here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't get your "interpretation" on the guideline. It doesn't say that English Wikipedia must follow solely on the American law. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing_copyright_law - Hope this helps. - theWOLFchild 02:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))
  • "Only American copyright applies on English Wikipedia" - I can't make this NOPE big enough. Wikipedia must respect both American copyright law and the copyright law of the country of origin. This is why there are some (perhaps even "many") cases where something is PD in the country of origin but is copyrighted in the United States and, thus, cannot be freely used here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see {{Do not move to Commons}} and pages that use it, e.g. File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg. We care about the PD-in-origin-but-not-USA cases because we're a USA-based organisation and could be liable for copyright infringement lawsuits for those cases. Unlike Commons, we don't care about PD-in-USA-but-not-origin cases by longstanding policy, and since we're not a UK-based organisation, we're not liable to copyright infringement lawsuits for those cases. Of course, if you're in the UK you might be liable to an individual lawsuit; that's why we've always been careful to remind non-Americans to follow their own laws, and when they find PD-in-USA-but-not-origin images from their own countries, to ask American editors to upload the images in question in order to avoid problems. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Juzumaru (talk · contribs) has some kind of anti-Korean 21st century political agenda (no need for diffs -- every single edit he has made this month is consistent), and has been misrepresenting sources and messing up articles on subjects like classical Japanese poetry based on this agenda.[14] I have tried contacting him on his talk page,[15] and asked him to use article talk pages, but he has ignored me and kept reverting me, and tried to change the definition of the word toraijin.[16] He also cryptically requested (in Japanese, which he speaks more intelligibly than English) that I contact him on his talk page, despite his failure to acknowledge previous attempts.[17] Ć I'm on a smart phone, so only one diff at a time. (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE He has apparently finally replied to me on his talk page, asking me (in Japanese) for quotations from the sources I already cited. This is, as far as I know, not a requirement on Wikipedia, and is difficult as hell to do on a phone (my only Internet source at the moment). I also a quote would stop him, given how he has otherwise dismissed all the sources, and he keeps misrepresenting the meaning of a certain word, apparently assuming he's the only one on English Wikipedia who speaks Japanese, imagine what he could do with an entire block of text. (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I've not looked at it all but Toraijin just means an immigrant to Japan, not specifically Korean. It can be used for all people who came to settle in Japan from overseas. Canterbury Tail talk 16:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I know, but the sources all specifically say Baekje. Juzumaru is dismissing all but one of my sources, and refusing to actually read that one source, instead judging it by its title. His edit summary in English also implies he is claiming the word specifically means someone NOT from Korea, which is wrong. (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Note it appears that there is now a massive edit war going on over the Japanese invasion of Korea with mass changes and it looks like not a small amount of sockpuppetry. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that. I edit classical Japanese literature articles on the Kojiki and Manyoshu related topics. In fact, when it come to modern politics, I'm probably closer to "Juzumaru's side". (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The definition of the ja word 渡来/torai (人/jin means person) is here. What's the problem? The next sentence on the Yamanoue no Okura article specifically says He is believed to have been one of the refugees from the Korean kingdom of Baekje (called Kudara in Japanese) who fled the Korean peninsula for Baekje's close ally Japan after their kingdom was invaded by Tang China. Oda Mari (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right. But think about it: why does Juzumaru want to go out of his way to remove the word "Korean" from the opening sentence? And why does he keep insisting that the word toraijin doesn't specifically mean Korean (something I never claimed)? The most obvious answer seems to be that he wants to remove reference to Korea, but his poor English skill led him to miss the second sentence's reference to Kudara. This is consistent with the far-right, fringe POV that has apparently informed every other edit he has made on English Wikipedia. I am also increasingly troubled by the edit war CT above mentions. Can we get a mass CU on the SPAs in that dispute? (If I'm gonna talk about sockpuppetry, I should probably disclose that I have an account, but when I try to edit from it on my phone I keep getting logged out and losing my edits.) (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The reason for this is written in genealogy dictionary of Japan.(Shinsen Shōjiroku) Mainstream of the Traijin was the Chinese who lived in the Korean Peninsula. (foreign: 326 families; of those, 163 were from China, 104 from Baekje, 41 from Goguryeo, 9 from Silla, and 9 from Gaya.) I do not deny the possibility that Okura's ancestors came from the Korean Peninsula. However, reference cited is not certain his ethnicity. Therefore, scholars did not write "Okura is a Korean." --Juzumaru (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
They wrote this about the Yamanoue-Okura.[18] If someone refute this opinion, he is far-right? Yamanoue no Okura was a famous poet in eighth-century Japan, who immigrated from Korean Baekje.[93][94][95] Influenced by the Madhyamika School of Buddhism growing out of his Former Baekje cultural heritage,[93] he addressed social concerns through his poem,[96] unlike other Japanese poets of the time, who spoke for the ethos of land, love, death and devine monarchy.[97] He later became a tutor to the crown prince and Governor of a province in Japan.[93] The reputation of Yamanoue no Okura has sharply risen in the twentieth century,[98] he became, in the general consensus of sub-sequent centuries of Japanese literary scholarship, one of the most memorable, most influential, and today most often cited poets of the Old Japanese period.[93] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzumaru (talkcontribs) 14:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Read the sources I cited, please. All of them state that he came (or possibly came) from the Korean state of Baekje. You haven't cited a single source that says otherwise. You clearly are not an expert in this area, so why the hell should the rest of us have to take your word on this? Anyway, you don't know "my POV" so stop assuming bad faith by claiming my edits are rooted in some kind of pro-Korean, anti-Japanese POV (nothing could be further from the truth). (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, this IP user( is clueless in the Japan classic literature. And, "he came (or possibly came) from the Korean state of Baekje" is not written in the source. (Baekje is ruined in the 600 when Okura was born. ), You'll read WP:WEIGHT. Your claim is not a common sense. I quote an article of Yamaue-no-Okura from a Japanese well-known encyclopedia.
  • "Nihon Rekishi Jinbutsu Jiten" published by The Asahi Shinbun 奈良時代の歌人。『万葉集』に,推定作を含む長歌11首,短歌60首余,旋頭歌1首,漢詩文3首を残す。また『類聚歌林』を編んだが,現存しない。大宝1(701)年遣唐少録に任ぜられる際に,「无位山於億良」と『続日本紀』にみえる...
  • Heibonsha World Encyclopedia万葉歌人。701年(大宝1)遣唐少録,714年(和銅7)従五位下,716年(霊亀2)伯耆守,721年(養老5)東宮(のちの聖武天皇)の侍講となり,726年(神亀3)ころ筑前守赴任,732年(天平4)帰京して翌年卒したらしい。
  • "Dainihon Jinmei Jiten" (Dictionary of Japanese Biography) published by The Kodansha斉明天皇6年生まれ。大宝(たいほう)2年遣唐(けんとう)少録として唐(中国)にわたる。帰国後伯耆守(ほうきのかみ),東宮侍講をへて筑前守(ちくぜんのかみ)となり,大宰府で大伴旅人(おおともの-たびと)らとまじわった。
  • Daijisen published by The Shogakukan[660~733ころ]奈良前期の官人・歌人。大宝2年(702)渡唐し、帰国後、伯耆守(ほうきのかみ)・東宮侍講・筑前守を歴任。思想性・社会性をもつ歌を詠んだ。
  • Daijirin(660~733頃) 奈良前期の官人・歌人。遣唐少録として渡唐。帰国後伯耆守・東宮侍講・筑前守を歴任。筑前守時代に大伴旅人と親交。漢文学の学殖深く,その影響下に人生的・社会的題材の歌を詠んだ。万葉集に多くの歌を残す。家集「類聚歌林」は伝わらない。
There is no famous encyclopedia of Japan written, "Okura is Korean". --Juzumaru (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed own response to Juzumaru. I can get a bit long-winded, can't I? (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
MyPedia, Britannica and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten articles on him all mention the toraijin theory. It's also worth noting that the theory's main proponent, Nakanishi Susumu, is near-universally acknowledged as the dean on Manyoshu studies in Japan (hence his being the president of the Manyo Culture Museum in Asuka). The essay of his that I have been citing all along not to mention every other 20th-century source cited in that article, discuss the toraijin theory in some detail. And the dictionary definition of toraijin is and always has been irrelevant, as all the source clearly mention Baekje. (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, Juzumaru, who has never edited any other article in this area, has some gall claiming to know more about Japanese classical literature than I do when I have cited four independent specialist sources in the area, and all of his sources are general reference encyclopedias/dictionaries. (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
All the sources Juzumaru cites above come from the online dictionary aggregator [山上憶良 Kotobank], but he cleverly neglected to mention the one that distinctly say 百済系渡来人説など諸説ある。 Clearly his scholarly knowledge of this topic comes entirely from a rudimentary Googling, because he refuses to actually go to the effort of checking the specialist sources I have already cited. (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, no one is saying the article should say "Okura is Korean". It's possible Juzumaru's poor grasp of English led him to draw that conclusion. But we are,bound by WP:WEIGHT to at least mention one of the most prominent theories (the most prominent theory?) of hid origins somewhere in the article. (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Juzumaru's assertion that I wrote the article Korean influence on Japanese culture is ridiculous. Anyone can see that not only did I not write that article, but I am unable to edit it because editors like Juzumaru on one side and his Korean ultranationalist opponents on the other side have caused it to get semi-protected. Anyway, as for scholarly and encyclopedic sources that discuss the Okura Toraijin Theory, the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten (1985) is the No. 1 encyclopedia on classical Japanese literature, and in its article on Okura, on pp. 94-96 of Vol. 6, contains a paragraph-length appendix discussing the theory, stating that it has a deal of explanatory power regarding his non-Japanese sounding name and his being given several positions that primarily went to people of foreign origin, but has seen criticism by historians, and some problems with the theory remain. Susumu Nakanishi, honorary president of the Nara Prefecture Complex of Man'yo Culture and probably the best-known and most-respected scholar of the Man'yoshu in particular in the world, has been the theory's primary supporter since the late 1960s, and defended the theory in essays specifically discussing it such as "Okura Kikajin Ron" (1969) and "Okura Toraijin Ron" (1977), as well as in his book Yamanoue no Okura (1973). Donald Keene's A History of Japanese Literature (1999 : 86, 139, 160 [note 9], 173 [note 208]) is the definitive history of Japanese classical literature in English, and he basically takes the theory as probable, and gives it plenty of coverage. Ian Hideo Levy produced the most recent scholarly translation of the Man'yoshu (1981), and also firmly accepts the theory (I already cited his 2010 lecture in the article). Juzumaru, despite perhaps being slightly closer to being a blood relative of the poet in question than Keene, Levy or myself, clearly has never done any deep research on this topic, and his first encounter with Okura occurred in September 2012 when he he came across the English Wikipedia article on the topic as part of his campaign to remove all references to the Korean Peninsula (which his Japanese-language replies to me[19][20] clearly indicate he has confused with modern South Korea) from articles on Japanese history.
Someone please WP:BLOCK or WP:TBAN Juzumaru per WP:NOTHERE. (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed]

After that bizarre final attack on me, the user apparently has decided to confine himself to I have contacted him on his talk page there, and hopefully we have worked out our differences. I wanted him to stay off JLit articles in areas he clearly doesn't understand, and if he's staying off English Wikipedia altogether then I guesd that's solved. This thread can (probably) be closed now. (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've prepared the Talkpage to the Japanese version of Wikipedia for this anonymous user. And, he would be happy. --Juzumaru (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Someone should leave a message on Juzumaru's talk page advising them to edit the Japanese Wikipedia, because it's evident that they speak Japanese with more fluency than they do English. Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Ross HillTalk to me! 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Request: An administrator needs to close this thread as a content dispute. No admin action is needed. Ross HillTalk to me! 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. I "won" the specific content dispute before posting here. The problem is that every single one of the user's edits demonstrate a clear political agenda incompatible with constructing a neutral encyclopedia. Hence my contention that he should be TBANned from, say, Korea-related topics. I'd say if he was banned from promoting an anti-Korean agenda he would stop editing Wikipedia entirely. (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 No comment w/r/t the above dispute, but its discouraged to frame content disputes in terms of winning/losing, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. LFaraone 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Quotes added. I'm not the one with the BATTLEGROUND mentality, anyway... (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request at Ante Vranković[edit]

NOTE relevant archived thread: Legal threats by User:Ante Vranković -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ante Vranković (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can another administrator please step in and consider the latest unblock request at User talk:Ante Vranković? I think we're getting a little combative there, and it would be good for another administrator to step in and make a decision or add an outside view sooner rather than later. only (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If he is re-blocked, I suggest revoking his talk page access too. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
A penchant for lawyering, invoking the Foundation, arguing semantics, general combativeness, and all this with only 23 edits. I don't see why this user needs to be unblocked. -- John Reaves 22:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
well, he was unblocked by TParis, so we'll have to keep an eye on him now as he edits. None so far outside the talk page. only (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, take him at his latest offer: "if it will make you feel better, you are free to completely block my account now, so that I won`t be able to put out the obvious facts about the case (this is my official statement/agreement on that)." This editor is up to no good. His threat is still hanging in the background. While we can let him know that the Foundation has no power to prevent him from pursuing legal action outside of Wikipedia, we cannot allow anyone to edit who would even dream of doing it. Period. The very thought of doing so must be expunged from their mentality, and that seems to be out of the question with this editor. They totally assume bad faith about everyone who disagrees with them, calling them liars, and they are therefore unfit to be here. So, an indef ban and lock the talk page, and don't follow their suggestion to "unblock my account now or delete it as it never eXisted." No, we keep the account open for the record for all editors to see. We can blank the page, but not delete the history. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No "other administrator with an outside view" is needed here. If TParis blocked him, then it was probably for a good reason. TP usually knows what he's doing, and doesn't need a back-seat/Monday morning admin stepping in. - theWOLFchild 02:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))
  • I'm not quite sure you understand the situation here. The user was seeking unblock which TParis eventually granted a few hours after I posted this thread. only (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, got that backward. But, hey, if TP unblocked him, I'm sure that was for a good reason too. Now we'll just see what happens... - theWOLFchild 03:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Subsequent comments by Ante indicate a need for an indef. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. This is just his talk page. He is a little upset and there is a language barrier issue. Give him a chance to cool down and see what he does. - theWOLFchild 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Wolfchild. Blocking is generally not an urgent matter when all that's happening is talk. While I had suggested in the previous thread that consideration be given to not unblocking even in light of a retraction, TParis should be given deference with respect to that decision. Sounding angry or combative is, while a bad sign, not on its own grounds for blocking, especially in light of the recent unblock. Tempers are running high. We should be cool. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of a BLP[edit]

Page has been protected. Future incidents referred to WP:RFPP. - theWOLFchild 04:15, 26 December 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.

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding content in violation of the BLP policy to the page of Robert Beerbohm (see page history [21]). Looks like the editor has already received a few warnings, but refuses to get the point. (Also, I'm not convinced this guy is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but that's a less urgent problem). TheBlueCanoe 19:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There's actually been more than one IP adding this content, so I have used semi-protection rather than a block. Please post at WP:RFPP if the problem resumes when the protection wears off ( 2 wks ) -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 25 December 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:Trainmastercrc's December 25th Edits.[edit]

Trainmastercrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been acting awkwardly in this edit, and the past ones, either he is acting abnormally, or was probably compromised, and apparently, Hes been using the S-word in his userpage, can an experienced editor check this out? Thanks, Dreth 02:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - He does have the word "shit" repeated on his user page 4,147 times. Yeah, that's a little weird. But some people have a hard time on the holidays. - theWOLFchild 03:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged their user page for deletion under criteria G3 (pure vandalism). Thanks, Ross HillTalk to me! 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked the account indefinitely as being possibly compromised. only (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Only, I don't think that was necessary. Trainmastercrc has not made any poor edits to the mainspace, and his edits to his own userpage are not proof enough to believe his account is compromised. Consider unblocking, and reblock if he vandalises outside his userspace. Thanks, Ross HillTalk to me! 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I stand by the block; it's a protection block for the project. He has made these very erratic and out of character edits to his user page. By blocking him, it prevents him from making any erratic, out of character edits to the articles as well. We'll see what happens if/when he attempts to appeal the block, but I'd lean to the "better safe than sorry" side here. only (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ross. The edits have been confined to user space where people are given a little more latitude with what they add there (like I said, maybe he's just 'venting') This editor hasn't disrupted the project. Can you really block someone for something they might do? - theWOLFchild 21:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Only and User:Ross Hill, User: Thewolfchild. It would be better and suggest a compromise if this were changed to a temporary 1-week block, That way when Trainmastercrc's block expires, we can see what happens then. Dreth 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)'s called prevention. From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "A block for protection may be necessary in response account appearing to have been compromised." This is an account that appears to be compromised. only (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I would rather take a chance that they make a few easily reversible edits, than keep them blocked for edits to their userpage that don't even contradict Wikipedia policy. Ross HillTalk to me! 01:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
If the edits don't "contradict Wikipedia policy," why did you label them as vandalism and request deletion of his page? only (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
In case the account was compromised and those edits were not theirs. Although in hindsight revdel is a better alternative. Ross HillTalk to me! 01:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, shit. Deference should go to only as the blocking admin, but if you disagree with an indef, you should be open to unblocking at the first request for one. Chevron deference at work in real life. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Good block we shouldn't take chances on compromised accounts. The usual unblocking routes are available in the event there's really some other explanation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move vandalism[edit]

Ultimate cosmic evil (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) committed a lot of page move vandalism in the last few minutes. The account is now blocked, but is there an easy way to revert these moves? I could certainly use a hand with it. only (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reverts to undo; many of them went through 3 moves so it's not as simple as just hitting "revert." I can't do these right now; I'm signing off in the next few minutes. Sorry to leave people this mess, but I just simply can't do this right now. only (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this is go through all his moves and Rollback them. The talk pages should be automatically re-moved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
For me it looks like, that every of his moves are now undone and there is nothing else to do. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There is something weird going on here. Before the spree of name edits the user did were seem to be completely legitimate and unrelated to the page move vandalism. This includes adding notability templates, proding an article, reverted blanking of a closed AFD, Templating an anon for content blanking etc.-- (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe his/her account got compromised/hacked? Armbrust The Homunculus 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably just a case of someone building up edits to become autoconfirmed and not drawing any negative attention to itself before going on its spree. only (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I and a couple of other admins and users have cleaned up everything done by that account, at least as far as the obvious page move vandalism. What a mess! Thank you everyone for being around this evening to call attention to it and help. Please let me or this thread know if anyone notices anything that hasn't been taken care of. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC
I wasted a while going through these untill I realised that you have all done them already. Never mind, thanks everyone for your prompt action. This is the kind of vandalism that with the best will in the world we should have absolutely no patience with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Something seems wrong with this picture, especially the fact that the suspected operator/culprit is Ginsuloft. While I don't doubt the CU report, I do doubt whether this was good hand/bad hand socking or whether it was a family member who created that account and then went on a spree. Sportsguy17 (TC) 15:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I find this edit by Ginsuloft to be kind of peculiar. I don't know why he would disable the bot like that... only (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait! So it was Ginsuloft all along? Oh my, considering how he contributed to the encyclopedia. Dreth 16:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that is surprising. Thankfully his attempt to gain sysop tools was unsuccessful. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
We have seen admins go bonkers and the results can be very disruptive. That said, I've emailed Ginsuloft and am awaiting a reply, which may clear things up. Does Ginsuloft use a shared or public IP? Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
And if it's a static IP, then what happens. Dreth 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell with WP:GHBH accounts, because it could be a family member or a dynamic IP. Unless there are a lot of behavioural similarities, they should leave the suspected sockpuppeteer alone if they are making useful contributions. Dark Sun (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor creating multiple vanity pages on their family members[edit]

Blocked for 48 hours by User:Alexf. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:29, 28 December 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:Rakesh Ricky Panwar is accumulating multiple pages on himself and various family members (see the multiple speedy-deletions), a process he seems intent on continuing despite being asked to desist. (See also the deleted Talk page entries.) AllyD (talk) 15:36, 27 December 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 owning and going against Wiki policy and project decision[edit]

Dispute should be discussed further at WP:DRN, WP:SOAPS or the article talk page. only (talk) 19:52, 27 December 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:Soapfan2013 has been owning the List of One Life to Live cast members for a while now, and refuses to let any changes be made. I applied the WP:YEAR policy and the decision of WP:SOAPS about requiring a one-calendar year gap between appearances to lower fancruft to the list. And (s)he refuses to let any changes be made than the opinion of their own. This is shown in their long-withstanding edit history. One example: "SoapCentral and twitter are allowed cuz I said so. If you don't like it tough beans". And when they reverted my original attempt, all they could say was "here we go, much better". So it shows this user is not for following Wikipedia policy, or a decision made by a project they contribute to. I'm sure their intentions of the over-all are good, but their execution of such over time has not shown that at all. I am merely trying to follow policy, as we're told we should, and the discussion from a project the page is associated with. Nor did the user revert any other edit done, only that done to this one page. Clearly showing ownership of an article for themselves. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't own any articles, the changes are inaccurate, the cast members did not play the characters continously in 2012. The show ended in January 2012, the show picked up again in April 2013, therefore the show was not on for over a year, therefore making it the way I have it, this guy here doesn't know what he's talking about, all he is doing is causing trouble for me, all he does is complain, doesn't do much, if he doesn't like the way sumthin is he complains to this board. That's it. If he doesn't like the way things are than he shouldn't be on here. He's wasted your time on this board again for the 3rd time. I didn't do anything illegal. He always complains. P.J. (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems like it might be more fitting for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. It appears that some sort of consensus was reached on how to deal with the dates in these articles, and there's dispute right now taht Soapfan2013's edits aren't matching up with that consensus. DRN is probably your best place to settle this right now. only (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
And, Soapfan2013, you're getting a little close to commit personal attacks here with your commentary on livelikemusic. Please be careful and mindful of how you respond to others. only (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) What Only said sounds like a plan to me. And for the record, LLM, Soapfan2013's Twitter justification was listed on General Hospital's page, not One Life to Live's. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Only:, they've personally attacked me before and were warned by an Admin to not do so, or that'd result an an automatic ban upon them. And the discussion was one calendar year, so for the point to be made, the show would've needed to return in 2014 to make the one-calendar year. But since it went off in 2012 and came back in 2013, it came back within on calendar year. And I've done a lot for this community, so to personally attack is completely unfair and completely defaming me as a person, and is libelous. I'm not going to be sorry for trying to upload Wiki policy and consensus, which last time I checked, is what this website runs upon. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Erpert: I was merely using that as an example of this user's inability to follow policy and consensus. And also, to be noted, I never ever personally attacked this user in this AfD, yet all they continue to do is personally attack after being told by an Admin to not to such again. Clearly, their anger is not something that should be accepted here at Wikipedia and surely their etiquette should further be looked into. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Look, here's the deal, this is the way my mind works alright? Look I see 1993-2013 and I automatically think that the actress has played the character for 20 years straight, but when I see 1993-2012, 2013, I know that she was off for a year, that's the way my mind works, that's the way it actually happend, I read those links that he posted and I saw nuthin that says I shouldn't do that, Hey I'm just tryin to be accurate here folks, no disrespect attended. P.J. (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not run on how your mind works, though. It runs on basic consensus and policy. We cannot assume what a viewer may or may not know. Consensus reached says we wait one-calendar year. The series ended in 2012 and returned for one more season in 2013, therefore coming back within a one-calendar year. And your reverts also defy WP:YEAR. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Look Livelike, the show ended on January 13, 2012, the show reboot started on April 29, 2013, which is over than 1 calender year. January 13, 2012-January 13, 2013 is one calender year. April 29, 2013 is over that calender year. Do you see what I'm saying? So therefore it should be 2012, 2013. P.J. (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Decided per the soap consensus is that one calendar year goes from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. That one be one calendar year of 2012 to 2013. If the show came back in 2014, what you're saying would be right. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, guys, this is a discussion to be having at the article's talk page, the talk page of the SOAP project, or at DRN. It's great conversation is now starting rather than just comments in edit summaries, but I'm going to have to ask you guys to move it somewhere more appropriate. only (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I still believe this user's conduct should be looked at, as they're still trying to go against consensus and continue to make personal attacks against me, something they've been warned against. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I don't agree with this being closed. Nothing was resolved and this user is once again not being held accountable for their actions. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's understandable you don't want the discussion closed. But it has been. The issues have been resolved, and the outcome was: no administrator action required, continue this elsewhere. Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude? Now might be the time. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit warring by TreCoolGuy[edit]

User:TreCoolGuy has been frequent edit warring not just against myself, but several editors when he provides poorly sourced, unsourced content or creates premature articles with little sources for it to be sustained. He had been warned several times, but continuously chose to ignore us. I suggest an die finite block as there is no talking to him. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He is wrong in edit warring, but so are you. I count 5 reverts by you at Untitled Batman/Superman Film. (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Tre. Forgot to mention he was previously blocked before for sockpuppeting. Rusted AutoParts 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Rusted. I forgot to mention aswell that Rusted started cursing at another user which you can clearly check off his talk page because he didnt get what he wanted. He was acting like a little four old because he didnt get what he wanted. - TreCoolGuy
Well it seems you just admitted to being the IP, so an indef block for sockpuppeting is seemingly guaranteed. And stop diverting the attention. You have been reported. Explain why you chose to start an edit war rather than start a discussion or accept the fact the article was premature. Rusted AutoParts 19:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was invited here. A lot of editors have issues of TreCoolGuy on plot dumping, editing without explaining, bringing back edits that were reverted and rarely never involved in discussion and sometimes using false warnings too. Although it can be possible that editors may not be assuming good faith on a newbie who does not know the rules yet. I am not going to point fingers and let the administrators decide. See User talk:TriiipleThreat#Topic ban for further discussions regarding him. Note to the administror: If you want links for edit revisions. Me and other editors could help find it for you. Also if there is any editors that have sockpuppet reviewer privileges. Some editors seem to think he may be a sockpuppet. They might need to explain why though. Jhenderson 777 19:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a case of assuming bad faith. After awhile of being polite about his combative editing and nicely warning him, it's gets aggravating when he doesn't learn. Rusted AutoParts 19:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I ain't saying that you aren't assuming good faith though. I am just saying that's for the administrator to decide if his edits are that or not...or maybe he is just a newbie who doesn't get the rules yet. You are right though, we might just need to cite a guideline on him...but I will doubt that he will listen to us is the thing IMO. You really need to go here if you want to find out if he is a sockpuppet though. Jhenderson 777 19:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, he was blocked before for socking. And this here is just way too suspicious for it to not be him. Rusted AutoParts 19:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Why wasn't he blocked indefinitely? Anyways the editors who reviews if someone is a sockpuppet is usually always going to review at one point in that page. Also half the time the penalty is being blocked indefinitely. Jhenderson 777 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
His puppets User:DrummerSP and User:ThePorterGuy were indef blocked and he got off easily with I think a two week block. Evidently he didn't learn his lesson there either. Rusted AutoParts 20:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure no one is assuming bad faith - it's just competence is required on Wikipedia. Tre has been given plenty of opportunity and time to grow as an editor, but unfortunately, I dont think he's done much on his part. Various editors have tried to tell him how to improve, not to blindly incorporate rumors as fact in an article, but, still, he does it; reverting those who revert his edits. || Tako (bother me) || 20:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. I ain't defending him. I just ain't involved with everything going one that he has done so I SHOULDN'T JUDGE. Also it seems like he doesn't know how Wikipedia works. He doesn't even sign properly. The question is. Is he willing to learn...but he hasn't shown it yet. Jhenderson 777 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing my comment moves etc. Jhenderson 777 20:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It was the same case that Rusted was talking about. BOZ - User:TreCoolGuy
You sign like so: ~~~~. Also he might be saying the same stuff...but he is linking what you are doing which is what was supposed to be done in the first place in a noticeboard like this. Jhenderson 777 20:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment:Let me explain my "good faith" comment. Yes he is not abiding guidelines...but outside of maybe being a sockpuppet. Nothing he is doing seems to be a permanent block. He is a baby who just touched a stove in a Wikipedia it seems. He isn't commenting right. He acted like he hasn't seen the edit revision history. Although he seems to have admitted he knew 3RR with his first comment admitting he noticed edit revision history as a IP editor so that's strike one with his actions. He obviously needs a mother to say "no, that's hot" but at the same time if he won't listen. He will get burned. In Wikipedia's case. Make sure he sees that guideline first. If not. Then he ain't being compenent and should be blocked. Jhenderson 777 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am actually not TreCoolGuy, but another editor. So cool down, everyone. Somehow I was logged out while commenting, and I am not willing to disclose my identity due to privacy reasons. (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If that's true, I apologize. It's just odd that your last edit before today was a year ago, is all. Rusted AutoParts 20:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Dude, I was just going to say the same thing. I assumed RAP knew what he was talking about. lol. So of course this still might mean Trecoolguy dosn't know about edit revision history. Jhenderson 777 21:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Now archived: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Ethnic-motivated edit warring by anonymous users continues. (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) still edit-wars to force Hungarian version of the town name upper in the infobox. He has been told on both talk pages what the current practice is, and why he was reverted, but does not seem to internalize it. was blocked for two weeks (92 was not), but immediately resumed the same behavior after it expired. No such user (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is silence a consent for revert-warring, or what?
For the start, I'll issue a WP:ARBMAC warning ({{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}}), and maybe AE will be more willing to refer to the matter. No such user (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It is really inspiring to raise an issue here and then continue talking to myself. It would be more encouraging that at least someone blocks me per WP:BOOMERANG; at least, that would mean that someone is paying attention.
Anyway, more from the editor in question:
  • "which is absolutely disgusting racism, prejudiced and abhorrent language. Anyone talking so openly racist on wikipedia should surely be banned from contributing on here" [25]
  • "you really should not support ethnic cleansing of Hungarians. Chauvinism should be made an offence on wikipedia too." [26]
  • "We see openly anti-Hungarian attitudes here, it is absolutely appalling that such individuals are trying to dominate here." [27]
To make the circus complete, he is then being reverted by a sock of Bonaparte [28] (or of someone similar), and my SPI request sits idle for 6 hours [29]
Can someone apply a cluebat... PLEASE??? No such user (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits by[edit]

Close as moot. IP didn't edit since 22 December and is (highly likely) using a different IP address now. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:45, 3 January 2014 (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.

Germany–Israel relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been repeatedly edited by User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to introduce controversial and unsourced information. (See diffs [30], [31],[32])

The user repeatedly introduces information without citations and gets upset on the article talk page (see here and here) when it is removed because of WP:RS, WP:V, etc.

User:Josh3580 and I (User:Mononomic) have been reverting some of the damage and are trying to explain it to the IP via the article talk page. We are walking the narrow line of WP:3RR and would like some feedback or action about this. —Mono·nomic 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • What Mono·nomic said. On the first diff that was listed, the user added the {{cn}} template to facts which were clearly covered by the cited source. The user stated that the cited article was biased, and therefore not valid. He is not receptive at all to discussion, nor referral to policies. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just an upate... 3 days after the incident was reported to WP:AN/I, and with no further edits or participation in discussion seen from, I have reverted the article to its previous, properly sourced version. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban and further investigation. I suspect that the editors contribs and contribs (who has been editing the Talk page of the article in question) to be socks of a previously disciplined editor, as both new accounts immediately began submitting edits with formatted references (something no truly new editor would have experience with). Given the obsession of both IPs with purported "jewish crimes" and Israel-bashing, I rather doubt any rational discussion will be forthcoming. (IP traces source Oyten and Delmenhorst, two suburbs of Bremen metro area in Germany. Home & work computers?)
Side-note: someone should take a look at Wiedergutmachung, which the IP has been active in, as I would guess revisionist propaganda in being worked in. --Froglich (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
RV'd Wiedergutmachung on my own initiative.--Froglich (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that it's been more than a week since this activity, I'm assuming the need for immediate action has passed. It's not really feasible to try to apply a topic ban to a roving IP; if it is indeed the sock of a banned user, or if they reappear and start edit warring again, the article can be semi-protected as needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (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.

Destructive editing[edit]

Dcelano topic-banned from The Wiggles, widely construed. The topic ban can be appealed if Dcelano can show that he has understood the issues and is willing (and able) to comply with Wikipedia's policies, especially on verifiability and reliable sources. Huon (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2014 (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.

A bot archived the following, so in case it was done by mistake, I'm reposting this. Please let me know if I've done anything inappropriately.

For most of this month, User:Dcelano has been violating policy at The Wiggles and its associated pages, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop from myself and from User:AngusWOOF. Here are some diffs: Removal of content without explanation or discussion [33]; addition of unsourced edits [34] [35] [36]. On Talk:The Wiggles, he's used it as a WP:FORUM, despite repeated requests to stop; see everything after December 3, from the section "Anthony's Shirts" onward. [37]. Most egregiously, Dcelano deleted part of the talk page when I warned him that if he continued, I'd see about getting him blocked. [38]. He has also engaged in the same sort of behavior on my talk page [39] and on AngusWOOF's [40] [41] [42]. There are other examples on other Wiggles pages as well. I think that a block is in order, since that seems to be the only thing that will stop him. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - FYI: Threads are moved to the archives after 36 hours of inactivity. With the report you've presented, I'm kinda' surprised (and kinda' not) that an admin has not responded to this yet. I'll post-date my comment to prevent archiving for you. - theWOLFchild 05:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Threads are indeed archived when there's no actions required, often because other venues have not be tried yet. As is the case here. Odd that the OP would jump to the "blocks are the only thing to stop him" when we have some very minor "offenses" (ie, we don't block for using an article talkpage as a forum). We do however, have WP:DR ES&L 11:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The "Removal of content without explanation or discussion" link doesn't seem to show what you intended to show. Do you have a correct link? Quadell (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at all of User:Dcelano contribuations [43] and on User:Figureskatingfan and User:AngusWOOF Talk Page I Beleave that Dcelano has Ben Anoying Them for a long time and They have had Enough Jena (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all of Dcelano's contributions. I have read the other diffs provided, but the claim "Removal of content without explanation or discussion" is an important one, and I think the diff provided has a typo in it. I'm just trying to see if anyone can show that particular behavior in a working diff. Quadell (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • deleted comment and warning on talk:the wiggles page [44]
  • deleting off my page [45]
  • deleted link on article [46]

-AngusWOOF (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As an outside admin, when I look over the diffs and user contributions, a few things are apparent to me.

  1. Dcelano is really into the Wiggles, and he seems to honestly want to contribute to Wiggles-related articles. However he does not cite his sources (nor does he use edit summaries effectively), and he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish reliable information from unreliable information. His edits are usually reverted.
  2. He seems to use talkpages as if they were a fansite message board. His comments are not abusive or disruptive, but they are rarely useful or welcome.
  3. In the view of the most prolific content contributors to these generally high-quality articles, Dcelano does not improve the articles or contribute meaningfully on talk pages, but simply creates more work for other editors who have to undo his changes. (Please correct me if I'm wrong in this summary of your views, AngusWOOF and Christine.)
  4. Since The Wiggles is a Featured article, this problem is most pronounced there. Several editors work hard to maintain the quality of that article (along with related articles), and they resent having to revert one user's changes over and over again.
  5. Over the last month he's made about 5 edits a day, which is hardly overwhelming, but it is a consistent issue. The same sort of behavior has been ongoing for at least a year, and he doesn't seemed to have improved the quality of his contributions in that time. It is very unlikely he will become a valued contributor to Wiggles-related articles in the future.

Since he hasn't figured out how to effectively improve these articles over the last year, and since we run the risk of driving away the sort of editors who do meaningfully improve these articles, I'd be inclined to support a topic ban. What do others think? Quadell (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good assessment from what I can see, Quadell. What I'm seeing is a lot of time-sink for the involved editors; they constantly need to check his every edit and very little of it stays within the articles/talk pages. I think a topic ban of some kind or some other restriction is not a bad idea. only (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban (and possible block - this user should commit to contributing meaningfully, and using talk pages, edit summaries and sources properly. We have a regular contributor here, let's see if we can turn him into an effective one) - theWOLFchild 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I agree that a topic ban would be the best option, for the reasons Quadell states above. It's true that Dcelano's behavior isn't overwhelming, but it is, as Q says, long-standing and annoying. The Wiggles can be heavily vandalized, so it's just one more thing to have to deal with to ensure its continuing quality. I don't have much faith that his behavior will change, though, since he has been known to do the same kinds of things on other Wiggles sites, even with bans and repeated requests to change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

yes a Topic Ban and Maby a Block Jena (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like everyone finds this solution appropriate. How do we implement a topic ban? Quadell (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Aren't Topic Bans normally handled by someone giving him/her a formal notification of the matter and someone watches his/her edits? MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 23:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I've never initiated or enforced one before. Quadell (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

ummm I thought an Admin would know what they are doing? Maby we should just ask somoneelse to block him? Jena (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just interpreting the evidence and gathering consensus. Like I said, I haven't been involved in a topic ban before, and I'm not willing to use my admin tools unless I can be reasonably sure I'm doing so according to policy. Getting other admins involved is a great idea, which is why we're here. Quadell (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Then can an admin act on this, please? This has drug out for a long time, and Dcelano continues his inappropriate editing. For example, his latest, just this morning (unsourced addition): [47] I could cite other recent instances of his continuing behavior, but I think I've made my point. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 31 December 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.


Indef-blocked by Dougweller. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user has repeatedly added copyvios (Good Ol' Freda, Down Terrace, I'm Still Here (film), Pioneer (Film), possibly Milo (film), Chawz, [48] from [49], [50] from [51], etc.). They claim to work for the distributor responsible for the films, in which case they are abusing Wikipedia as a marketing medium. The user is completely non-communicative, with zero user talk edits in four years. MER-C 08:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block until they start discussions. There is also a WP:COI. See Talk:Grand Piano (film) where the editor writes "I work for Magnet Releasing and this is not a copyright infringement as it is our synopsis. I cited ComingSoon as well." Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to help clean up the copyvio text it would be appreciated. I can delete any articles that need it or rev/del old edits to suppress the copyvio. Advice on the images would be useful also. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have gone through the image uploads, everything is now chill in that regard. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I've cleared out the remaining text copyvios. MER-C 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 27 December 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.

Possible sockpuppets at Middle Ages[edit]

Discussion has been moved to WP:SPI. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:59, 2 January 2014 (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.

My experience with sockpuppeting POV-pushers has been pleasantly minimal, so I'm hoping those with more experience with wikiconflicts can help me out here.

Middle Ages is a vital article, and several fantastic contributors (particularly Ealdgyth) made it a Featured article and have worked hard to maintain its quality. Recently, Sumatro and JanHusCz have been tag-teaming there to promote Bulgaria's importance, deteriorating the article's quality and engaging it edit wars with several other editors. Ealdgyth brought the situation to my attention, opining "This is the sort of crap that drives good content editors away." So I did a little research, and here's what I found.

In May of this year, Ceco31 was permanently topic-banned from anything relating to Bulgaria, and was blocked from all edits (account creation blocked) for 3 months. (See previous.) His last edits were to editwar on Bulgarians. He did not return under that username when his 3-month block was lifted, but Sumatro showed up in August instead, immediately using rather complex Wikisyntax and engaging in an editwar right off the bat at Bulgarians. It sure looks like a topic-ban-evading sock to me. Sumatro edited nothing but the Bulgarians article all month, then in September switched to Nina Dobrev, a model, where he's only interested in the "Bulgarian nationality and citizenship" aspects. He editwarred there, and edited nothing but that one article for months. Meanwhile, JanHusCz also showed up on Wikipedia in September, and after the 4 days and 12 edits it takes to get auto-confirmed, he immediately set about at Nina Dobrev making the same sort of changes as Sumatro, using wikisyntax and citing Wikipedia policy like a pro. Both quit Nina in early December and set on Middle Ages together, edit warring to emphasize Bulgaria there. Despite agreeing completely, and reverting to each other's versions, they never once use each other's talk page or really reply to each other on article talk pages. I have no doubt that both Sumatro and JanHusCz are sockpuppets (or at least meatpuppets) of the topic-banned Ceco31.

JanHusCz has been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation, but I think permanently blocking all three accounts for evading a topic ban would be appropriate. I'm not directly involved with any of these users or articles, and my only interest is in protecting vital, featured articles in general. Is it okay for me to simply block the accounts? Are there any hoops I need to jump through first? Thanks for any assistance. Quadell (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't a request for checkuser be opened first to determine whether they are the same editor, or could you or another admin simply block these accounts because they are duck accounts? Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This looks duck-worthy to me, but I have little experience with this. Also, I just saw that Only opened a (partial) sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro, but that doesn't mention Ceco31 or the topic ban. Quadell (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Ceco31 or the topic ban, so please feel free to make additions to /move my sockpuppet investigation request. I was tempted to pull the trigger on a duck block, but leaned towards the SPI for the moment. Any other admin is more than welcome to implement longer blocks if they desire; I have no objection to that. only (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, best I guess if we move discussion over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 December 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:Masroor Khan0 and IP[edit]

Can someone who has more knowledge of Wikipedia policies and editing ability than I do look at User:Masroor Khan0 the page seems to provide a lot of information about this editor that seems like a violation of self promotion. Along with the articles Sant Kabir Nagar district and Bakhira Sanctuary. Thank you. VVikingTalkEdits 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcomed (and advised) the new editor. Miniapolis 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Undid many of thier edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control[edit]

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.

Steady edit war at aforementioned article and User:MilesMoney has confessed to being at 3RR. I propose a one week block on MilesMoney for edit warring, a battlefield stance on almost every article he touches, an inability to edit collaboratively and well, a plethora of other reasons. He's not here to edit this project in good faith.--MONGO 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Close this. It's being handled at WP:3RRN, where it turns out that Mongo and Gaijin lied about my edit comment and behavior. Mongo is out to block me using any excuse he can find. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
1. MONGO is involved in the dispute at gun control. 2. The material that MilesMoney removed has never had consensus to be included; is only in the article due to edit warring; and has no source which connects the material to the subject of the article. He was entirely correct to remove the material. — goethean 18:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Show me edits that demonstrate my clear involvement. 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I count at least three comments on the talk page. Looks like you're involved. MilesMoney (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is already being addressed at Wikipedia:3RRN#User:MilesMoney_reported_by_User:Gaijin42_.28Result:_.29. Should ordinary Wikipedia channels fail to address this matter, then we can explore extraordinary measures. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is being discussed (vociferously) on the article talk page, and the page is now protected. Quadell (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind a "spirited" discussion, but a couple people are really heaping abuse on editors.......a continuous barrage of mis-characterizations of what people said and nasty accusations and villianizing built on the mis-characterizations, sarcastic insults, ad-hominem/deprecating editors approaches, while refusing to engage on the particulars, Editors should not have to endure such abuse and I've left the article for at least a breather to avoid such abuse. It's not my style to seek actions against individuals, but could somebody take a look and see if any warnings against such nastiness are merited? Again, a spirited discussion and some disagreement is to be expected, but not a barrage of abuse. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think that your WP:IDHT is a pretty serious abuse. You literally walked away from the discussion rather than acknowledge that policy forbids undue linkage. MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't have Miles in mind within the "couple people", but their post here is an example.North8000 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This ANI is entirely gratuitous. The article is a mess, but the issues are being dealt with in multiple venues and this appears to be no more than harassment of MilesMoney. This should be withdrawn or closed. MONGO, do the right thing and hold your fire. This just makes you look like a jackass. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
North8000, please link to the personal attack or stop making accusations.
North8000 has engaged in edit warring and ICANTHEARYOU. He has responded to simply, polite, on-topic requests for sourcing[52] with accusations that editors are attacking him when no one is doing any such thing.[53] He has been asked repeatedly to provide a source which connects his preferred material to the subject of the article. He has refused to do so and continued to edit war. He is editing tendentiously. No one is attacking North8000; what is happening is that he is unable argue for his position policy-wise and so he chooses to make accusations. His behavior is unacceptable. — goethean 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a current RfC -- which several editors seem not to consider. Removal of a large section before the RfC is complete is "out of process" action, and those editors who were unwilling to allow the normal WP:CONSENSUS process to work should remove themselves from the article. The only one really misbehaving here on this noticeboard is User:MilesMoney. SPECIFICO's comments above also are ill-suited to this noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) If you're referring to this RfC, that's pretty heated as it is (although forum-shopping isn't the way to go either, Mongo). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Collect: There was never consensus to include the Nazi material. It was added through edit warring on the part of ROG5728, North8000, Gaijin42 and other associated editors. — goethean 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Battlefield mentality of MilesMoney and a host of others, but he's by far the most disruptive. He's not entitled to the policy. My sole involvement as if that matters since I have never edited the article, was to find out if the article was ever any good or was a POV fork.--MONGO 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What needs to be understood here is the underlying issue - which is whether Wikipedia content on the Holocaust should include fringe theories - entirely unsupported by any credible historiography - which attempt to directly link Nazi Genocide with firearms regulations. The fact that the promotion of this 'theory' (which is frankly ridiculous, for multiple reasons) is being promoted on the 'gun control' article rather than in our article on the Holocaust itself is incidental. It is simply untenable for Wikipedia to be promoting pseudohistorical propaganda on the Holocaust - propaganda which has clearly been concocted for the purposes of swaying another debate, in another time and place. We owe a duty to our readers (and incidentally to the memory of victims of the Holocaust) not to allow this distortion of history to be presented as anything but the tendentious, cherry-picked and decontextualised concoction that reliable sources report it to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 27 December 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.

Gamaliel removing my comments in violation of TPG[edit]

Moving right along. DS, please look before you leap and throw ANI threads and F-bombs around. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 28 December 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.

So Gamaliel is removing my comments from the BLPN board for no reason, and has done so thrice in violation of TPG, do something. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

He has now reverted my comments for a forth time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"No reason"? I've repeatedly stated in edit summaries and in talk page conversations with User:Darkness Shines that posting the full text of a copyrighted article is both unnecessary (as a link is available) and a copyright violation. Posting an entire article does not fall under fair use. As per Wikipedia:Copyrights:
  • "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed."
  • "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems."
This matter is quite clear. Gamaliel (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup - a clear breach of copyright. I suspect it might be in DS's best interest to take a Wikibreak, before he is obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec)And I told you it was in quotation marks, hence quoted, hence not a fucking copyvio, got that yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:COPYRIGHT instructs users inserting copyrighted material in the form of quotations to follow the guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content, which states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The entire article surely qualifies as "extensive". Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Putting quotes around copied text does not auto-magically make it not a copyright violation. Especially when the work is copied in it's entirety. Roccodrift (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Putting quotes round it doesn't stop it from failing WP:NFCC. Copying an entire article is never going to be able to be passed off as "fair use". Link to it, or quote the relevant section. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
No, as it was used to make a point, and was not in an article but a talk page, and was obviously quoted and attributed, so not a copyvio by any stretch of the imagination. So admit you are wrong and self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
DS, he's not wrong. WP:NFCC#9 prohibits any use of copyrighted material in non-article space, quite apart from the main criteria WP:NFCC#3b. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Darkness, you are wrong and have been told so by a couple of people now. Go read the policy and drop this. Whether in regular quotes or in fucking quotes, it's not OK. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
No, he should have just remove the quote then, not the fucking lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
DS, you're not on firm ground here. Let's assume you're right that Gamaliel shouldn't have removed the lot, posting a huge bit of copyrighted text is a much bigger deal than blanking a page. No one is going to bat an eye at Gamaliel while the giant threat of legal retribution by the copyright holder hangs in the air. You can quotes bits and pieces, a sentence or two really, of copyrighted text if you are discussing that quote specifically. Bob said "Blah blah blah" about this book; for example. You cannot quote entire pages. There is just no way that Gamaliel is going to be addressed at all because the issue you've brought up is so insignificant in comparison. You really should heed the advice here and back up a step.--v/r - TP 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Already did what he ought to have done, that is it so far as i am concerned. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
DS, the article covered a few unrelated topics. The least you could have done was to extract just the part relevant to Ocean Grove and Scott Rasmussen. I don't know about copyright policy, but that huge block of text was very disruptive to the discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 22:07, 27 December 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.

Legal threat from new user[edit]

User indef-blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:24, 28 December 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.

See User talk:JohnCD#ELISA N. SUSIE- ME and, for background, the deleted version of User:ELISA N susie and my reply on User talk:ELISA N susie. I am inclined not to take this threat seriously, but I bring it here for others to review. JohnCD (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@ JohnCD - I support your statements on that user's talk page (now blanked), and the indefinite block. The legal threat? What possible basis for it could there be? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The user is obviously not well; I'm not sure any administrative action is needed here. LFaraone 01:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert blocked under WP:NOTHERE, which I think is appropriate. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The user erased the block notice. Should it be restored and the user blocked from editting their own talk page, perhaps? --Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Not really necessary. In blanking her current userpage (which contained additional nonsense), I added {{blocked user}}, which should be good enough notice to other users that she's not going to be responsive. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:16, 28 December 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:Bardrick amendment of allegiance field on military biographies[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours for obvious edit warring and personal attacks, any repetition of either may require other remedies. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 29 December 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.

Bardrick has been changing the "allegiance" for military biographies of Commonwealth military figures and replacing Canada, New Zealand and Australia, etc with "British Empire".

Recognizing that during WWI and WWII there are some independence ambiguity questions for Commonwealth countries, split discussions at Talk:Arthur_Currie#Flag_of_allegiance and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#WP:MILMOS.23FLAGS_and_WWI_flags_of_Commonwealth_dominions are leading to the conclusion that allegiance field for military biographies should be the associated country. The only topic of debate appears to be whether the inclusion of a flag is a policy violation. There is thus far no one in the participating discussions, other than Bardrick, advocating for the inclusion of "British Empire" instead of the name of the various commonwealth countries.

A couple of editors have undone Bardrick's edits these are reverted. Reverts by various users with comments provided: