Please add new incident reports at the BOTTOM of this page. Don't forget to sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.
This user has today vandalized the user page of Hunnie Bunn and despite my warning - or because of my warning - he made insultings against me on my talk page. He should either be warned by an admin or blocked. His own talk page is also very interesting. 21:38, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
This above mentioned user was again on my user talk page - Fuck word is now F word, but is that better?
22:38, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked for a period of one month - obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to just remove the message they left, feel free. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:40, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
Has blanked three pages (since restored), even claiming in one case to have made the page "more intelligent"[sic] — I suppose that's for all values of "e intelligent" equalling "onic". Why this user hasn't yet been slapped with a block of at least one month, I don't know. — RobertATfm (talk) 21:31, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- The user in question has only made those edits, back on January 3, and hasn't been back since. They were duly warned and if it's done again, a block will be made. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:39, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
- User:Cavite was also adding spam.
Please warn or block the first five users for removing the whole Harry Potter page, and adding in random information. The sixth user made a page, which cursed. Thanks for looking.
Apart from the fact that this image is misnamed (on the HDM Wiki this character is called "Lyra Silvertongue" because that's what she's most often called in the series), and the fact that it doesn't really belong here (except possibly as a user-page image — the uploader is called "Lyra888"), this image is a clear copyright violation; a watermark in the middle shows that it was copied from Deviant Art, so unless it was copied from the uploader's own Deviant Art account (and there's no evidence of this), the uploader had no right to copy it here. On this basis, I've already deleted this image from the HDM Wiki (where, even if there's no copyright violation, it doesn't belong because of the "no fanon" policy there). — RobertATfm (talk) 21:36, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted three very similar edits to this page, ostensibly by two different editors but the similarity makes me suspect that one may be a sockpuppet of the other. Both sets of edits introduced the (to my knowledge false) information that Dumbledore was born in the 1840s rather than 1881; and as if to underscore my view that these were vandal edits, the first also changed one spelling of "even" to "ev4n" whilst the second pair added unnecessary formatting. Also, the first of these two was done within five minutes of my reverting the very first one.
- JKR reportedly stated that Dumbledore was 150 in a 2000 Scholastic.com live interview. Which, based on the fact that the books are set in the 1990s, would've put his birth in the 1840s. Fans accepted this as Dumbledore's age for a long time, until Deathly Hallows was released and it was revealed he was born in 1881 instead. That means JKR either changed her mind about Dumbledore's age at some point, or whoever transcribed the interview misheard "one-hundred-fifty" when JKR really said "one-hundred-fifteen" (someone born in 1881 would've been 113/114 in 1994 and 1995, the years in which GoF, released in 2000, are set — remember that JKR has admitted that maths aren't her strong suit).
- So I wouldn't necessarily label the edits to the Albus Dumbledore as the deliberate insertion of false information; it may be the case of someone forgetting the most recent canon information and correcting what seemed to them to be an error. "Ev4n" may also simply be a strange typo, since the "4" key is located above the "e" key.
- If the situation progresses to edit warring, article protection will be warranted, but I don't think it's reached that point at this time. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 02:37, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring: Molly Weasley
I just reverted an edit to this page by User:Sev Lover Forever, because it looks to me like a vandal edit (this user has removed the Name parameter from the infobox), and because it also claims "no canon source" for the information deleted, despite the sources given looking valid to me.
I think this user needs to be warned by an admin; to judge by her posts, and by the pictures she has uploaded (two of which I've marked for deletion on the grounds of being irrelevant, but I suspect that most of her pictures can be deleted on this basis), she seems to regard this wiki as another social networking site. Maybe she needs to be set straight. — RobertATfm (talk) 02:52, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe it's me, but it seems like we've been getting more and more of those lately. Anyway, I warned her earlier about an off-topic blog, so perhaps we can leave it at that for now, with a further warning if need be. And I'll have a look at those images... ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:53, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
An anon currently editing under the IP address 184.108.40.206 is editing warring over the page Crushing Cabinet and related pages such as Vanishing Cabinet and Hogwarts-Borgin and Burkes Vanishing Cabinet pair. While I am willing to accept some responsiblity for the edit war as well (perhaps I should and can explain our polices more clearly), I believe that the anon is mostly at fault here. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 00:58, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- If I might add something... I too am partially at fault for this. However, the anon consistently removes sourced facts (as well as the name in the infobox, though this I am willing to believe is accidental) despite being asked to provide a source before removing valid information. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:27, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Removal of the name is indeed a glitch caused by the flakiness of the visual editor. However, insertion (and re-insertion after removal) of what amounts to fanon speculation is not; nor is removal for no apparent reason of a valid youmay tag, which I just reverted. -- RobertATfm (talk) 01:46, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is, like, his 5th edit, and he has only destroyed perfect articles. Removed article content from Harry Potter, removed mention of Helena Ravenclaw's blood from Bloody Baron and changing Norwegian to Mexican on Lars Berteig Andersen. --DCLM (talk) 14:55, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
Edit Warring: In Noctem
This is about the 4th time i have undone 'corrections' given without source to the lyrics to this song. I have the original sheet music and can thus confirm that the lyrics as i have them are correct, could just the lyrics section to this page be locked? Mattpartridge24 (talk) 21:21, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Can I please have a look at that sheet in an upload of a picture of it? :) And if that match the lyrics sung in the soundtrack then I fully agree. :) --DCLM (talk) 21:29, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Here they are: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/File:In_Noctem.jpg and http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/File:In_Noctem_2.jpg. Mattpartridge24 (talk) 16:02, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
I would like to report the removal of "noncanon" tags by this user, which has resulted in edit warring because the articles tagged are actually noncanon. (S)he (don't know their gender) insists that the articles Skirmish in the Viaduct Courtyard, Courtyard Apocalypse and Burning of the Burrow are canon, and refuses to listen to the two warnings I have posted on their page. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:16, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
I think enough is enough. Ridiculous, time-consuming talk page arguments (I think it stopped being an academic discussion, if it ever was, a long time ago). Direct personal assaults (to admins, no less!). This user clearly isn't going to see reason through any sort of reasonable discussion. CubsFan mentioned it as I am typing this, but I would like to formally request a temporary block for this user, so as he may cool off a bit and consider his actions and future conduct. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 23:50, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Not listening to opinions. Shoving their own opinions down other peoples throats. Acting as if admins are better than everyone else - they're not; they're nothing but people with power who SHOULDN'T have power. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:57, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I find this particularly ridiculous, as:
- 1337star isn't an admin.
- You yourself were yelling at Simen Johannes Fagerli that, and I quote you, "the admins have spoken; it's speculation. Do us all a favour and SHUT! THE! HELL! UP! They are right - you are wrong; if I was in this position, I would have been blocked - or blocked you if you'd been on the wiki I run - so be thankful you're still here!".
- They were simply using hard, cold canon facts to try to correct your misguided, repetitive arguments (if this is personal attack feel free to block me for however long is necessary, I'm done with this.) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:22, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
And I use J.K. Rowling information - which overrides and beats everything - to prove them wrong; they're just being stubborn now. It would by Wikipedia standards, be a personal attack (due to calling me - who started the discussion - misguided) but I'm not bothered. I get enough of them to learn to just lock it in my mind and get revenge later by beating them down on a subject where they are blatantly wrong and then revelling in my glory. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:27, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I just wanted to point out one thing: both sides of the argument are using Rowling's information, just from different perspectives. If it were up to me, the two of us both you and I - you for foul language and for insulting the other users and me for insulting you after - would be blocked. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:30, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Edit conflict: Thankfully, these matters are easily settled by policy: "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks." I have nothing more to say, really. If a counterargument is presented, it is to be discussed. And calling an argument misguided cannot, ever, be considered a personal attack (unless, of course, you consider your argument to be a person in itself). Civility should be mantained, but discussion cannot be halted on the grounds that there are disagreements. -- 01:18, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I think HarryPotterRules1's last comment clarified the issue. Having said that, I say no more. -- 01:26, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
I do - the admins, as you'll see from looking at the argument - do not. It only became an argument because they refused to accept something that was right. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:26, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- But this is preposterous. So, instead of arguments, we should have one-sided impositions? -- 01:29, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. My argument - which wasn't an argument until the admins interferred - was sound. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:32, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- My two cents, as someone who really hasn't been all that involved here-- I have seen a regular pattern from you of adding or editing information based on faulty assumptions or inferences that are speculative at best. When your edits are undone or you are asked about it by others, you argue continuously and often take a "you vs. them" attitude that is entirely uncalled-for. I have to agree that it can't be allowed to continue, and I would support any block that was made if it does. In fact, I might be the one to do it myself. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:44, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm male. And yes, everyone is entitled to have an opinion. However, the problem comes when you start trying to add opinion-based information as fact to a factual article, without solid evidence, which is something that you have done and have been warned about on your talk page a number of times, pretty much from the word go. It's disruptive, and it cannot be allowed to continue. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:01, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I made my point with facts - undeniable facts based on information from Seth himself! - but Seth, 1337Star and John Reaves forbade me from using those facts because they disagreed with me having an opinion at all. I've seen it before - the Once Upon a Time wiki was the same. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:07, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
- You quote me out of context, completely disregarding all other evidence I presented, and then make it seem as if I am the one silencing you. Sorry, but that would not do at all. There were a bunch of other "undeniable facts" I (and the others, for that matter) presented, that you chose to disregard in favour of your argument.
- We were against the logic you employed because it was patently incorrect and incompatible with rock-solid canon fact from the books. We were not against you. Playing the victim, when it was you who started yelling in complete breach of wikiquette and general civility rules, does not suit you. At all. -- 00:28, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
- So, in response to that, I think I can say that, well, we counterargued because it was necessary. And that was not a digression -- rather, it was the focal point of the discussion at hand. A digression would be the fact that you think you'll never get along with the people you mentioned: that is neither here nor there. -- 00:44, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
User:Adrian.tran1 is obviously creating willful vandalism, and has several warnings on their talk page. Most recently, they've edited various user pages of either banned users to remove Template:Banned or not-banned users (and Michael Gambon, for whatever reason) to be "banned". A pointless template was also created by this user. Though I've already flagged it for deletion, this seems a good place to bring that up as well. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 06:49, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Already done. - Nick O'Demus 06:54, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Obvious sockpuppet of the recently blocked User:Sierrasmile, engaging in same editing behaviour of inserting false names with associated pictures onto house articles (see this). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:39, November 27, 2013 (UTC)