Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User: Hopiakuta

Can anyone make any sense out of this user's page or talk page, signature, or the user's edits? Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I think the original block was probably not so far off base - this seems like a lot of gibberish to me. Tvoz |talk 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the user's signature - everything within and including the outside brackets:

[[ user : hopiakuta |[[ hopiakuta ]] Please do [[ sign ]] your [[ signature ]] on your [[ message]]. [[ %7e%7e ]] [[ %7e%7e | Thank You. ]]-]]

which comes out like this, including the brackets: [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]]

Tvoz |talk 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to his talk page, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Does anyone think he/she is copying a message someone left for them at one time? And what's with that warning at the top of the page? R. Baley 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to contradict his own rule about clear signatures.. — Moe ε 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful Moe, that little greek character there might be considered vandalism. Someguy1221 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just vandalism, but SPAM VANDALISM Better add "ε" to the list of bad words.. — Moe ε 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked back through his/her contribution history (which is a little scary) and he looks to have tried to get help with his sig back in November 2006. I'm sure there are other issues at play here, but is it possible that he changed his sig at some point and just never got it right (looks like his name didn't have traditional characters in it early on). I'm not sure she/he knows enough english to be helped. Btw, she added back the quotes to the Obama page, but it's still unclear what she wants. . .R. Baley 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this person is trying to recreate WP:BJAODN? Both user & talk pages are truly ... odd. -- llywrch 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From the talk page: "Please do respect my disability access need." Actually I think this user might be blind and is using some screen reading software. That would partly explain the copying of system- and error messages into the edit window. — Edokter • Talk • 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I got that impression when I encountered him some time ago - is there any kind of support group here for that sort of thing that he could be put in contact with? --Random832 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would also explain the concern with others signing their comments. For the sighted, it is a simple thing to click on the history tab and see who made the edit. On the other hand, if you have to have it read to you, what an ordeal that must be. -- But|seriously|folks  01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm blind and use a screen reader - using Wikipedia effectively with a screen reader can be very difficult if one does not understand much about the technology. The closest thing to a support group for users like that is probably wikipedia talk:accessibility but I suspect English is not this user's native language. I've left a message at the talk page anyway and I'll see what I can do to help. Graham87 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the response. Make of it what you will. Graham87 12:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In trying to make sense of it, I managed to track down the "extremely racist, extremely handicappist, policy page, about vandalism." - he objected to the inclusion of this image to illustrate the concept of "doppleganger" [which apparently meant, at the time, closer to "sock puppet" than to what we now use the term for] - He considered it racist because the subjects are black (though, no comment on whether he would think the same if a picture where the subjects were white had been used instead), and handicappist because either he considers being a twin to be a disability, or because of the (by no means obvious from the picture itself) fact that one of the subjects suffers from Aplastic anemia (though it seems the motivation was not in fact racism, but simply because it was an available picture of twins, the use of a picture of living people to illustrate it was certainly in bad taste) - he had some difficulty communicating this objection, leading to accusations of vandalism etc which understandably left him with negative feelings about the wikipedia community --Random832 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a somewhat detailed look at his contribs, and it looks like apart from incoherent talk page comments, it's mostly redirects from dubious misspellings. --Random832 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With no disrespect to the user, it looks like neuro damage to me, like someone that's been in a really bad car accident at some point. Someone I knew at school went like this, one quirk which is similar to this person is repetition of similar or inverted forms, eg the "complex" bit in the diff. I could probably find emails from that person on one of my old hard drives to compare. Mostly they are still high-functioning but the bits related to communication, both inbound and outbound, are impaired. Orderinchaos 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

DonFphrnqTaub Persina (apparently Hopiakuta's real name) is a founding member of a disability living centre in California. He probably has a cognitive disability of some sort, which would explain his incoherent talk page comments and copying of error messages. I don't think we should prevent such users from editing Wikipedia, it's obvious Hopiakuta is acting in good faith. —Crazytales talk/desk 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been following Hopiakuta in curiosity for some time, and came to the same conclusion about the nature of his disability. I'm honestly not sure what the right thing is to do about it. I agree that he's acting in good faith, but his work is disruptive nonetheless. I would like to do something to help him but I'm not sure what the best way to reach him is. It's a puzzler. Tim Pierce 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing of David Hicks by User:Prester John

User:Prester John is engaging in disruptive editing by massive non-consensual reverts of David Hicks page. Numerous editors have reverted his changes (up to 3 a day without substantive justification or talkpage discussion, using Edit Summaries that mispresent the edit and/or prior editors[1][2][3] and are aggressively POV [4]):

• [5] Mdhowe - "revert vandalism" by Prester John
• [6] Bless sins - Undid revision 157511776 by Prester John
• [7] Bless sins - "rv, mass removal of content; the article seems fine as it is"
• [8] Brendan.lloyd - "Prester John, please refrain from DELETING references, use more detailed Edit Summaries & justify your reverts on the talkpage; please avoid 3RR"

Mastcell had protected the Hicks page earlier, stating a lower threshold for blocking would exist if edit-warring resumes. Less than thirty minutes after protection was lifted, Prester John resumed edit warring. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

I have blocked both Brendan.lloyd and Prester John for disruption of David Hicks. Both users have reverted very recently after the protection, and both know better then this. We all know at least some moderate english, and we should be mature enough to discuss matters on the talk pages. When both of your blocks expire I hope you two can resolve this dispute. There are options such as mediation. Please do not resort to silly reverting again, but instead discuss the changes, your change is not likely to stick unless you get others to agree anyway. Anyone else editing this article should keep this in mind, being disruptive is being blockable. There are better ways to resolve your editorial disputes. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After an unblock request I reviewd the BL block IMHO appeared unnecessary as he had only edited the article twice in the last two days, so I have unblocked him. Gnangarra 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra has re-instated the two blocks. (Gnangarra unblocked Prester John as well). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the block of both parties. I reviewed this report myself last night and thought both parties should be blocked given the gaming and the very clear warning they were given not to resume edit warring once the protection expired, but I didn't respond to the report myself because of my own recent disputes with both of them, but particularly Brendan Lloyd. Brendan and Prester are very disruptive, POV edit warriors and aside from the dispute at David Hicks, they have been revert warring on multiple articles for many weeks. Both parties have had plenty of warnings and they know this behaviour is not on, to give another warning would be meaningless. Brendan says in his complaint above that, "a lower threshold for blocking would exist if edit-warring resumes", so there's no excuse for then going off and doing just that, even if it was "only twice". Sarah 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any sense of proportion or reasonableness about the conduct and outcome of this decision. Mostly, though, I'm disappointed that my editorial character is being misrepresented (eg. equated with the arguably far worse actions of Prester John, and with some commenters making non-neutral emphatically negative generalisations about my edit activity that do not fit with an objective reading of my overall Wikipedia history).

The warning by MastCell did not state 1RR. It simply said that a "lower threshhold" would be taken for repeat occurrences of edit warring. No clear parameters were established for how "low" that threshhold was intended to be, nor for how long it was to endure, nor the circumstances within which it clearly should be invoked versus not, nor was any distinction made that any edit/revert whatsoever (without regard to its argued validity/substance) would constitute edit warring. Taken to its logical conclusion, the view that I should not have made a single revert on the Hicks page (even of something that was plainly POV and tautologist) would mean that I can't revert anything on the Hicks page ever again, for fear of being misconstrued as edit-warring. Anyone editor placed in that situation would find that unreasonable.

Moreover, the only person who has engaged in significant repeat occurrences, in clear breach of any reasonable threshhold, is Prester John. The David Hicks edit history and the lack of commentary by PJ on the talkpage are evidence of this. If I had done something genuinely objectionable, why were there no other Hicks page editors complaining about my changes? Another admin said I didn't say much on the talkpage about my edits, but I didn't think I needed to. No other editor (apart from Prester John) objected to them. That strongly suggests my changes were consensus-sustaining.

A more rational and impartial process would be to look at the substance of my two isolated reverts (some 5 days apart!), read the Edit Summaries accompanying, see if there were any other editors who objected to them (there weren't), and then make a well informed judgement whether my block on the basis of 1RR was justified and reasonable. I maintain it was not --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Linda Hamilton

Sorry for the trouble - Geno (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds a non-free image of the actress to the article's infobox in violation of WP:NFCC#1, citing WP:IAR. He says an admin must rule on the usage, would appreciate a look, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He's discussed it here as well, but believes that a lack of "response" (in his favour) indicates to him that there is consensus to add the image. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Images that simply show what living people look like are replaceable non-free content and cannot be used. I recommend that Geno contact Ms. Hamilton's management and request that they provide a free image. There is a great guide to doing so at this page. -- But|seriously|folks  16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem continues, despite the requested admin opinion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What the legal team has left out is that I believe other Wikipedia policies, including WP:IGNORE, Use Common Sense and "don't follow rules mindlessly", support showing an actor acting. Are you an admin? Who do you report to in the Wikipedia hierarchy? I wish to file an appeal with them.

I do not wish to get a free image license; I'm not against the idea in general, but this has become much more important than the issue of the one image. The anti-fair-use people are saying we can't use an entire broad category of images to which, by both sense and law, we are entitled. This requires a ruling from the highest possible level. If the highest people at Wikipedia really support the other point of view, then fine, I'm out of here, but I need to hear that to believe it. I remain convinced that the anti-fair-use people are misinterpreting. -- Geno Z Heinlein 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"The highest level" has already ruled on this, specifically addressing non-free images of living people. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Even that page says "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." How is that against fair use? -- Geno Z Heinlein 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I explained to you on your Talk page, there is no "higher level". Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a policy. You will need to convince enough people to override the consensus there, and that involves using convincing arguments, not repeating personal attacks such as "by sense". Law has nothing to do with those cases where Wikipedia policy is stricter than law. In other language Wikipedias, there are no non-free images, period. And they survive. Corvus cornix 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify something for me. Are you saying that the Board of Trustees couldn't come in here and say, "Of course, in-character images are allowed." and have the result that you people stop reverting these images?

Also, I've made the arguments that refer to Wikipedia policy, and you guys have just ignored them in favor of other Wikipedia policies that support your position. -- Geno Z Heinlein 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Let me clarify, my position is not that we should be able to place in-character pictures due to policy; I've just been pointing out that the policies are contradictory. My position is that the articles are more important than the policy. -- Geno Z Heinlein 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

Not when the policy exists to keep Wikipedia compliant with copyright law. If there were no other picture, you'd have a good fair use rationale, but being that a free picture exists, even if it doesn't show her in the act of acting, would make it difficult to sustain using fair use as justification.

As far as the intersection of seemingly contradictory policies, that's where you need consensus to figure out the best way to proceed. Consensus can obviously change, but I've always found consensus here to be toward using a free image when availabe.

Finally, I'm not sure what would happen if the board of trustees said it was OK, they don't involve themselves in the writing of the encyclopdia or editorial matters. Wikipedia works by consensus, there's no single higher power to appeal to. VxP 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Board "don't involve themselves in the writing of the encyclopdia or editorial matters" and "there's no single higher power to appeal to" is the case, then what is the relevance of "The highest level has already ruled on this"? You see why this requires someone with a sufficiently big stick to just lay down the law? I'm not only getting policy referrals, instead of people just saying that they think that policy is more important than article quality, but it's not even consistent policy! Every doc I've been pointed to eventually says -- or points to an article that says -- that exceptions are permitted, that fair use is permitted and that "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."

Everyone is quoting Wikipedia policies except the ones that say that the encyclopedic content is more important than the policies! Is the intent really that community consensus should enable putting policy ahead of article quality? Seriously, what is it going to take to get the policy out of this discussion and replace it with the quality of the article? Once again, this requires someone with a sufficiently big stick to just lay down the law. -- Geno Z Heinlein 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Ignore all rules" won't work here, especially point 5 of what it doesn't mean: "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia." That last statement is why we are here; to make a free encyclopedia. Anyways, the only higher person you might even convince to change the policy is Jimbo Wales himself, but he has been trying to cut down on our reliance on images that do not meet the Board's definition of freedom. So, in this case, you wish to use a photo of a living person. Well, if you look on the Flickr website, there are non-screenshot photos of the person. is an example. Of course, we cannot use that photo since it is copyrighted. But, you can ask the uploader and see if he can put it under a CC license. Emailing her website is a good option too. But, we just cannot use any ol' photo of her because she is still alive and from what I can tell, she is getting lots of work, so it will be possible to obtain a free photo pretty darn easily. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Linda Hamilton Talk Page for why this still does not address the issue. -- Geno Z Heinlein 09:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything mentioned there is going to be mentioned here; she is alive, she is working still, so it will be easy to get a free photograph. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Geno has apparently quit over this, according to his userpage. I don't get it - people don't react this way when a paragraph of their text is deleted, why such an extreme reaction to removal of a single image usage? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

shrugs shoulders User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've recently had an encounter with a user who announced that he was quitting Wikipedia over a single post I made; I am told that he reappeared a few days later under a new username. So maybe this person will do the same? As BSF suggested above, he could always contact Ms Hamilton's publicity people & get them to release an image under a free license -- or try to take a picture of her himself & upload that. As long as those are viable alternatives, arguing that we should ignore the rules is not the best action in this case. -- llywrch 07:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Griot

• Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made recent edits to his talk page that constitute a very incivil personal attack. It is particularly immature considering this is regarding a conflict that was resolved several months ago. The following edits were made where the user refers to me as a FREAK and even altered my own words to make it look as though I was actually referring to myself as a FREAK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=153021407&oldid=153021211

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griot#What_if_I_am_a_gun_freak.3F_So_what.3F

He has also added a link on his user page that points directly to my talk page in an apparent attempt at starting more trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

At the end of the original conflict, I was blocked for 24 hours by Isotope23 for referring to Griot as a "hysterically paranoid info-deleting professor" on my talk page, so if justice is doled out evenly on Wikipedia I expect that he will now suffer the same consequences for this incivil personal attack of calling me a FREAK on his talk page, months after this conflict had been resolved. --BillyTFried 17:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any recent edits to Griot's Talk page which mention you whatsoever. The latest ones that have anything to do with you are over three weeks old, and consisted of changing a section heading (which I don't agree with). Corvus cornix 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am talk about. He changed the title of a section that I WROTE that originally said San Francisco isn't as homogeneous as you wish it was to now say What if I am a gun freak? So what?, clearly referring to me as a FREAK and making it look as though I was calling myself a FREAK. This is clearly an incivil personal attack and a rehashing of a conflict that was resolved not weeks (when he made the change), but MOTNHS ago. --BillyTFried 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

may i suggest you give him a small 2nd level warning about changing your comment (give a proper reference) and hopefully that'll be the end of it. if you havn't submitted any previous warnings, there is no room for sanction. p.s. best i'm aware "gun freak" and "freak" are not on the same level of insult. if you've submitted other warnings, may i suggest you link them here. otherwise, i note to you not to search vengence here on wikipedia... that is not the purpouse of the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

revert and notice given - [9]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The user Griot has ignored your warning and undone your revert and changed it to: Ouch! That Hurt's Soooo Much! Somebody Hurt My Feelings! Mommy! Daddy!. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=157902521&oldid=157900464

This is certainly further incivil behavior that deserves disciplinary action! --BillyTFried 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User Griot still doesn't seem to get it. His response to your SECOND warning:

This place is becoming a fucking kindergarten. Do I get any credit for actually writing and editing articles? Or is this just a place for bitching and carrying on? Griot 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=157934985&oldid=157934285 --BillyTFried 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

More incivil behavior from user Griot : (→Boo hoo hoo! My feelings got hurt! And I mean hurt bad!) Before you scold me, have a look at what I've written and look as well at what the wound-up ball of pettiness has done for Wiki. Griot 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=158106329&oldid=157974569

Calling me a wound-up ball of pettiness is simply more trouble making name calling after multiple warnings. User should be blocked ASAP! --BillyTFried 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User Griot responds to Admin:

(→Mom, Dad, It Hurts! Can I Borrow the Gun?) Couldn't care less! Couldn't care less about the quality of contributions to this project? Or what? Hey fella, are you an administrator or a busybody? Griot 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=158226806

--BillyTFried 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthead and Germany/West Germany

User:Matthead is in the process of making a large number of highly destructive edits that go against consensus, both on WP and in the English speaking world in general. It's widely accepted that between 1945 and 1990, the Federal Republic of Germany was known in English as West Germany, even if its official name never changed and even if the name was less widely used in Germany itself. The same also applies to its national sporting teams. Matthead believes that we should simply refer to the teams as Germany, and we debated this issue recently, with his point of view defeated, per consensus and common name. Today he has started to unilaterally change references from West Germany to Germany, on hundreds of articles. These edits are so destructive that I would consider them vandalism. He needs to be stopped, and the edits need to be undone, and quickly, if possible. Thanks for your time. ArtVandelay13 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits seem to be being reverted by other editors, though in some places he's made the edit twice, and may be approaching 3RR. I'll leave a note at his page. ThuranX 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ArtVandelay13 (talk · contribs) himself concedes above that "West Germany" was only an informal name for the (BTW still existing) Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990, as well as for sport teams like the Germany national football team which is fielded since 1908 by the German Football Association. The team was and is called Germany even during the German Empire eras of Emperor Wilhelm, Weimar Republic, and Hitler. Its history continued after WW2, as accepted by FIFA in 1950, as well as in 1990 when the separate East Germany disappeared. Some people have pushed their view by trying to establish West Germany national football team as a separate article, a POV-fork which was replaced by the proper redirect again (see discussion in which many revealed both ignorance and Anti-German attitude). Links to this POV article had been planted in over 200 articles, a number which was reduced by me recently. It is ArtVandelay13 (and others) who makes many destructive POV-pushing edits that go against consensus by reverting like in [10]-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and the common English name for The Federal Republic of Germany until 1990 was West Germany, as opposed to East Germany for the The German Democratic Republic. Of course term West Germany was unknown within the Federal Republic, since they term the nation Deutschland anyway, but the DDR was referred to as "Ostdeutschland" (East Germany) and the BRD as "Westdeutschland" as well as their formal titles. The appropriate English language names for both countries are established in the principle WP articles, and therefore those conventions are to be followed. Ultimately, consensus is against you - multiple editors are reverting you and you are in the minority in the discussions. You should now cease your unilateral revisions. LessHeard vanU 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The football team remained the same in 1990. The "common English" separation into pre-1990 "West German nft" and post-1990 "German nft" is artificial, and not backed up by any serious source. It is informal, like calling the early-1950s Hungarian nft Golden Team, see Category:Nicknamed groups of soccer teams. While nobody would claim that the pre-1956 Hungarian Revolution team was not Hungarian, the pre-1990 German team is called "West German" and claimed to be something different, just because East Germany vanished. Current use by said multiple editors violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It often creates a mess, like a town and team being called West German in 1989 and German in 1991, with 1990 being left out, see my example at the RfD (link below). -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Post World War 2 and pre 1991 there were two German football teams that competed in FIFA sanctioned matches and tournaments (and played against each other?) The fact that the current national team retains the title of one of those entities does not mean that the former owner of the name was the national team at the expense of the other. Again, and more importantly, it is the custom and practice of referring to the Bonner Republic as West Germany in the English Language Wikipedia. Please conform to the existing standards. LessHeard vanU 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In the 1950s, there were three German football teams that competed in FIFA sanctioned matches and tournaments. Please look at 1954 World Cup qualifiers and a map, and then tell which team, if any, should be called "West German". How come that the peaceful access of a state to the FRG in 1957 is overlooked by you while the peaceful access of five states to the FRG in 1990 is treated as a bigger deal than the border changes between the World Wars? These had no effect on the naming of the DFB team in English - or should "Huns nft" and "Krauts nft" be used for the 1910s and 1920s, maybe? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Matthead, Just stop. You've shopped this issue to multiple forums. You got the same answers each time: This is En.Wikipedia, and as such, reflects En Language use. You don't like that. We get it. You want it changed. We get it. It's not going to change. Find other ways to contribute to wikipedia, or better yet, go to De.Wikipedia, and contribute there. That's a good solid WP, enjoy it. ThuranX 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how illogical the different name appears to you Matthead, the fact is, it happened, and it was their name - not a nickname nor a racial slur, and you cannot rewrite history. ArtVandelay13 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor is now moving for page deletions to accord with his POV. ThuranX 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"The editor" has requested the deletion of the redirect [11]. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop this, everyone uses West Germany in the english talking sense. Talking about something in post-1990 and saying Germany, ppl will probably think you're referencing Germany as a whole, and not just West Germany. ps. re-instate the West Germany national football team Chandlertalk 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, people accept that the official name was never West Germany. People accept that "West Germany" is rarely used in Germany itself. People accept that the DFB and the national team are - officially - unchanged since reunification. People accept that English-speaking people often refer to the West German team as simply Germany. But you have to accept that, in English, "West Germany" is the most common name for the country, and its teams, by an overwhelming majority, up to and including th most official records and most mainstream media. The English language Wikipedia has to reflect this.

This clearly isn't going to get through to Matthead, so I'd say to the admins that the sheer number of edits are difficult for mere users to revert, and it's difficult to see that Matthead can be stopped mere debate and conversation. ArtVandelay13 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It has to be accepted that "West German(y)" is an informal name which might be used for additional information, but never in lieu of a correct name - surely not in an encyclopedia, unless it aspires to mirror the sloppiness of mainstream media like tabloid newspapers. While it is okay to mention "West" here or there, it is ridiculous to insist[12] that a city/club moved from "West Germany" in 1989 to "Germany" in 1991, skipping the 1990 season in the process, too. I have encountered so many ridiculous mistakes and misuses on Wikipedia that I have decided to tackle this problem, which mainly consists of the attitude "we've gotten used to our habits, don't bother us with facts". This also refers to editors born as late as the 1980s or even early 1990s, helpfully trying to educate persons who witnessed only few live broadcasts of football games - for example the last nine editions of an obscure thing called "FIFA World Cup final", in which one team with two names happened to be involved five times. BTW, did someone somewhere mention "sour grapes" yet? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Insulting all the editors of Wikipedia as being too young to 'get it' is lame. It's quite simple, it's been explained over and over again. At this point, all I can see is some sort of bizarre POV thing going on. You ignore EVERYONE, and repeatedly declare YOU are right, and YOU are the only one who knows it. ThuranX 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't reduce the entire English-speaking world to "tabloid newspapers" - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should aspire to accuracy, and that does not mean disagreeing with FIFA and the IOC over who won its tournaments. NB the error with that Rummenigge article is nothing to do with reunification, they had simply missed a year by accident, listing 1989-90 as 1990-91 and missing 1991-92. Otherwise, the FRG/GER distinction is entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR

Ethnic edit war brewing after disruptive edits by User:Figaro at article Graeme Garden:

• For nationality, he replaces United Kingdom (sovereign nation, U.N. member, passport) with Scotland (neither of them) every day [13][14]. To me that's not content dispute, but unencyclopedic.
• Conceals all his changes under abuse of WP:MINOR tag.

Since those ethnic conflicts degenerate so quick, an external opinion is wished from someone who can enforces Wikipedia's rules about encyclopedic (i.e. sovereign nations, not provinces or sub-states). — Komusou ^talk @ 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My view is that it is acceptable to use Scottish as a nationality; I also feel that that is preferable. Therefore it's more of a content dispute than unencyclopedic, IMO. I don't feel the abuse of the minor edit checkbox is deliberate, perhaps just contact him saying 1) instead of waring, it could be taken to the talk page, and 2) since the content is disputed, it is no longer apropriate to use the minor edit checkbox when changing it, with a guiding link to WP:MINOR would be more apropriate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My opinion is that the above commentator should have either self-disclosed that he is from Scotland and a member of Wikiproject Scotland (cf. his user page), or abstained from a conflict of interest. And as far as I remember Wikipedia doesn't recognize or endorse non-sovereign nations, an encyclopedia is descriptive. Is there a new policy that says we now should use "Scot" or "Quebécois" or "Flemish" or "Texan" or "Basque" or "Breton" as nationalities? I would like to see the references or archive of the debate that legifered that. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: Possible POV pushing should not be labeled COI. Please don't use COI allegations to intimidate another editor. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify:

* WP:COI defines it as contributing "in order to promote [...] the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups" -- Scots are an ethnic group, and this user has identified as a Scot on his user page.

* WP:COI also defines it as "[editing] articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area", and he's a member of WikiProject Scotland.

So IMO both are conflict of interest, yet he didn't self-disclose it. Especially since he's advocating something that's never done in any dictionary or encyclopedia I've ever seen, that is replacing "British" with "Scottish" for the nationality field. How am I trying "to intimidate another editor" when I'm adding this information he concealed? And how come he gets a free pass on not disclosing this in the first place? — Komusou ^talk @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using Scotland as country of birth, etc., but the nationality of anyone born in the UK is British, and should be stated as such. ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. I think most people would describe Sean Connery as Scottish (and he self-identifies as such as well), for example, so that's why we have him described as such in the lead. Badagnani 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the fact that I am a member of the project makes any difference when I have disclsed the more important point, that I am biased because I belive that it should state he is Scottish (as apposed to the fact that my nationality/project affinity merely suggests this to be the case). Anyway, the fact that we have disagreement between us still points to a content dispute. My stance remains that this is mainly an unfortunate misunderstanding of good-faith edits, and that it can be sorted out on the talk page of the article in question. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sean Connery would give his nationality as Scottish, I'm sure. I don't believe Graeme Garden does. He is not prominently identified with nationalist causes, and is not strongly identified with Scottishness. I'd wager that a decent proportion of his fan base are not really aware he's a Scot, since his accent is not at all strong. Apart from the Hamish and Dougal bit, of course, but then Barry Cryer is from Yorkshire... Guy (Help!) 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Important additional note: I forgot to mention that in that sort of cases, I'm always careful to have both the infobox say "Nationality: British (Scottish)" and the lead section say "John Doe is a British something from Scotland", thus there is both the encyclopedic sovereign nation, and the accurate sub-nation. But this is never enough for ethnic warriors, that simply delete all instances of "British" or "UK", such as the case above -- to me this is unencyclopedic and not a content dispute. And it seems to be the same everywhere. Our article about Charlie Chaplin is a laughingstock because "British" and "United Kingdom" are systematically erased from it. Surely we have a policy about that in 2007? — Komusou ^talk @ 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of this at Talk:Graeme Garden. Scotland says it is a nation and a constituent country of the United Kingdom. RJFJR 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Scotland isn't a sovereign nation. Readers of an encyclopedia expect "Nationality" to give them the sovereign nation, the U.N. member, the passport -- which is UK/British. There is no Scotland at the U.N., and no Scot passport. This is unencyclopedic, and playing on words, the UK's internal affairs and diplomatic choice of words isn't Wikipedia's concern. And the original "Nationality: British (Scottish)" had it covered anyway for full information, so the reader is even free to decide. Doing otherwise would be as unencyclopedic as writing "Nationality: Texan". Not all readers are from the UK or the U.S.
• There is nothing on the talk page because the incriminated user first changed it without edit summary and concealed as a minor edit [15], then after I changed it back with full rationales he simply reverted again as minor edit without any counter-rationale[16], thus displaying contempt for the point made and showing that he's not in for discussion but for ethnic warring. For centuries people have been ready to die for a piece of fabric, today they're ready to be banned for a word on Wikipedia, nihil nove sub sole.
• And sorry for asking another, but I would really like to know what are our policies or guidelines or arbitration cases about this topic? When I posted this, I only expected an admin to brandish a WP:SOMETHING that would lay down the law on the matter -- not a POV discussion about whether someone's fans would considerer him this or that. Is this an encyclopedia or a fanzine?

— Komusou ^talk @ 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• We should go with their self-description. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Scotland is a nation (especially as far as international sports bodies are concerned) and a historical kingdom - the United Kingdom originally being those of England and Scotland. Also, there are sufficient cultural, legal and educational differences to establish separate identities. However, forget individuals and consider (for instance) cities. Are Coventry and Brechin simply cities in the United Kingdom, or are they areas of England and Scotland (and more to the point, does Scotland help fix the area in the readers mind)? LessHeard vanU 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly straightforward to me as there is clearly a British identify, all be it there are scottish and welsh etc. subcultural identies. But many scottish/irish/welsh/english people identifiy primarily as british - infact most probably do, and culture is largely shared.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland maintains a distinct national identity. That it's part of a bigger thing doesn't negate that it's a nation. It's article says it's a nation. It calls itself a nation, and maintains a national archives distinct from that of the UK archives and distinct of English Archives. Demanding such changes would mean a massive overhaul of all Irish, Welsh and Scottish articles about people living in the last 300 years, and woud eliminate a lot of clear information by obscuring it behind the broad term 'United Kingdom'. The history of scotland is clear at its' article, and the ssame goes for UK. Readers want to know Connery's Scottish, not 'A citizen of the United Kingdom, being born in the subservient nation-state of Scotland' "Sean Connery is a scottish actor'. bam, done. Be CLEAR. Wikipedia is not censored for political correctness like that. Observing self-description in the text, and the British(Scottish) in the infobox is enough. ThuranX 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but not truly relevant. British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly, but I've never heard Garden identify himself as Scottish and the only time I met him his accent was barely discernible. (aside: TBT is much shorter than he looks on the radio). Guy (Help!) 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unimpressed that I have been specifically named here as causing an 'Ethnic war abuse incident' because I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!).

Scotland is still a country within its own right (Mary, Queen of Scots' son, James I of England was also James VI of Scotland). It was when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England that England and Scotland were united under a single monarchy (i.e. under the one crown). The other three countries which make up the United Kingdom are England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

To be honest, I can't really see what the problem is. After all, Ronnie Corbett and Billy Connolly both have their country listed as Scotland. In the same way, Terry Jones and Griff Rhys Jones have their country listed in their infoboxes as Wales — while Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Bill Oddie all have their country listed in their infoboxes as England. Figaro 07:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people's primary identification is with the UK, not with a constituent nation. You are wrong to presume that someone who was born in Scotland is Scottish. Billy Connolly is known as a Scottish comedian, Ronnie Corbett is not, nor is Graeme Garden. Putting people into an ethnic box is POV. Many editors could tell you this - I was born in England but I'm not English (but I am British). I know of others who were born in England but are strongly Welsh. Unless you know how people self-identify you cannot say. Secretlondon 07:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said - there are real issues over how to treat nationality in articles, but Wikipedia is riddled with "ethnic labelling" of very divisive kinds. It attracts race-haters and gives them far more of a platform than they have outside of the encyclopedia. We should not be providing any such platform, even in those cases where we think we're reflecting genuine differences. This is a problem that will get worse as en-WP attracts more and more members of minorities - some of their grievances will undoubtedly be genuine - but others will simply be malicious. Articles don't need it - objecting to "Lough Neagh is the biggest lake in the British Isles" is idiotic. Pandering to it in the encyclopedia encourages bitterness and violence. (On this last example I've had another look - consensus in Talk is for use of "British Isles" but nobody is prepared to confront the angry and stop them damaging articles). PalestineRemembered 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the following comment by Figaro, "I commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland (he was, after all, born in Scotland!)." well, when someone accused Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington of being irish because he was born in ireland, he famously replied "Jesus was born in a stable, but it doesn't mean he was a horse!" Where someone is born does not identify their nationality. Scotland does definately have a national identitiy within the UK, but many English people identify with scottish national/cultural symbols like tartans, kilts and bagpipes etc, without themselves actually being scottish, and vice versa many scottish people identify with english cultural symbols. Its like calling George Bush a Connecticutur rather than an american. While its true he is both, the latter is more appropriate for an encylopedic article. While scotland is a nation, it is not a sovereign nation, there is a significant difference. Bottom line is someone born in the UK is British. Consider as well that many people born in Scotland/Ireland/Wales and England will at one time or another live part of their life in another constituant country of the UK, so what sub-nationality one identifies with is really down to their own personal choice. You could argue its not their choice and its determined by the location of their birth, but i'm sure General Wellington would have disagreed, ;) WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How the country of birth should be represented in an infobox should have been taken to the Wikipedia:Village pump for discussion there in a civilized manner, instead of being taken to this incidents section of the noticeboard on this page.

Also, it is supposed to be against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks on another editor. Komusou has personally attacked me by his public discussion of me in both this forum and in his edit summary of his reversal of my edit on Graeme Garden's article.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a venue for nitpicking and slurs. Figaro 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, surely it is therefore a venue for nitpicking? Its being discussed here as this is where it has arisen for various reasons, there is no need to take it to the village pump because its really quite an open and shut case. Scotland is not a sovereign nation. While it may have its own national identity saying someone is scottish is ethnic not national. Scots are a race like aryans or kurds are a race. Likwise the english are a race, does living in england make someone english? of course not. Likewise for scotland. The nationality of the english, welsh, scots and n.irish is British, as it is for any other UK citizen. By all means add to the article he was born in scotland but its not his nationality. His nationality is british like every UK citizen.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. I see some contentious editong during a content dispute, and an editor who brought the issue up for wider discussion, but at the wrong place. Not everything you don't like on here is a PA. ThuranX 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think this has been brought up in the right place. The user who brought it to our attention skipped the usual process of actually getting an edit war underway by bringing the matter up before it got that far, but it would have ended up as an edit war without some kind of intervention (and consequently would have ended up here) eventually, one way or another. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I regret to tell you that the earlier quotation from Wellington ("born in a stable doesn't make me a horse") is a favorite of race-haters - and appears to be false. It underlines what I commented earlier - race-hatred is a real problem, and Wikipedia will incite still more of it, unless we are ruthless about keeping it out. We'd never accept "The Jews are viewed with suspicion by XXXXX because of accusations of XXXXX" except in an article that makes clear how very nasty this stuff is. We should similarly steer well clear of allowing accusatory/discriminatory statements about other "groups" to appear. In fact, we should avoid labeling anyone as belonging a group. Or not belonging to a group, as we do when we allow the race-haters to imply that being Scottish is an alternative to being British. In this example, the "problem" is tiny - but it's still important to deny these race-haters a platform. And the principle of not labeling people (unless it is really, really necessary) holds good always. (Sorry if the above really belongs at some policy-discussing page, but reminding people is necessary at pages like this as well). PalestineRemembered 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Various comments and answers:

• First, I need to apologize for how this turned into a long debate: as explained above, I honestly believed that in 2007 we had a WP:SOMETHING policy or guideline or arbitration precedent about such a simple encyclopedic topic as nationality fields, and I thus believed that WP:ANI was a good place for asking quick enforcement of such a policy. So it looks like we have no actual policy or guideline after all... I'll try to propose one in RFC or Pump/Policy, Wikipedia is becoming a total mess and a laughingstock with respect to nationalities, apparently everybody is too scared of ethnic terrorists to move, but we need something on that topic. It's not just the British thing, have a look from the Categories to articles about Canadian people (lots of "Canadian" deleted in favor of just "Quebec" or "Quebecois"), or Belgian people (most of them have erased "Belgian" and replaced it with "Flemish" or "Walloon", the two subnations that hate each other). I haven't even looked into Basque, Breton, Corsican, and the like...
• To ThuranX: I think that having a lead section say that "Sean Connery is a British actor from Scotland" is hardly the pejorative apocalypse you're writing about; the "clear information" you ask is precisely both terms, not a single one; the objective facts of British passport, U.N. representation, or UK embassies aren't addressed; and if you invoke Readers, the NPOV is to give them both "British" and "Scotland" and let them decide which piece or pieces of information is useful to them, since both are true.
• To JzG/Guy: about "British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly", I believe that no peace will come if we just try to impose the sovereign citizenship only, and also that it's often accurate and useful to mention subnationalities or local ethnies that have their own identity or a history of separatism. As long as it's sourced, I wouldn't be bothered by some infoboxes telling "British (Scottish)", "Canadian (Quebec)", "Belgian (Flemish)", or even "Spanish (Basque)". We just need to keep it to actual territories and forbid racial/ancestry things such as "German (Turkish)" or "French (Jewish)".
• To Figaro: you can't rewrite the article's edit history, you didn't "commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland", you deleted thrice the word British in "Nationality: British (Scottish)". And the fact that most Wikipedia articles are currently owned by ethnic warriors (such as our international laughingstock "Charlie Chaplin is an English actor" where they delete the word "British" on sight everytime it's inserted) doesn't make it right nor a point; for instance, if all our articles about Muslim subjects were dated using the Muslim calendar, that still wouldn't make it right or encyclopedic, just massively needed to be changed (and how far is it before such madness happens, if we let it slip?). It just means we need a policy so as to be able to clean the nationality fields of those unencyclopedic articles, and ban the ethnic warriors who'd revert again. Also, the difference between "Nationality: British" and "Nationality: Scottish" isn't what you call "nitpicking". No dictionary or encyclopedia use your "Nationality: Scottish"; this point, too, is never addressed.
• For the record, the edit war has continued after this discussion: Figaro reverted again so as to delete "British" (and also delete the infobox and replace it with a made-up table)[17] – so I have restored the article[18], then tried compromise #1 by adding the additional info he wanted but this time inside the regular infobox[19], then compromise #2 by removing the Flagicon from the infobox's "Nationality: British (Scottish)"[20] (assuming that the UK flag was a needless additional divisiveness with an ethnic warrior). I am however afraid that such compromises may be seen as weaknesses, as warriors are wont to do, so maybe it'll get worse...

— Komusou ^talk @ 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind your view on this Komusou, I feel that the nationality is clearly British - certianly not scottish, I wouldn't even mention scottish in brackets myself but if it keeps people happy its an acceptable compromise I think. The problem is the scottish are (like the english, welsh and irish) an ethnic group not essentially a nationality. So its like saying Barrack Obama is American (African) and George W Bush is American (Northern European). Its true sort of, but not really appropriate for nationality, as being black/white doesn't affect their nationality. Saying British (Scottish) almost implies there is a multi-layered system within the UK where not all british people are the same, wbich isn't the case. English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Indian or Klingon, it doesn't matter, - if you have a UK passport your British end of! WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP, your describing Scottish, Welsh or Irish as "an ethnic group and not a nationality" is both insulting and wrong. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are countries, making up one sovereign kingdom. Ireland is not even in the UK, which shows how poorly informed you are (the Republic of Ireland is a sovereign nation). It is entirely acceptable to describe nationality as "Scottish", "Northern Irish", etc. Scottish/Welsh/English/Northern Irish people are all, also, British. Neil ム 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem could be resolved and clarified by changing the template for the info box to include separate lines for Citizenship, which is a legal relationship to a state, and one for Nationality which might include ethnic/cultural descent/preference. The latter is a little harder to define or label, and to do without causing offense, and should be based on how the individual thinks of themself. Derek Andrews 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel we should compromise on this as its very straight forward. Someones nationality is that of the sovereign nation which issues their passport. In this case British as scotland a region/constituant country of the UK. This is essentially an ethno-nationalist POV arguement with little ground. To put scottish becomes confussing to, say someone is born to two scottish parents in the USA and has a a US passport... are the scottish, or are they american? It becomes tough to decide because what your suggesting we do is make their ethnicity (scottish) into their nationality (american). Realistically they are an American of scottish descent. Lets keep it simple, nationality is the UK. I really don't see how one can come up with a solid argument otherwise. I think that for us to compromise on this is sacraficing ground to capitulate something just to avoid discussing it? Why change the template when its perfectly clear what nationality is. Its simple, someone from the UK is British regardless of their parents ancestory or their locale of birth. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ILikePikachu (talk · contribs)

This user has just threatened to harass me as an anon. editor, because I responded to his/her complaining that we wouldn't put editorial warnings on a page separate from her talk page Isn't there a way to block whatever IP she's using temporarily in case she goes after User:WODUP after she finds that my talk page is semi'd because of BSR trolling? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked as I was entering a reminder to avoid attacks. I do concur with the block however. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Including the IP? I was threatened with the promise she'd harass me through my talk page as an anon, and my talk page is semi-protected because of BlackStarRock sockpuppets, leaving WODUP as the only other possible victim since he was the one with the banhammer. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The default settings for blocks (when blocking a username) is to block the underlying IP for 24 hours and block account creation. If this block had not blocked the underlying IP, there would have been a note to that effect in the block log. The IP can't be blocked for longer than 24 hours though, so s/he may show up later. There really isn't anything we can do about that until they make themselves known. Natalie 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to check it against the user Iloveminun, which was banned by arbcom for a year for harassment, as both usernames follow the formula pronoun-positive verb-electric pokemon. Will ^(talk) 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Iloveminun wouldn't need to; her ban ended app. a month ago, and she's stale in CU eyes (unless she's edited within the past month). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Principles 7 and 8 still stand if it is Minun, though. Will ^(talk) 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

8 does not apply in this case; she did not resume the agenda of her "WAPAM" thing (the page is deleted and salted, but I believe admins would still be able to see the underlying edits) and the only page she's really disrupted is her own talk page, which is currently protected for 24 hours because of her gratuitous use of {{unblock}}. She did not revert anything I did to enforce the merge consensus (i.e. reverting her WAPAM-related mainspace edits), either. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Molter Karoly image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Molter_Karoly.jpg

Hi, can somebody please help me with this image? This is taken from the Hungaryan National Széchényi Library. What i have to do, that others stop tagging it? It is public. I also wrote to the library management (just 4 sure) .. but probably they will write back in hungaryan, so no big sense. thanks for your help Elmao 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

hmm. Not sure. we don't have a PD-Hungary tag (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain. Rlevse 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Solved by another user.Rlevse 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry to add libelous info on John McCain

Is now confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knivesout8. I respectfully request, that as this editor has continued to add this information after being warned, and continued to sockpuppet (surprise! brand new editor comes along and readds the material: [21]), that someone would start at very least start blocking the sockpuppets, if not the base account for continuing to edit war and add libelous material. The Evil Spartan 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Knivesout8 and Jumanjisalvo blocked indefinitely, IP blocked for a month with account creation disabled. Anything besides those three? Picaroon (t) 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well goodness, glad to see Wikipedia actually works: someone blocked for sockpuppetry and POV pushing! The Evil Spartan 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew Knivesout8 was a sock. As soon as it was created he attacked an admin and pushed pov on that article. Glad it was proven and action taken.Rlevse 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon's block of Iwazaki

As amply demonstrated by these incidents, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], Lexicon (previously Osgoodelawyer) has had a number of content disputes with Iwazaki on Wikipedia since at least November last year. He has repeatedly made uncivil comments to Iwazaki such as "okay, this is the last time I'm going to bother responding to you", "reply to yet another non-argument", left edit sums like "comment on what is clearly Iwazaki's IP voting" (about an IP from Ohio, while Iwazaki is from Japan) and made senseless, unproven allegations like "the last vote by the IP address is obviously you, Iwazaki".

In July he gave Iwazaki a "warning" based on a previous AN/I complaint by Taprobanus, but apart from saying "warned", Lexicon failed to reply to any of the subsequent postings questioning the validity of the warning.[27] Note, on that occasion Taprobanus directly posted on Lexicon's talk page asking him to comment on the report, instead of simply leaving it up to uninvolved administrators.[28] Yesterday, Lexicon blocked Iwazaki for 48hr for alleged "personal attacks", following another direct posting by Taprobanus on Lexicon's talk page.

On both occasions, the comments in question were those Iwazaki made calling Taprobanus a "contributor to racist websites". It has been previously proven here on AN/I that Taprobanus has contributed to websites such as http://www.tamilnation.org and http://www.sangam.org, both extremely racist websites, and repeatedly cited them in controversial Wikipedia articles.[29]

In this case, Iwazaki's comment was in response to User:Taprobanus's claims in a number of separate places of an AFD discussion, including in the nomination (As the author of this article, I can say that this has long since ceased to fulfill the requirements WP:LIST and ...), and in other replies (I made the mistake when I created it a year ago, it (now) has to go), inferring that he created the article and therefore it should now be deleted as he didn't like it anymore.

Also note, Taprobanus gave Lexicon a barnstar a few days before the first "warning", Iwazaki has never been blocked on Wikipedia for any reason before (he has been contributing since July 2006) and Lexicon hasn't blocked a user on Wikipedia since the 13th of August.[30]

I believe all these put toghether raises the question of how ethical it is for an administrator, who as been involved with a user in a number of disputes, to block the user following a personal request by another editor, without consulting any other admin or leaving any notes on AN/I. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you forgeting that Iwazaki asked for a block review. Which was denied by another admin who has never been involved in such disputes ? Have you forgoten that Iwazaki was warned multiple times before ? Including other Personal attacks on editors warned by an Admin. It seems that Lexicon is more than justified for that block! Watchdogb 06:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• The attacks [31][32][33] by User:Iwazaki on User:Lexicon are ridiculous. Those who are familiar with Sri Lankan Civil War are well known of the attacks and harassments of User:Iwazaki. User:Iwazaki is nearly warned [34] by User:Tariqabjotu for harassing User:Lustead identifying the user with Rajsingha and AFD [35] of his bio on wikipedia at the Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani. User:Iwazaki has some extent warned by other users at the AFD of the subject whom User:Iwazaki is relating with User:Lustead [36],[37],[38].ShalpherX 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your general point, an admin should know (and almost invariably does) when an action could be construed as controversial, and knows they have the option to seek an outside opinion before acting. From what you have outlined above, it may have been appropriate for Lexicon to do so. However, I am not personally well-versed in the finer details, nor have we heard from Lexicon here hence I pass no judgement. So, with regard to your specific point, if you feel this merits further examination you may wish to head over to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges Deiz talk 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Deiz, I created a RFC on Lexicon here, and notified him about it. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lexicon warned in July on basis of a complaint in the ANi.[39]All this took place in the ANI July 26th 2007.
• Warned. If he continues to further imply that you are racist, notify me. Lexicon (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[40] and user Taprobanus notified him leading to Iwasaki being blocked.I do not see him acting properly he asked Taprobanus to notify him in the ANI on 26th july 2007 which he did and it was reviewed by a neutral admin.All this was transperent.

While I strongly defend Iwasaki's right to his views I believe that his controversial comments are a violation of WP:CIVILand WP:NPA while he is free to express his views it is not necessary to post the same comments again and again he could have illusrated his points without these comments and further he is weakening by saying he would do so in the future [41] .Leaving aside the ban ,I do not see any hidden agenda as everything took based on what took place in the ANI on July 26th 2007.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Victim of libel wants some libel removed, but that could violate the GFDL

In this diff, Sam Wightkin, a victim of libel, wants his attack entry removed in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-07-30&diff=158169551&oldid=158166219 . I removed this, but the content is still in the page history. This case would be an open-and-shut oversight case if it was caught early enough, but I do not know what to do now that the libel is deep in the page history. Jesse Viviano 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the libel with a note that the libel was removed, but it is still in the page history. Jesse Viviano 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Durova^Charge! 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's too far down in the history for oversight, and there are too many revisions that need to be zapped. So I've done two things - I've deleted the suggester's edit, and I've courtesy blanked the section. This way it doesn't show up on Google. Maxim_(talk) 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the vandal's edit but allowing page versions that contain the libel to exist violates the GFDL and will probably implicate the wrong person or IP as the vandal who did the libel. However, removing the libel from the live view is kosher. Jesse Viviano 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Allowing us to delete seriously libellous material from history is one of the basic reasons oversight was created. If the defamatory content is a serious enough real-world problem, a purely theoretical GFDL concern must yield. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat User:Real77

Contentious and difficult user is making legal threats.[42] It's not clear from WP:Legal what I do now, tag it, what? KP Botany 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the template to tag the user, but other than that, what, if anything. Is there a notice board for this? "If Wikpedia is not going to play ball with 3rd aprty verifable issues then this shall be referred to lawyers as an individual has the right to control his or her reptutation and,name and likeness through themselves or third parties." KP Botany 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This be the place. There's no NLT noticeboard, thankfully! Keep us posted on his response. El_C 06:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely (or until they agree to not make any more legal threats). Someone should probably go over Anna Wilding and cleanup any unsourced statements, as this is the article the user appears to have a problem with (though from what I can tell, they want to add content, not remove). --- RockMFR 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More eyes on the article could not hurt, however there are a group of excellent Wikipedia editors who are already attempting to clean up the article. Real77 claims to be working for Anna Wilding but is doing nothing but trashing the article's talk page and making the article as ugly as possible. My concern at this point is that because he claims to be working for Ms. Wilding, he is making her look awful with his edits, particularly his talk page ranting which is largely incomprehensible. This sounds reasonable, though, blocking until a user agrees to not make any more legal threats. Thanks. KP Botany 07:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no response from the user. However, another editor quit editing because of nasty and potentially threatening (legal) comments to him. Without Real77 around a small handful of those who have weathered the nastiness have removed the poofunery, the bad grammar, the horrid punctuation, the fluff, and the poor English, so the article looks halfway decent. In light of what has happened, most of the article has been tagged for fact checking and all sources will be individually verified. Thanks. KP Botany 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by Anna Wilding's representatives

It appears that Ms. Wilding has attempted to pressure others into publishing her resume and self-publicity.[43] She filed some complaint against the New Zealand Press Council for failing to publish her photos and press release. At this point I ask that administrators consider reblocking both User:Real77 and User:Tonyx123 who are both working for Ms. Wilding, from editing Wikipedia. Real77 issued a legal threat, was blocked, agreed not to issue any more, so his block was removed--as seemed appropriate. However, in light of the fact that it appears Ms. Wilding filed a formal complaint against another entity for failing to do what she is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia into doing, namely publish her publicity materials and resume, I think blocking these users might be appropriate. Deleting the article about her might be appropriate also. KP Botany 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, In spite of saying he would not issue any more legal threats Real77 calls an editor's edits to the Anna Wilding article defamatory.[44] I don't think that his behaviour is something ordinary Wikipedia editors should be dealing with. KP Botany 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, he wasn't unblocked, I forget he can edit his own user page while blocked. Sorry! I suggest he not be unblocked, then. KP Botany 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wybot mishandles iw links on templates

Apparently this is where I'm supposed to report that User:Wybot is misbehaving. It's incorrectly inserting/removing interwiki links on templates. See [45] and [46]. The first change causes the interwiki links to be included on all transcluded pages, while the second change removed valid interwiki links intended for the main template and inserted other interwiki links that should have been wrapped in a noinclude section to avoid being included on the main template. --PEJL 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is something better posted at User talk:WonYong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note there referring to this discussion. I was merely following the instruction at User:Wybot that said: "Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.", generated by {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}}. If that instruction is inappropriate, perhaps it should be changed. --PEJL 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's in case the bot is still screwing pages up and needs to be suddenly stopped. I'm not saying that the instructions are bad, I'm just saying that dropping the author a note is also fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess posting here was appropriate, as it was still screwing up templates at the time, and did need to be suddenly stopped. It so happened that the bot operator responded within minutes, but I couldn't have known that at the time. --PEJL 18:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh~ I am sorry. I run "interwiki.py -continue -autonomous". what happen? I stopped my interwiki bot. It is a bot program's error? I use pywikipedia bot SVN. version is new. what happen?? I am not programmer. I don't know why, how, etc. :( -- WonYong (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 08:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not sure if this is the right place to post; if not, feel free to move the discussion to someplace more appropriate, but please notify me.) One of the issues seems to be (at least in the case of the second link) the fact that the IW links are kept on a transcluded subpage (along with other documentation). Apparently, this confuses the bot. This may be bad practice, I don't know, but it certainly simplifies life when dealing with a protected template. The other issue, where it moves the IW links outside of the noinclude tags appears to simply be a bug in the bot. Xtifr _tälk 08:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

500 articles messed up by AlptaBot (and no cleanup effort)

This bot was running September 5. and 6. and managed to mess up citations on more than 500 articles (by substituting "fn/fnb" tags with "ref/note" in such a way that the notes are messed up). In addition to ordinary articles, also User pages, Archived pages and Wikipedia Guidelines were messed up. (see Special:Contributions/AlptaBot)

I can see no effort to clean up the "vandalized" articles. User Alpta has archived the discussions on his userpage, after stating, "I will have to pass this robot task onto another operator. I thought that this was a simple "find and replace" robot task. The templates might have to be updated manually too. Alpta 04:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)"

Have reverted or fixed a handful of the articles myself, but it's a tedious task, especially when other edits are done later - and also I don't want to touch Archived pages or Userpages.

AlptaBot was blocked for a short period. It is now back running, doing other tasks, hopefully better knowing what it is doing this time. But complaints on User talk:Alpta are again quickly archived or removed with comments like "remove trolling".

A malfunctioning bot can do a lot harm, and bot operators should always be prepared to (and able to) clean up/revert the bot's actions - which has not happened in the case of AlptaBot. Oceanh 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would WP:AWB help? Either way, yes, the bot operator is responsible for any messups, but the discussion on the operator's talk page wasn't "removed", it was the nasty User:ClueBot III that archived it ([47]). x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB may help. I also left a note on his talk page to address the concerns and fix the bot or it'll get shutdown.Rlevse 11:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How are the notes messed up? I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. El_C 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to WP:AWB. I am not familiar with that tool, but as far as I could see, that tool gives rather limited assistance. Still every single article has to be manually edited and checked. And the list of messed-up articles is already available.

As an example of messed-up notes, se Featured Article City status in the United Kingdom (which should either be fixed, or it will soon become a "former" FA). In this case the destroyed part is not in the "References" section, but in the middle of the article (footnotes to a large table). (This article was even one of those listed already during the approval process, with the comment "I made 25 edits, but the robot has worked fine".) Somebody also explained the technical detail in User Talk:Alpta (later automatically archived, because the page owner created the page with auto-archiving). Oceanh 12:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me 12 hours to fix it. Alpta 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

improper ? licencing

I am copying this from User Talk:Andranikpasha#your images, the ones I thought were 'most free' became tagged):

Andranikpasha, I checked your images, they seem to be wrongly tagged. Also, as far as I know, we cannot have images that are even free for non-commercial use. I don't think we should be able to keep the ones that are free for say informational use.

The following are the images uploaded by you:

1. Image:AndranikOzanian.jpg (instead of saying that it is also published on your geocities site, you should tell us where you got that photo. I don't think you were alive, at least not old enough to attend that event and take a photo in 1921)
2. Image:Arme80.jpg (Armen Grigoryan is a living person, a singer, so we should be able to find a free alternative)
3. Image:Asalagerb.jpg (it should be fine being a logo, but it is orphaned now, will be deleted if it stays so)
4. Image:Aznavour.jpg (wrong tag again, and for informational use only. We should be able to find a free alternative)
5. Image:AznavourArm.jpg (same as above)
6. Image:Hovhshiraz.jpg (for informational and educational use only)
7. Image:Hunch20.jpg (can you prove that it is published before 1923?)
8. Image:Hunchak20.jpg (same as above)
9. Image:Knarazn.jpg (wrong tag, aznavour was born in 1924, he seems to be about five years old in that picture, it is definitely not before 1923)
10. Image:Sedahoka.gif (this one should be fine)
11. Image:Shu1930.jpg (wrong tag, the photo is from 30's, not before 1923, most likely not free)
12. Image:Shushimassacre.jpg (for informational purpose)

Deniz^T_C 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor seems to be blocked indef (not related to image tagging). He was checking this site, maybe he can contact someone, otherwise we won't be able to get response from him. Please check Talk:Greek_War_of_Independence#Images_of_revolutionaries as well, it is quite old, I forgot all about it until I saw Nwwaew's message. Thanks a lot, sorry for the extra work. If you do not want to do it, I can take care of them later (hopefully correctly, and I hope 'later' is soon), but I need some sleep at the moment. Deniz^T_C 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved this message from section #Improper licensing on about ten imagesDeniz^T_C 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Milk-maid

This user has been making irritating changes to several articles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Milk-maid see contribution list) without discussing them. She is redirecting Pederasty and Child modeling (erotic) to Pedophilia and Child pornography because to her they are all the same. When asked on her page to discuss these changes on the talk pages of the articles she has responded beligerently, and has already violated 3RR on Child modeling (erotic). Could an admin step in and aprise her of how things are done on wikipedia? PLease understand I don´t mind if the articles get merges or changed, but I want to see that happen after discussion and consensus. Jeffpw 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching, and I left note on her talk page. I have to go for a few hours but I'll be back later today.

While assuming good faith, it's interesting that a new user is using edit summaries well and has gone right up to 3RR but stopped without a 3RR warning, isn't it? I don't usually follow these articles so I don't know their histories well, but this person may be wearing new socks. KrakatoaKatie 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AFD nomination

Resolved

Can an admin. please delete the AFD for Todor Skalovski. I am the editor who initiated the AfD, but I now believe it should be administratively closed out due to new info provided by User:Nuttah68 (see Articles for Deletion/Todor Skalovski). Thanks. Watchingthevitalsigns 14:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. As the nominator, you can usually withdraw a nomination yourself. — Edokter • Talk • 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Template has no image?

I noticed last night that the merge template had no image, but assumed someone was noodling with it, and it would be back in the AM. It's not. As the images often work as a shorthand for regulars who might gloss over the text of templates like that, can we get it back soon? thanks you. Example here: [48] ThuranX 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The template has an image; it's just not displaying. Looks like the same Commons image problem as mentioned above. -- JLaTondre 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

84.73.140.109 is using 129.129.128.64 to evade his block, as he said he would. -GnuTurbo 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just replied on my talk page to this as well, but I believe a block here is punitive given that the IP is attempting to discuss the conflict on the talk page now rather than stoop to edit warring, I'll keep an eye out however. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal insults and uncivil behaviour, by part of User:Saoirsegodeohf

Hy, I, Flamarande, hereby wish to report Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) who engaged himself in disruptive behaviour and now proceeded to insult me personaly. The mentioned user sees himself as a kind of "national champion/avenger of the Irish" and unilateraly deleted several links leading to the British Isles article. After I sent him a post explaining my reasons for reverting his edits he took upon insulting me. Please take a good look at his edits and especially at his talkpage. I also believe that this user operated previously under an anonymous IP namely 81.99.82.237 allthough I'm currently unable to prove this. I hope for a quick resolution as the facts are quite evident. Thanks Flamarande 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved this here from AN. ornis (t) 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for two hours and directed him to the relevant policies. There weren't any really explicit warnings about it, and I'll unblock if he promises to behave. If anyone thinks I'm over the line, they can unblock if they like. WilyD 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, given this [49] I would have made it longer. ELIMINATORJR 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How ever one feels about the term "british isles" Saoirsegodeohf (whose name translates from Irish as something like "freedom forever") is povpushing and being incivil. I concur with Eliminator - they deserve a longer block--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, but he hasn't been given any warnings so I was a little reluctant to block at all. Two hours should give him enough time to read NPA. If he doesn't shape up after the first block, longer ones can always be applied. WilyD 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that wikipedia proclaims itself to be neutral, well this certainly is not neutral, I see that other Irish people seem to feel the ssame way I do on this issue and the term british isles is not neutrel hence the british isles naming dispute. If it were neutrel the Irish government would accept it and the british government would use it in media but the fact of the matter is this doesn't happen. And as for the majority of people using it I doubt this is true, even if it was you can call a sheep as cow all you want but it doesn't make it so. I will ask you to do something about this situation as you can see i feel very strongly on the issue as do many of my countrymen and it is highly unjust for a so called neurel encyclopedia to give people the wrong information to contribute to them myth the Ireland it part of the british isles. The uncivil behaviour i deemed necessary by what I can only describe as a tremendous insult towards me on the part of flamengo who not living in Britain or Ireland and cannot really comment on what we call the isles around us.

Go raibh maith agat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

AM I ABUSED OR JUST RECTIFIED?

”Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks
Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content”

I am New. I have made no direct contributions to Wikipedia articles. But I am interested in the general welfare of humanity, all categories, as also many other humans are. And I, as everybody else, have questions, ideas, and opinions. We all know this part.

On the talk page No Original Research, I have recently made a submission to the ongoing debate, illuminating details with referring examples. It ends with a question. ”What say you?”. Following this, a Wikipedian takes no notice of the quest at hand in my submission, but instead begins like this:

”I say this: BellMJ, in the month or two you have been here you have not contributed to any articles. I suggest you get some actual expeience researching and making contributions to articles that stand the test of time, and have more experience collaborating with editors working on aticles, before you try to comment on our core policies. SLrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)”

I find no connection in this contribution to my submission, nor any part or detail in it, in concern of the factual content.

It, hence, just seems to me, that this Wikipedian SLrubenstein either
1. DO HAVE A MOTIF in rejecting my presence on the talk page JUST, exactly as he/she claims, BECAUSE ”you have not contributed to any articles”, or
2. that the Wikipedian SLrubenstein points to my person as an INTRUDER, type ”Get out of here!”, ”We don’t want you here!”.
I do not accept a provocation, if that is the intention.

I have never before had any interference with this SLrubenstein or any other Wikipedian, it just popped up recently as described. And I have neither made any approach to talk to this Wikipedian SLrubenstein as he/she already has made his point clear. Besides that, I don’t know more than you.

So. How is it?
FIRST contribute, THEN you can join Wikipedia talk page No Original Research?
Is that so? Or is the Wikipedian SLrubenstein prominently talking for Wikipedia?

I very much would like Wikipedia administration to have a clear answer to the question.
Show me. Please. BMJ 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

some people are here for months and still don't Get It. Some people arrive here and become outstanding editors from day one. I suppose this is a matter of differences in intelligence, of experience, and of common sense. Hence, there are no fixed rules of "first do this for n days, then that". SLrubenstein gave you well-meant advice, and you should consider it, that's all. For your questions, ideas, and opinions, be aware of WP:VP and WP:RD, where they will receive due attention. --dab (𒁳) 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence: rectified. Not abused. I thank you for taking your time in giving me an honest answer.

wkg/BMJ 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, but not "in the name of the Establishment". We all speak in our own names, and the policy pages condense out of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's complicated, because it doesn't work in theory, just in practice :) --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

dab. Thank you for still showing patience. All right then. You mention ”differences in intelligence” and ”Wikipedia consensus”. IF in Wikipedia consensus also is included an active, practical, recognition of the Declaration from 1948 (WIKIPEDIA HAS NO PRONOUNCED SUCH RECOGNITION, as far as here known), the type ”differences in intelligence” should have no representation in Wikipedia, in accord with the Declaration (Article 1) ”All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights …”. Equal. Consensus. With respect to THIS, hence: There is no ”differences in intelligence” in humanity, except as stated from profound everyday Nazi ideology quarters. One human being is not ”better” or ”higher” or ”more intelligent” than any other, even if it SEEMS so. We all have EQUAL basic properties of mind, but see the landscape from different views, and no one of us is more valuable than the other, even if it SEEMS so. I don’t mean to be rude on reminding on that, but the type ”differences in intelligence” definitely does not belong to Wikipedia, on the recently made provisions. Compare THEN ”the guidelines” to ANY talk page in concern of ”consensus” (Meaning: in practice Wikipedia is a MESS). However, dab, feel free to object!

With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Equal in dignity and rights" does not mean equal in ability. And, while the 'Nazi ideology' that one race or ethnicity is as a group less intelligent than another is manifestly false, that does not mean two individual people cannot be of different intelligence, that is to say, I can be smarter (or less smart) than my brother or sister, or my neighbor, without any reference to what race, gender, ethnicity, either are. --Random832 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Random. I think I know what you mean. We are getting out of the main focus here, but OK then if that is OK with you to. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is YOUR point, right?: IN COMPARISON between all the mathematical aces on planet Earth, that is all the professors and doctors of academia, with those in the classes who did NOT pass the examination, the latter are LESS intelligible, LESS smart, because the former make the gauges to the IQ portals and tests. Right? --85.89.80.140 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake admin???

The user AlanJohns has been causing vandalism on the following article, firstly he used a source that didn`t actually say what he wrote in the article, when I reverted his edit, he put it back the way he wanted saying he was an adminisrator so dont delete, (I have my suspicions this is a lie), when I reverted it again he vandalised the article by deleting a page worth of sourced material with no explanation. I also checked out his user page and he seems to be causing trouble elsewhere. [[50]]. Realist2 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

diff. blanking diff. user might need a warning. --dab (𒁳) 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by User:Ryanpostlethwaite. (He's lucky Ryan got to him before me...) Raymond Arritt 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked longer for trying to impersonate an admin? JACO, Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't accept users claiming to be admins to win content disputes [51] - next time he disrupts the block will be for much longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside: His userpage looks like a personal record store. — Edokter • Talk • 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly, it put me in an bad position because even though I felt his edit was wrong I was scared to revert it. Realist2 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that administrators have no special authority in content disputes, so pretending to be an admin to win a content dispute is doubly incorrect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, I was always under the impression at what ever an admin says simply goes, ill keep this in mind, as for his user page, hello he`s clearly lying through his teeth like he did about being an admin. Realist2 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish. :) See also Wikipedia:Administrators. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CHECK OUT THIS USERS PAGE AGAIN, HE`S JUST RECIEVED ANOTHER WARNING FOR HIS EDITS. I THINK A LONGER BLOCK IS REQUIRED ITS CLEAR HE IS INTENT ON BEING A TROUBLESOME EDITOR. Realist2 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He's (obviously) made no edits since the block. The warning that he received was for something he did prior to the block. No further action is in order at this time, but trust that I'll keep an eye on him when his block expires. - Philippe | Talk 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AlanJohns has at least one Fair Use image on his User page which someone should remove. I don't want to do it for fear of starting an edit war, but somebody needs to do it. The other images have suspicious copyrights, as well. Corvus cornix 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the one with no copyright status, but someone with more image experience should investigate whether or not the copyrights on the other images are legit, as you pointed out Corvus. The Hybrid 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

His userpage is fake, as far as I can tell. He is not associated with any of the albums on that page, the sales records are false, and I doubt he played a main character in a GTA film that has no information on IMDB. I'd say speedy as vanity nonsense while one is at it. MSJapan 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

New sock of user blocked yesterday

MR-WRIGLEY (talk · contribs) is engaging in the same behavior (uploading images of Sabrina Lloyd) as the blocked user from this thread yesterday. Another apparent sock of Snootchie44 (talk · contribs). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see User:Snootchie44 being blocked. Navou ^banter 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like EliminatorJR blocked the sockpuppet, but not the sockmaster or the IP. However, there's not much doubt in this case, MR-WRIGLEY (talk · contribs) is even uploading the same screenshot that PixieGuard (talk · contribs) (the sock from yesterday) was. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked MR-WRIGLEY (talk · contribs) as a sock of Snootchie44 (talk · contribs). Navou ^banter 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

copied from separate section below, as both section refer to same issue.

I have blocked MR-WRIGLEY (talk · contribs) as a sock of Snootchie44 (talk · contribs), there is some explanation on User talk:MR-WRIGLEY. May I have a second opinion? Thanks in advance. Navou ^banter 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quack. Quack quack. You can either believe that I'm a sad pathetic person who spends his life creating sock puppet accounts on Wikipedia and attempting to vandalise the system by uploading images and annoying administrators by wasting their time, or... no, the "or" is superfluous. Quack. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• search Occam's Razor into Wikipedia and read the article, the basic principle is that the simplest explanation is often the right one. Yes, a sock is the simplest explanation. And there is enough evidence to make that assumption. - Dean Wormer 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I could have sworn that I blocked User:Snootchie44 when I blocked the first sockpuppet. Obviously I didn't, so I'll do it now and extend the block since he's created another one since. ELIMINATORJR 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked troll

I blocked Hexadecimale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am sure this is an alternate account being used for trolling - if not a banned user then an inappropriate sock. I don't think it's a coincidence that his edits consist largely of asking what the problem could possibly be with antisocialmedia.net Guy (Help!) 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Alarm bells, quacking, etc as Guy suggests. Not Good. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Angrygurl2007

Resolved

 – removed, user blocked

• Angrygurl2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just visited this user's talk page and someone has posted a very innappropriate and harrassing comment about this user. Can someone please remove it? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagome 85 (talk • contribs) 18:14, September 16, 2007

• Someone else removed it, and I indefblocked the user who posted it. We don't allow that sort of abuse - ever. ELIMINATORJR 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance with User:Blytonite

Blytonite (talk · contribs) is the primary editor of the Amal Hijazi article. Over the past couple of months, the user has been warned at least a dozen times about uploading copyrighted portraits of this singer, to show her appearance, in violation of WP:NFCC#1. He's reposted content that's been deleted, both here and as copyvio on Commons. In addition to the warnings, I've explained the problem at Talk:Amal Hijazi. I'm wondering at which point the deliberate violation of policy despite a dozen warnings merits a block. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous report, which was archived. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the images from the article, and am now looking into the history to see how many warnings he has been given. ElinorD (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left another explanation, with links to image policy pages, and with a warning that future violations will lead to a block. I've also speedied the two images, which he had simply re-uploaded, following a previous deletion. Thanks for bringing it here, Videmus. ElinorD (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Elinor, hopefully that's the end of the issue. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

New overly-aggressive copyright bot "OsamaK" flagging valid logos

There's a new bot, User talk:OsamaK, which is flagging several hundred valid logo images per day because it doesn't like the format of their {{non-free logo}} logo templates. This goes beyond the policy in Wikipedia:Logos. The bot threatens to delete the images, and it's not clear how to make the 'bot happy, or even if that's possible. Complaints are building up on the talk page, but the bot's owner won't shut it off. This isn't the "fair use rationale" 'bot; it's something else. For an example of the bot's actions, see Image:Cafairslogo.png, the logo of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Fairs and Expositions. Suggest 'bot be disabled pending investigation. --John Nagle 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot is doing its job correctly. The example image you listed has no source and no rationale. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And the source you just added is totally inadequate; you actually have to tell us where you got it from, not just nebulously name an organization. Is it a scan from one of their press-releases? Did you download it from their website? Did someone in organization email it to you? What's the source? --Haemo 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example where the image had both a source and a fair-use rationale: Image:Canterbury tales.gif. The bot wasn't smart enough to recognize them. Bear in mind that policy doesn't require such info to be expressed in a standard format. --John Nagle 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a source for that image anywhere. --Haemo 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and delete the logos. --John Nagle 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot is far too aggressive. If a picture is missing a Fair Use Rationale, the usual is to allow 7 days before deletion, not simply 48 hours. What happens if this is done during a weekend away? There are ways to do things properly and this is not one of them. --Asterion^talk 06:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the WP:BRFA process, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like this particular bot account is running a number of robots, and the one in question was approved for a trial of 50 edits. As of now, a quick analysis of the bot history shows that it has made some ~5,000 edits in the past 10 days or so (that's just this particular automated procedure; not including other automated procedures from the same bot account). Furthermore, the bot was approved for this function: "Find the images without source and telling the uploader". I would say that tagging thousands of images for deletion falls outside "telling the uploader." The bot is making mistakes all over the place, since it expects sources to be in a specific format which is not required by any image policy. Moreover, as User:Yandman pointed out,[52] the interpretation of policy which the bot's work is premised on seems inconsistent with our image use policy ("Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" -- the bot ignores the former completely), and is at best contentious. I would strongly suggest that an admin hit the shutoff button until these matters are resolved. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed only approved for a 50 edit trial with the procedure detailed in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/OsamaKBOT_5, and it went way, way over that. Given the feedback above, and as I don't see anything relating to it being released to do any more than that, I've blocked the bot til this is resolved. Neil ム 10:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnomonist spam war

A ridiculously silly spam war is going on in Sundial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gnomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Equation of time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I would suggest semi-protection of these pages, which is what many other Wikipedias have done. See Talk:Sundial#mysundial.ca link. This also seems to indicate that user SunDoggie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is circumventing a seven day block. /SvNH 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All 3 have been semi protected for 48 hours. I also changed SunDoggie's block to indef. A quick perusal of their contributions is enough to tell me they are not here to contribute constructively. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will monitor these articles, if they continue to spam, they will be blocked, its sad that we have to protect pages because of crap like this. Block the perpetrators and be done with it. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also blocked SunDoggie's IP sock 142.161.196.168. Raymond Arritt 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually forgot one, Diptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). /SvNH 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A concern about potential ageism

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) removed the word "feelings" on the Child sexuality article, stating that "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings". I reverted it, asking how he knows this (as he is not a child himself). He then reverted me and while I don't have a problem with someone reverting an edit I made that for example violated Wikipedia policy, I don't think it is right when he says "dont are-add unsouirced material go source it otherwise yopur edit is unaccept" [sic! notice the spelling]. The word "feelings" does not need a reference, and I said so, and to say that children cannot feel sexual feelings is ageistic. I don't want to add my own POV to this, but I should say that as a person, I know this, because it has not even been so much as three years since I have been legally a child. I don't want to pit my POV against his; all I want is a solution that makes as many people happy as possible. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a content issue that can be addressed in the ordinary editing process. Detail your views and concerns on the talkpage and look for input from other editors to achieve consensus on agreeable NPOV language. I don't see anything requiring admin action at this time (although you've certainly drawn attention to the issue), and I don't think a question of ageism really is involved. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the talk page sounds good enough, except that he used it in the only way I don't like to see it used, that is, as a substitute for talking to me on my page. Also, I would agree with you about ageism being or not being involved, but it seems that by persisting SqueakBox has come across as that way. I'm not saying he is, but he has seemed to be. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The tips in WP:DR might be helpful as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you'd like an admin to do, specifically? El_C 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that SqueakBox can be a difficult editor to work with. He is convinced that he is fighting the good fight on Wikipedia by carefully monitoring pedophilia-related articles. Undoubtedly, that monitoring has to be done and it certainly isn't an easy task. SB is very passionate about it. That being said, he frequently fails to assume good faith, escalates conflict into edit wars, routinely reverts with unnecessary "rv trolling" edit summaries, is prone, as in the present case, to impose his point of view on an article. More troubling, he's very quick to label people disagreeing with him as supporters of pro-pedophile activists (see [53] or User_talk:SqueakBox/history for an extensive list of examples). He has been warned (and blocked) repeatedly for personal attacks and revert warring without much change in his behavior. Of course, he's been here for a while and has done a lot of good work but there's an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed and probably would have been addressed a long time ago were admins less wary of getting the "oh so you are against protecting the wiki from pedophiles?". Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The nth repetition...

Can some uninvolved admin please look at User:TMLutas/WMC and take the appropriate steps? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this page as meeting the WP:CSD#G10 criterion. Any admin is welcome to undelete if I have applied this criterion too liberally in this case. Regards, Navou ^banter 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea about the issues with this dispute, but I've seen many user subpages like this one; in my opinion, just ends up escalating a conflict as opposed to improving the situation. Good deletion call -- Samir 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good call. It seems to have effectively constituted an attack page. El_C 04:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to frustrate the collection of evidence against a rouge Admin will not work. We keep backups off the system. Nice try, but no cigar. --Britcom 06:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to keep anything you want on your own hard drive. But as to what may be kept here, there are some rules to that, including that pages may not be intended as an attack on a specific person. If you have a dispute with someone and can't talk it out with them, we have dispute resolution for exactly that reason. (And if not obvious, I entirely endorse Navou's action.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify Seraph, the above are attempting to interfere with evidence gathering and compilation that will be used to lodge a complaint against an Admin who has a wide pattern of abuse of his authority. This Admin has a posse of devotees (mainly his own students) who will run interference for him and often try to gang up on anyone who won't tolerate his bad behaviour and abuse of Admin tools. So lets not pretend its about something else. --Britcom 07:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One would think that for as long as people have been attempting to gather "evidence" against WMC, something would have stuck by now, but it hasn't. . . despite the so-called "wide pattern" of abuse. BTW, how long do we let the personal attacks continue?

Signed,

not now or ever a student of WMC,

also not a "devotee",

just an average editor who thinks this was a good delete,

R. Baley 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had pages put up for speedy deletion before but I've never had them insta-deleted without a chance to challenge ahead of deletion time. The justification for the page is in WP:User, specifically "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." I was engaged in a reasonably civil discussion with the offending admin (if you have access to the history, you can see where WMC tried to add to the page), there were notices all over the thing that this is a prelude to formal mediation/arbitration and that I hoped that the page would cause him to amend his behavior so that he limited his opposition to my edits in ways that conform to policy and guidelines. That's all I want, not to strip him of his adminship. You all have now added to my list of wants.

I want to know what alternative I have to individually bringing up all the pissant issues until the actual underlying problem is sufficiently exposed, that WMC seems to have a pattern of pushing things beyond the limits of what an admin should do. He's too often living in the grey area where he's getting the "benefit of the doubt" that a well known expert in his field and an admin will naturally get. So he wins on the individual cases (and no doubt deserves to win some of them) but connecting the dots to expose a pattern of behavior isn't allowed because quoting and commenting for the purpose of bringing up a pattern of behavior isn't acceptable to some admins and just gets a G10 speedy delete without adequate notice. So the issue of WMC making up his own private standards on reliable sources needs to go to mediation right away, his pissy comment to me on britcom's scribble on my user page needs to go to mediation, etc., etc. Is this what you're really recommending? TMLutas 13:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Need intervention for User:Skatewalk's disruption of RFCU

I need administrative intervention again with User:Skatewalk. He just came back from a block and started disrupting a CheckUser report I filed. In this link [54], he is deleting critical information which shows that he is very likely the same person as User:Serenesoulnyc. Please keep en eye on the page. — Zerida 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock, blocked. Neil ム 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

I'm having a little difficulty in getting this user to abide by the fair use policy, concerning image resizing. After I resized Image:LTGC Vol.4.jpg (which is now deleted) from a 1030x1365 pixel image[55] to 220×289 pixel image[56], the user confronted me with [57]. He also appealed to Jimbo for my desysopping[58], and called me an "asshole" for following the "stupid little rule".[59] He then re-uploaded many of the previously deleted images in high resolution.[60]. Could someone have a talk with him, as any further interactions I have with him will likely end in a bloodbath. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The user was indefinitely blocked. This seems harsh. I've reduced it to a week and given him a final warning. Neil ム 09:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass edit warring by User:Digby Tantrum‎

User:Digby Tantrum‎ is engaging in a mass edit war to revert the edits I have made to several images. I have nominated the images for WP:IFD and listed them. However the user is persistant to revert my edits and remove the template repeatedly. I put a warning on his talk page to stop removing the templates however he is repeatedly removing that too. 217.43.58.131 10:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Resolved
  . This frivolous complaint comes from the permanently-banned troll/vandal Learntruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sam Blacketer 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)