Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

BulgariaSources

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources was added by me to ANI a few weeks back, archived once, re-added by me once again to ANI, and then archived again. I am not sure if the archiving is simply due to a lack of interest, but the issue does not seem to have been resolved either way. Moreover, BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back editing as before on multiple articles and has blanked their user talk page of all warnings and notifications without commenting at all. They seem to login, make a bunch of edits (pretty much all of which get reverted fairly quickly), and then disappear for a few weeks before logging in again to repeat the process.

For reference, Erpert, Sir Sputnik and Chris Calvin also commented in the ANI thread and requested that something be done, but still nothing from an administrator. If this is something better discussed somewhere other that ANI or if there was a problem with the original ANI request, then would an administrator please respond and clarify. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Was it ever actually confirmed whether s/he has been socking? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

They were blocked based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive. Even so, it seems to me that the edits they are making using BulgariaSources have crossed over to being disruptive since no edit sums are ever left and no attempts are made to discuss things with others despite being invited to do so on numerous occasions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Other notifications

When reporting at ANI a pattern of misbehavior in an article, is it allowed to notify other participants at that article who might wish to comment? If so, would this be better done on the article's talk page, or on multiple user talk pages? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Berber article massive vandalism

Hello ladies and gentlemen, you might want to take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Berbers&type=revision&diff=691151151&oldid=691143209. The concerned user is: Tsarisco. Thank you. Honnest regards
signed
41.249.81.36 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsarisco is harassing me.

Take a look at this. this is unacceptable. NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berbers#This_is_a_prestigious_encyclopedia.

This is so pathetic, I only talked to you one time, telling to stop vandalizing the article. Tsarisco (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This thread and the one above it are related. Both the IP and NotAlpArslan have mistakenly posted here. Do you believe that one or both is Historian19?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today to look. Doug Weller (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP is clearly NotAlpArslan. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

NotAlpArslan, I've explicitly warned you about characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism. Please be aware that you are very close to being blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: why don't you think that this IP is NotAlpArslan? Hint: He is but I'm interested to know why you think he isn't. :) The 41.xxx complaints below are him, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I agree with you Abbott. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking one week for the master, ditto for IPs and some article protections may help. I'll do some protections if you want the user and IP blocks. I do have the proof but per BEANS it is best not to lay it out there.:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked NotAlpArslan and the latest IP for one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Block extended to one month for continuing to sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Historian19 and this guy above vandalized the article many time by putting false informations Tsarisco (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

NotAlpArslan, massive vandalism some report him please

Hi, this user keep vandalizing this article on changing the data related to the number of berbers around the world, by deleting the source that I provided <<Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia, Ed. Steven, L. Danver, M.E. Sharpe/Mesa Verde Publishing, 2013, p.23 >> that confirm that there's 36 million of berbers around the world. This user also changed the number of berbers in Morocco and Algeria by putting ridiculous and totally absurd numbers without any convincing sources, he also deleted the 7 seven sources that I put that confirm the population of berbers in both countries. Even after I asked this article to be put on << semi-protection >>. Please someone report this disturbing user. Tsarisco (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User giving order instead of proposing his view

Hello ladies and gentlemen. A user The Banner was impolite toward me by telling me basically what to do. This is untolerable, take a look at his: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Irish_people&action=history. Please to take necessary measures. Thank You
Honnest Regards
Signed 41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is otherwise. And other mentioned your work here: Talk:Irish people#Ethno-national nature of article compromised by recent edits. And if it was just a layout thing, you also change most of the portrayed people. And you do that without any discussion. The Banner talk 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ow, and don't forget to tell that you have been pushing this as least nine times the last six months and that every time you were reverted, and not only by me. You have never ever tried to discuss it, you just hammer it in. The Banner talk 00:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, you can look at this: Talk:Irish people/Archive 5, where there was extensive discussion NOT to go this way (after the votes of multiple sock puppets were dismissed..) The Banner talk 00:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Some user removing vital info

Hello ladies and gentlemen, Some user by the name of Gyrofrog (talk · contribs) is removing a vital info concerning the Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. The Amhara people are semitic, i added this information but he keeps removing it.Please to take necessary measures thank you. 41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A) This is a content matter and needs to be discussed on the talk page for the article. B) G has only made one edit in this situation so there really isn't anything that admins can do at this time. IMO this thread should be closed. MarnetteD|Talk

Firstly hi, it was many times actually, honnest regards. thanks41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It was once today and once over two months ago. Both time the edit summary explained the the connection to Semitic people is explained later in the lede - which it is. Again you need to discuss this on the talk page for the article. No admin is going to do anything at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015

Hi, I am an old user of Wikipedia. But after coming back now, I have forgot the email id and the corresponding password with which i had created my previous account (had got a barnstar for my contributions as well). The username of my previous account was 'Kesangh'. I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia using my previous account (with username 'Kesangh'). Kindly help me get access to it. PhoenixMode (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is such a user: Kesangh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They last edited in March 2012. But if you can't remember the password or the email, then you will not be able to recover this account. There is nothing to stop you linking to this account on your new user page and stating that you are the same person. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this

Why is this called Administrators noticeboard if anyone can make decisions such as section closure? 178.148.5.47 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

? that's an essay! I can write dozen like that, opposing.. so what? 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It reflects what we all know to be the consensus approach on en.Wikipedia. You're opposing essay wouldn't and would be ignored. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

it appears your we excludes at least me. likewise, i ignore that essay and there may be many more.. you can't know that. in fact, if it really had consensus, it would not be essay, it would become a guideline or policy by now. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The page generally is notification that pages need to be protected, editors need to be blocked, etc., stuff that administrators should be notified of. A lot of discussion result in no action, something that non-admins can decide as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless a discussion requires specific admin-only actions (such as deletion, blocking etc), it can be closed by non-admins. Becoming an admin does not magically endow a user with consensus-judging powers. Generally admins are more experienced editors and have been here a long time, so they do tend to have the experience to close a discussion correctly. But that doesnt mean they are the *only* people with that experience. Many editors have been here years and are perfectly capable of judging consensus and closing a discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. If I start doing the same, it will be o.k. My perception till now, after 10+ years of editing, was different. Nice thing to know. Thank you. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)