Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User: Hopiakuta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing to edit war through other Web sites

Canvassing on Wikipedia talk pages to edit war articles is a bad thing. Likewise, I would assume canvassing on other Web sites to edit war on Wikipedia articles would also be a bad thing. If I am right, are there ramifications for those who do? To be more specific, I've removed original research material from Man vs. Wild that violated inappropriate synthesis policies. Rei and someone who he canvassed (Tasco 0)[1][2] have since been arguing with me and others on the talk page (see e.g. talk:Man vs. Wild#Criticism.2C_fakeness_and_what_they_don.27t_tell_you). So far though, edit wars have been avoided. ~ UBeR 00:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is inappropriate regardless of where it's done, on or off-wiki. The same is true of harassment and personal attacks. I don't know about consequences — since there doesn't seem to be any substantive harm now, but a polite reminder would probably be a good idea. --Haemo 01:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be also noted that Rei has consistently needed to be put in check due to some strange personal vendetta that she has against Man vs. Wild, and has attempted to put in OR numerous times in an attempt to prove that the show is "fake," going so far as to start her own wiki in an attempt to accomplish that goal. It is obvious that she will go to extraordinary means to accomplish this goal. --Tao of tyler 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with Rei briefly in late '05 to early '06 and her MO was to edit war while referring to (but never actually citing) a few marginal sources. The POV she advocated had been originally proposed by a nonspecialist three quarters of a century earlier and thoroughly rejected by the academic mainstream. In six weeks she failed to contribute even one reference other than OR musings upon previously cited primary source material and her talk posts were in consistent violation of WP:CIVIL (if unfounded accusations of homophobia count as WP:NPA then she crossed that line also). She finally left the topic after two editors pointed out to her how thoroughly unacceptable these methods were: among other things she had misidentified the author of her leading source. I find it disappointing, but certainly not surprising, that her conduct appears to have deteriorated since then. Of course I recuse myself from direct intervention, but I urge other sysops to bear in mind that this offsite canvassing occurs within the context of longstanding disruptive behavior. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Being belligerent enough to drive editors off of articles is nothing to be proud of, Durova. And concerning an editor who had just gone through a painful affair in her life at the time, not that difficult, to be quite honest. As an addendum, anyone who checks the history of the article can see that I was adding cites all over the place, and Durova was reverting my edits almost every time, half of the time without any explanation and while leaving the sections on the talk page that I started asking why dangling -- the whole time defending their actions (when defended at all) by claiming an academic concensus which was never referenced, despite repeated requests. -- Rei 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to is welcome to read the article talk archives. Rei's attempts to WP:OWN the article led to page protection and delayed progress toward WP:FA for Joan of Arc by six weeks. All of Rei's citations had to be reverted as violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. I opened two content WP:RFCs and an Wikipedia:Article review to bring impartial opinions to the article, then brought the page through WP:GAC and WP:FAC. Rei's approach was to raise a variety of different points simultaneously and repeat them in various combinations, disregarding feedback. I tried addressing those points in a variety of ways, I requested prioritization and focus, but this individual would not engage in encyclopedic collaboration. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's rich. I'm trying to "WP:OWN" the article, says the person who has made 631 edits compared to my 18,** who continually rolled back changes without addressing them on talk (the archives are full of dangling threads ending with me asking why you hadn't responded), and you who continually claimed an academic concensus as justification without ever citing it. You claim problems with my cites, and yet you continually ignored (and still ignore) requests to back up your concensus claims with any cite. I've been kind enough to not throw allegations around at other people and not to assume bad faith. But someone who's made 20 times as many edits to the article as me telling me that I'm trying to own it, and trying to war, when the vast majority of my contributions were on talk trying to resolve the issue? Give me a break.

** -- Pull up the page history, modify the number of results to 5000 (which gets you back to the first edit), copt the contents to a file, and "grep -c " for "Durova (" vs "Rei (". -- Rei 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Raw edit count is meaningless to establishing WP:OWN. I have consistently taken the initiative to seek community feedback and review. Large numbers of edits are normal when an editor raises a page from an unencyclopedic tone template to WP:FA and it is no secret that two highly disruptive editors were active at that page. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for a description of one of them. It is no violation of WP:OWN to meticulously undo the damage of one of the site's most insidious long term vandals. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add this article to my watch list. I could have sworn there was an OTRS ticket about this article somewhere but I can't find it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Me "planing" and edit/revert war. You are making false accusations. As you can read in Rei's talk page here you will clearly see how I was trying to do this the correct way. Anyhow, if you think Rei is talking about an edit war, don't put my name into this. It's clear enough to see that I created the discussion to prevent any conflicts when editing the article. You're assuming bad faith on me, when I did not have any intention to create an edit war. I suggest to the administrator to read the source of this problem here. Any person with a brain can read that I am not part of Rei's idea of a "possible" edit war.--Tasco 0 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can read for themselves what they're calling "Canvassing" and "meatpuppets" and see for themself that their description of what happened is a complete fabrication. Tasco O came to me wanting to get information into Wikipedia that happened to be something I had already been defending on the article (but had stopped while awaiting outside comments). I told Tasco O that I had been avoiding putting that sort of stuff in because I didn't want an edit war and I knew that UBeR and Fredrick Day would start one if I put it back. This all comes right on the heels of Frederick Day lying about me trying to reference BearWiki on the article. -- Rei 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, let it be known that UBeR tried to avoid dispute resolution[3], while I tried to solve the problem peaceably by starting a request for comment[4] and dropping the addition of the section I was defending[5] in order to avoid the aforementioned prospective edit war. I'll repeat: I let them have their way, and and tried to get a outside opinions. In the process, I've been repeatedly slandered (at one point, someone even started a thread with the specific purpose of bashing me[6]), and just today have discovered that one of them seems to be daily tailing me to other websites to try and dig up dirt on me.

I've wanted to solve this peacefully and get the dispute over whether the edit in question is SYN resolved through getting outside input. And all I've gotten in return is personal attacks. -- Rei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rei (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol? I wanted to avoid the dispute resolution because no reasonable person wants to go through it. People looking to get into long, drawn-out arguments might want to, but I would much rather settle the dispute on the talk page with the involved editors. I think this is a much better and easier solution. Seeing as how you are unwilling to comprehend WP:SYN, I've supported going through the dispute resolution, and so far the outside opinions tend to agree with my position that original research should not be allowed on Man vs. Wild, even if it does appear on other articles. As for the person who Rei claims is "daily watching" her, Fredrick Day simply came across a discussion on Rei's Web site that is easily found simply by clicking on "recent changes" on the side of her Web site. Cheers. ~ UBeR 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Because your interpretation of the policy is inherently correct, and mine is inherently wrong, right? The whole conflict was over what constitutes SYN. Declaring your stance as inherently right, and that I am "unwilling to comprehend", is exactly why we needed dispute resolution in the first place.

There's a world of difference between checking out a website and watching it daily to dig up dirt on someone. -- Rei 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm right because I've been involved in WP:SYN dispute countless times. I understand the policy well. I've discussed the policy with many administrator and may lay editors. My position on SYN is the one represented by the WP:OR policy and the rest of the Wikipedia community. I've explained to you why what I removed entailed improper synthesis, but you've ignored it; you've been unwilling to comprehend it. Already, third party editors on the talk page agree with me.

As for your site, how do you know he's watching your site daily? Wouldn't he have brought up the discussion as soon as it occurred, as opposed to days after it ended? What's wrong with visiting a site on a daily basis in the first place? I visit Wikipedia each day and go through and read portions of that I am interested in. Is this wrong, or does it entail stalking users? No. Like I said, your discussion was easily found by any user visiting it just once. Get over it. ~ UBeR 21:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I don't know how many times I have to mention this, but you are not the ultimate arbitrer of Wikipedia and all of its policies. When there is a disagreement over policy, which is what this is between us, the correct response is bring in outside inputs (what I have done), not repeatedly insist that I'm right and you're wrong and personally attack the person you disagree with. (what you have done).

"I visit Wikipedia each day and go through and read portions of that I am interested in." -- And do you do so stealthily, not making edits, but just watching over a particular user to try and dig up dirt on them? No, I didn't think so. That's creepy and a clear demonstration of bad faith, especially when it's followed with a completely false reporting of events (going so far to claim I was "recruiting meatpuppets" and "canvasing"). As for "daily", the conversation was on the evening of the 11th, and it gets reported on Wikipedia midday on the 12th. -- Rei 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an outside input: UBeR is right. I read through the discussion on the article talk page, and it's quite clear that what content you wish to add violates the spirit and the letter of WP:SYN. Box says X, John says Y; therefore, Bob is wrong. Someguy1221 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input, Someguy1221! One minor difference with your presentation: the [edits in question] had no "Bob is wrong" section, or at least had the goal of not having a "Bob is wrong" section (wording changes welcomed). Does that still fit your criterea?

Perhaps this should be moved to the article? -- Rei 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The original research was under a section titled "Inaccuracies in survival advice." That is to say, you had sources that said "not x," you had the television show in which Bear said "x," and you therefore inappropriately synthesized the material into a section that effectively says "Bear is wrong." That is not allowed. ~ UBeR 23:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, Rei, so you have no evidence that he did anything other than click on recent changes and came across the first listing (as of Sept. 12), so I suggest you stop making such specious claims about Fredrick Day. As for WP:SYN, outside opinions already agree with me. What else do you want? The policy is concrete, my interpretation has been supported by many people. ~ UBeR 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And who are these "outside opinions", apart from Someguy1221 who weighed in just minutes ago? If you'll check the talk page, you'll notice that the [for comment] is quite blank (it was interrupted by someone who started a section for the specific purpose of attacking me). I welcome outside opinions, and I've been trying to get them for a long time. Instead, all I've gotten is your assertions.

ED: User:JS made a (recent) comment about what would be considered SYN that I'm trying to get cleared up. So, we might have two comments. -- Rei 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be the kind of problem that needs immediate administrative intervention. Rei has expressed an interest in editing the Joan of Arc article again so I've stated how I think WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:V apply. I'll open a content WP:RFC if conflict resumes and I'm quite willing to progress to user conduct WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33: patience exhausted?

Having just blocked this user for continuing an edit war across several pages for several days (see Mao: The Unknown Story, Bruce Cumings, Great Leap Forward), I was astounded to see his prior block log. He appears to have one of the most extensive histories of unrepentant edit warring I've encountered, and his behavior in the last few days is not the kind of behavior that indicates that we should expect any improvement in the future after adding one more block to the over 20 previous blocks and block extensions he's had. I've given him a 48 hour block, to match his adversary-in-warring's block, but if there are no objections, I think we should recognize that this is an incorrigible case, and extend that to indefinite. And we need to get better at removing these time-sinks before it goes on so long. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse an indefinite block. This should have happened a long time ago. This is unfortunate, because Giovanni has an outstanding work ethic, but he just cannot stop edit warring and trying to game the system. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's going to be hard to find an admin who's never blocked him to provide an independent review of that :-) Guy (Help!) 08:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see DMC back on this noticeboard with the threads like this one that I would definitely support an indef block. In a similar vein last year, Dmcdevit imposed a one-year block on Molobo, who nevertheless continued editing from his self-professed IP, let alone from newly registered accounts. Since his block evasion was given a free pass by admins and he did not face any consequences (see his talk page for details), I assume that Giovanni33 will be allowed to proceed in the same fashion. This is rather disheartening. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 09:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaand endorsed. Time-wasting like this should not be tolerated. Moreschi ^Talk 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so G33 reports somebody else for breaking WP:3RR, and he gets blocked indefinitely?Proabivouac 09:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. His history of edit-warring is ridiculous. Way into double figures, FFS. Moreschi ^Talk 09:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of it's from last year, when he was by all accounts (and by his own admission) completely disruptive. I only took a small look at the recent dispute centered around MTUS, but it didn't seem at all obvious to me that he was wrong about content, or conducting himself poorly.

And what happened to that RfC/U?Proabivouac 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 3 reverts in under an hour, 2 more reverts here today (and another a couple of days ago), 3 more reverts here in the last 3 days, and 2 reverts in a day, all reverts of the same user, across multiple articles in a short time span without any intervening discussion could be less obvious that he is "conducting himself poorly." Two of those articles have not even seen edits to their talk pages in months. Dmcdevit·t 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at only the discussion on Korean War, not the reverts, so I don't contest what you say. Only that Giovanni seemed reasonable and his general contention that the book is revisionism (though I might personally be inclined to agree with it) seems sound to me.Proabivouac 11:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How about an alternative sanction of revert parole limiting him to 1 revert per day with explanation on the talk page? I'm not sure the community technically has the power to implement paroles, but if the alternative is an indefinite block...--Chaser - T 09:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. One can see that sort of thing proposed and sometimes implemented via the Community sanction board. If an admin commutes the block, with that proviso, and no other admin changes it, it's done. As for Molobo et al, we're not perfect, but if sockpuppetry is identified and clearly evident, accompanied by bad behaviour, it usually gets blocked once we find it. I am sure, however, there are unidentified socks out there editing peacefully after having turned a new leaf... and that's fine by me. For the record I'd support such a parole in this case. But then I'm a big softie. ++Lar: t/c 10:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with such restrictions is that it becomes a tool for others to game in edit wars, if handed out unevenly. And John Smith's has been edit warring all over the place as well, almost exclusively with Giovanni33, and has 7 blocks of his own. If we were going to go that route, might want to note the failure of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2 and escalate it to arbitration. Dmcdevit·t 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nod. It does hardly ever work, yes but that doesn't mean I don't favour trying things short of indef block for people that have made contributions. I also agree (see below) that some evenhandedness would be good, although wikipedia is not a government and therefore there's no implied promise of fairness. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I object to having this longstanding edit war 'solved' by effectively siding with/against one of the two main participants. I'm going to be unblocking and reimposing Dmcdevit's original block. If you're going to seek probation, fine, or if you're going to be issuing concrete ultimatums, that's also fine, but in such instances, too, we need evenhandedness. Parity over posturing, please. El_C 10:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not looked into the matter to know who is who, I just tend to favour trying things if there is some hope of redemption. Would your feelings about imposing an indef block on G be the same if the other "side" were also subject to the same probation instead of indef blocked? If so, then this is a case where the community hasn't endorsed the probation approach and that is that. if not, shoud it be tried? Who are the key players besides G that need this? ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not wheel war, but tu quoque is not a defense. The block and checkuser history here was eminently worthy of a ban and I would gladly review and address other parties' behavior separately. Durova^Charge! 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want parity. I only know of them two; but this dispute has been going on for over a year now, so a resolution is long overdue. El_C 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a procedural comment - Rather than unblocking and re-blocking for the original duration I might suggest leaving a note to the user of your intent to remove the block after the original duration has expired. Avoids further cluttering the block log and reduces the possibility of wheel-warring by giving time for any consensus to form one way or the other (rather than someone re-imposing the indefinite block and that being reverted and whatnot else). --CBD 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has a long history of tendentious editing, gaming 3RR and block evasion. He did previously agree to cease using sock accounts and went almost a year and was not blocked. However, since June he seems to have resumed his old ways, aside from the sockpuppeting issues.--MONGO 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My patience is exhausted anyway. If this isn't he incident that leads to Giovanni33's indefinite block, the next one will be. I don't see why we should put ourselves through another round. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem logical to me. Giovanni33 went about a year without block, despite being an active editor the whole time (I checked). If after this he were to go another decade without doing anything blockworthy I doubt anyone would then be advocating indefinite block over a 3RR violation or the like. A decrease in the number and frequency of blocks is evidence of improvement... why would we indefinitely block Giovanni33 now, when he is being blocked infrequently, when we did not a year ago... when he was being blocked on a weekly basis? He has gotten better, but since he has not achieved perfection he should be banned entirely? Such an approach seems to suggest that a user can never 'recover' from bad behaviour... it is just a cumulative tally leading to their eventual banishment even if they continually improve. --CBD 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do it now or wait till next time. Of course I probably said that last time too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am uninvolved with this user. I think the indef block was valid. How many edit warring block do we give a person? Enough is enough. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He does deserve an extended block, but an indefinite block is the end-all-be-all block. So how about a less arbitrary process in imposing it? Maybe other avenues need to be explored, from months-long blocks to a one-year block. But an indefinite block? It would be nice if there was a formal process to determine that this is the right decision. I'm bringing this up because despite his behaviour, he has been a valuable contributor. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Indefinite block. Long time coming. --DHeyward 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to note since no one is admitting it. Dheyward, Tom harrison, and MONGO were all involved in "incidents" on an article with Giovanni33. They disagree with his edits to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. As for endorse or not, I do not for the reasons noted above, 1 block in a year seems to suggest they are doing very well on the road to improvement. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't had 1 block in a year, Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went 9 months and was not blocked, but has been blocked now another 4/5 times in the last 2.5 months...that on top of his abuse of sock accounts previously and his more than a dozen previous blocks, all for edit warring. If he isn't indefinitely blocked and someone shorthens his block and he resumes his usual behavior than the situation needs to be presented to arbcom.--MONGO 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a block in June that was overturned. Another in August, then this one. So prior to this he had 1 in about a year. YOu also should have acknowledged how many of those blocks in the past you were involved in as the block admin, then later seemed to bump into Giovanni again while not one. So actually considering the block this year to stick was in August, and his last one prior was September 2006, its been 11 months. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are his year-long disruptive revert-warring acceptible if the 3RR was technically not violated? I have evidence below of his revert-warring involving possible stalking.--Endroit 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely not, about as disruptive as those who edit warred with him. He could not have done it alone, so is there a motion to indef ban all of those people? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the other editors were nearly as disruptive as Giovanni33: Stalking, using socks, evading blocks, filing false 3RR reports, and whatnot. Other editors have already stated that Giovanni33 appears to be stalking John Smith's. Giovanni33 appears to be a user, whose major purpose is to stalk another user. Can you say the same about the other editors you are referring to, SevenOfDiamonds?--Endroit 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Have not examine in detail. I have not seen anything regarding socks other then what happened very long ago, over 11 months. The 3RR reports were not false, the cited point of them was he was also involved in them. As for stalking, if you are reffering to your below items, there was no disruption is seems, so it was not "wikistalking." I am not really here to argue their points, just state that edit warring is not a single person thing. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since User:El_C first commented that he would restore the original 48 hour block, a consensus has formed that this indefinite block is appropriate. However, I am concerned that El_C has decided to ignore consensus based on this edit to Giovanni's talk page.[7] Restoring Giovanni's original block would be wildly inappropriate. The community has spoken, and Giovanni has worn out his welcome. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not at all see a consensus here for an indef block, particularly since the discussion is ongoing. In addition to El C's objection above I objected below and I also see objections from Proabivouac, Chaser, Lar, HongQiGong, and CBDunkerson. Several folks have proposed a long-term 1RR parole or something similar and that as well as other options should be considered. I don't think El C is ignoring consensus since there is none. Rather the indef block was far too drastic of a measure to take on an established user, particularly since the admin who indef blocked him did so after only a couple of people had commented here and did so less than 90 minutes after the thread was started.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All I ever hear about Giovanni33 on this board and WP:AN is that he's edit warring with someone. Honestly, we do not need users like him who disrupt the project in the long run by constantly pushing their own point of view in their edits and causing drama by constantly gaming the system by feeling that he's entitled to X amount of reverts a day (three is an arbitrary number, and was simply chosen as a limit). We are much better off without such a user on Wikipedia. Even if there's a mass of consecutive blocks and unblocks, Giovanni33's block log is extensive and solely 3RR blocks. Users who constantly edit war should be excised from the project long before their block log gets to Giovanni33's length, or Nixer's length as mentioned below.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be a rule

As a side note, I'm getting slightly annoyed at the sight of people like this fellow and Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) running up 20/30 blocks for 3RR before anyone takes any serious action other than a day's enforced wikibreak? For one thing, many admins do not implement 3RR blocks in an escalating manner, so it seems, and just continue to add on another 24 hours of enforced wikibreak to the block log. This seems...strange. Perhaps a system whereby after 7 non-overturned blocks for edit-warring/3RR, a bot automatically leaves a note here informing us that this is so? Then we can decide what action to take, rather than letting unrepentant edit warriors get away with it time and time again. Moreschi ^Talk 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this scenario will lead to an increase in block shopping either here or on IRC, but otherwise I'm all for it. Nixer's case is quite instructive, as it took me more than a year to have him sent away from Wikipedia for good. Another case that needs to be recalled here is Eiorgiomugini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): a knowledgable editor, but also an incredibly stubborn revert warrior who was simply impossible to get along with. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just clarify the situation about Nixer he was not banned until I caught him abusing his socks and even then I doubt he would have been banned if he hadn't used them to evade his previous blocks. In fact, Zoe's indef block was overturned by Sir Nick despite his huge block log. Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also not community banned until way after his disruptive behavior finally exhausted community patience and at least one very good editor had been blocked for breaking 3RR when he cleaned up after him. I'm all for assuming good faith but there is such a thing as WP:DUCK EconomicsGuy 08:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Probably needs a new noticeboard instead of here, though. This proposal deserves serious discussion. Raymond Arritt 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add my voice to those endorsing an indefinite block. Enough is enough, really. This guy was let off the hook last time because he was being "ganged up on because of his politics." Instead of taking that incident as a warning, he's continued the exact same behavior that's gotten him in trouble many times in the past. I have to agree with Dmcdevit, Durova, etc etc that it's time to stop enabling this kind of editing. I'm not really impressed with the excuse that "others are doing it too", and letting him evade responsibility for his behavior again is just enabling more of the same. The only special or unequal treatment I'm seeing here is that people are still making excuses for a guy with his record of edit-warring, WP:BATTLE issues, and blocks. I'm opposed to undoing the indefinite block; at the very least, if the block is overturned, a 6-month or 1-year 1RR probation needs to be in effect that, if violated, leads to an indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

However completely ignoring that others are doing it to just leaves the same situation for the next person. You cannot edit war alone. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The others should be looked at, but there's no doubt in my mind that G33 has earned an indefblock. Worthy contributors are subject to the same rules as everybody else. -- But|seriously|folks  16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All due respect though, why were more extensive blocks (as in months-long or year-long block) not considered before jumping to an indefinite block? Or how about a 1 revert/article/week enforcement? I agree that his continued edit warring is a serious matter, there's no question about that. But imposing an indefinite block without going through a formal process of WP:Arbitration seems excessive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Those were all done. He pledged 2RR 6 weeks ago. He was blocked for 2 weeks only 3 weeks ago but it was reduced by El_C. He has simply not taken any of this to heart. Admins who have reduced his block have done neither him nor the project a good service. Even now, they seem to believe Giovanni33 is the victim, not the community. --DHeyward 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, a true POV warrior. But it seems like an admin is objecting it will have to be next time. - Merzbow 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block is far too draconian. Giovanni most definitely has a tendency to edit war and that is not good. But I disagree that he is merely a POV warrior. He has made good contributions here, and strikes me as quite rational and open to suggestions, be they on article content or his own behavior. More significant than his blocks in 2006 is the fact that he was not blocked at all for a long period of time and thus seems to be showing signs of improvement. Usually the default here at Wikipedia seems to be to forget past indiscretions if improvement is shown. Admittedly Giovanni seems to be slipping back into pushing the 3RR boundaries in the last couple of months so presumably some kind of action should be taken. I agree with Mastcell above that a 6-month (that seems good for starters, it could easily be extended) 1RR probation might be the way to go. This would allow Giovanni to continue to make good contributions (which we want) but prevent him from edit warring. If he continued to edit war while on probation longer blocks would be put into effect. That seems by far the best solution to me as I don't think Giovanni is just a problem user and I don't think it's impossible for him to reform his behavior. Incidentally, Giovanni's block log is a bit deceptive and, although unacceptable, not as bad as it seems if you just glance at it. For example all of the apparent blocks from July 6-10 in 2006 (there were 13 of them) seem to revolve around one issue and involve a classic case of wheel warring. In the end Giovanni was not blocked, so what appears to be 13 blocks could actually be viewed as none (or 1 which was contested). In total it seems Giovanni was blocked about 10 times in 2006 (which is no good obviously) and 3 times so far in 2007.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ^^James^^ 22:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record I also object to the arbitrary banning of a long time editor. The double standards shown here and the clutching at straws smack of a kangaroo court. If there is a problem with an editor then that is what the RfC and RfAr channels for. Sophia 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I also object to arbitrary banings of long time users. Established users should be given a chance to improve or correct their behavior and should only be permanently banned after a long period of ignoring the rules, incivility, edit warring, pov pushing, tenditious edition and with a corresponding record of blocks documenting such behavior. In the case of Giovanni, it seems that yet another short term block may be as futile as the last dozen blocks. I've seen other editors merit indefinite blocks with behavior and block logs not nearly as egregious as that of this particular editor. Any block, whether indefinite, long or even short could hardly be considered arbitary in this particular case.Dman727 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say this is arbitrary, maybe a little hasty but hardly surprising that editors are starting to consider longer term blocks in this case. There isn't a "right" to edit here you know, and if someones editing becomes agitated enough it starts to be a waste of time to keep dealing with it. RxS 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We have the Arbcom and editor review at RfC. Decisions become arbitrary when an admin gets a bee in their bonnet and can't be bothered to go through the proper channels. Be honest - if you don't think they did the job properly last year when they didn't ban him just say so. Other editors have been allowed to walk away from accounts with clouds hanging over them but Gio is stuck with a long history that comes back to haunt him. One person doesn't edit war by themselves and perm banning someone for reporting 3RR is breathtakingly unfair. Sophia 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom and RFC are not the only routes to long terms blocks, in fact I'd bet all the money in my pocket that more long term/indef blocks were done without Arbcom or RFC involvement than with their involvement. And as far as taking two to tango you're right. Consistent edit warriors need to be shown the door when they've started to take up too much time...whatever the POV and wherever their editing takes place. If Giovanni has an editor that he's warring with then that editor needs some attention also. But that doesn't mean Giovanni needs to be released from any responsibility, it just means someone needs to shine the light in other directions as well. RxS 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree that Giovanni shouldn't be "released from any responsibility" - but that does not necessary mean he should get an indefinite block just because few admins has lost patience with him. To be honest, it makes me question the integrity of the admin population if they make such severe decisions based simply because they've lost patience. Something should be done about Giovanni, yes. But an indef block on an editor without going through ArbCom? I would disagree with that even for editors that I dislike. It's not like Giovanni was vandalising or making legal threats. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with SOPHIA here. I do not think the banning of Giovanni33 was the right decision. It appears that there is not a consensus here, I hope our voices are recognized. Zurishaddai 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it telling that Giovanni33's political opposite User:TDC has a block log almost as outrageous, yet there is nobody calling for his head. Considering who gets singled out for a ban, this is obviously completely one-sided. Zurishaddai 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If you believe User:TDC has done something wrong you can post a notice here, or at CSN or RfC or ArbCom. --DHeyward 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, something as severe as an indef block should go through ArbCom. Gio might be an edit warrior, but he's not a vandal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment assumes that being an incorrigible edit warrior is somehow not as bad as being a vandal. I don't think that's true. Hard-core edit-warriors, WP:BATTLE violators, and people who refuse to work via consensus are, in the long run, far more damaging to the project than run-of-the-mill vandals. MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Sophia has said as well. I don't think an indef is the right way to go here. I'd support some sort of revert restrictions if that is considered necessary but an indef is way too much. Sarah 04:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of possible stalking by Giovanni33

I'm sorry if this is a mistake. But Giovanni33 appears to have been stalking John Smith's and deliberately engaging in revert-wars, even in articles he's not familiar with.

The most prominent example I've seen is the following revert-warring by Giovanni33 in Japan (and the only edits ever by Giovanni33 in that article):

• 19:09, 6 March 2007
• 19:38, 6 March 2007

This appears to be in response to the following, and similar edits by John Smith's:

• 19:13, 5 March 2007

I have been monitoring the Japan article, where John Smith's received a barnstar from User:Nihonjoe for bringing that article to FA status, whereas Giovanni33 appeared from nowhere there just to revert John Smith's.--Endroit 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Take a look the recent history of Bruce Cumings. It would appear that John Smith's stalked Giovanni33 over there. And please, anybody can give anybody else a Barnstar. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits in Bruce Cumings appears to have been preceded by this discussion. Also, User:Nihonjoe is not just any editor; he is one of the leaders in the WP:JA project.--Endroit 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A clarification from the indef blocking admin

I'd have no objection to trying a lesser sanction such as a topic ban or 1RR. I am also quite willing to evaluate the behavior of other parties this editor may have edit warred with. Note that I do not automatically buy into it takes two to tango, so please provide evidence to examine below this post. I'll also respectfully request that this discussion move to WP:CSN where it can be archived as a case study in how to address a difficult but established editor. My own position on the matter is that editors do not earn a get out of jail free pass or a license to edit war by crossing some threshold and becoming established editors: a critical view of that thesis would argue it's a fancy way of saying double standard or hypocrisy. I'm all for encouraging useful edits and productive behavior, but when a user's long term effect is to decrease the productivity of other editors by more than the net value of his or her own contributions, eventually external solutions become necessary. We hope that dispute resolution and short term blocks solve the problem. Sometimes that doesn't work and then we're left with a difficult dilemma. Yes, the options at hand here are limited and crude. Let us all recall that Giovanni33 placed himself and us in this difficult position, and he should reasonably expect that consequences are at hand. Durova^Charge! 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW I've posted an unblock offer to Giovanni33's user talk page. Basically I'm asking him to put together some proposal for lesser sanctions. I'll propose that to the community on his behalf and if the community accepts it I'll lift the indef. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. Again, I am open to any proposals, providing there is parity. El_C 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This was his pledge 6 weeks ago on a 3RR/edit warring transgression that went unblocked. A few weeks later, he was blocked again for edit warring with a different editor on a different article. That block was reduced by El_C. This weeks edit war was with yet a different editor, a different blocking admin and a different article. If the 2RR pledge didn't mean anything and his blocks keep getting reduced, why is their a belief that anything other that a long period of quiet reflection will produce a change in behaviour? --DHeyward 07:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I opened this on the CSN noticeboard as suggested. --DHeyward 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's really not necessary. Why should it matter which board is used to discuss this action? It's already a full discussion here, and bringing to CSN will only start an AFD mentality.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a different question. Solving an incident is one thing, indefintely blocking an editor is another. Durova requested it and it's her name on the block log. Please respect that. --DHeyward 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes this discussion here any different than one that will be started at CSN? Starting a vote (which is what it always ends up being at CSN) isn't going to solve anything. There's enough discussion here to gauge consensus that we don't need bulleted points with '''endorse''' or '''oppose''' to show us what to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33's last block in August was discussed on AN/I. An admin pretty much unilaterally decided to reduce the block. G33 was in an edit war with a different user on a different article and the block was made originally by a different admin than the ones here. The discussion here appears to mirror that one with the same admin seeking a course of action without regard to community consensus. We have three things at work: 1) This ANI which appears headed to same as the last one (i.e. overturned by a single admin) 2) Durova's noble attempt to negotiate appropriate behaviour and 3) community consensus from the CSN. Option 2 is obviously the most favourable. Option 1 is not acceptable the second time around and one way to ensure that is option 3. Community consensus is an important gauge that an admin should be weighing when deciding to shorten or overturn a block. --DHeyward 06:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here will be more indicative of community consensus than the notice board. A more diverse group edit here than there. Sophia 06:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that admins are more inclined to take unilateral action based on input here than on CSN. For example, Durova blocked very quickly based on evidence here. Likewise, El_C seems inclined to unblock based on his interpretation of fairness rather than consensus. This approach has its merits as well as detractions but it highlights the difference between the two noticeboards. CSN is geared towards achieving consensus while AN/I is geared towards solving problems requiring immediate admin intervention and is primarily consultative, not consensus based. --DHeyward 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to indef-block ... there are two distinct groups of users who want different outcomes. A lot of admins have expressed disquiet about jumping straight to an indef block, and I think that the current situation is saying that we as a group stuffed up over the past year and failed to resolve this appropriately. My views are broadly in line with those expressed by Sophia. Orderinchaos 10:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think dispute resolutions have worked in the case of Giovanni33 or would work now. Would be nice if he would change his ways, but after this many blocks and disruption, I doubt it. I have to support the indef block. --Aude (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If not an indef block than at the very least something more than just a day or two. He may not have 'been a problem for nine months', but he still has an extensive history of being blocked for this sort of thing. Someone somewhere has to put their foot down. HalfShadow 01:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've opened an arbitration request. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing of David Hicks by User:Prester John

User:Prester John is engaging in disruptive editing by massive non-consensual reverts of David Hicks page. Numerous editors have reverted his changes (up to 3 a day without substantive justification or talkpage discussion, using Edit Summaries that mispresent the edit and/or prior editors[8][9][10] and are aggressively POV [11]):

• [12] Mdhowe - "revert vandalism" by Prester John
• [13] Bless sins - Undid revision 157511776 by Prester John
• [14] Bless sins - "rv, mass removal of content; the article seems fine as it is"
• [15] 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)

Linda Hamilton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Griot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

revert and notice given - [16]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Griot responds to Admin:

(→Mom, Dad, It Hurts! Can I Borrow the Gun?) Couldn't care less! Couldn't care less about the quality of contributions to this project? Or what? Hey fella, are you an administrator or a busybody? Griot 07:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/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 [17]-- 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 [18]. -- 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[19] that a city/club moved from "West Germany" in 1989 to "Germany" in 1991, skipping the 1990 season in the process, too. I have encountered so many ridiculous mistakes and misuses on Wikipedia that I have decided to tackle this problem, which mainly consists of the attitude "we've gotten used to our habits, don't bother us with facts". This also refers to editors born as late as the 1980s or even early 1990s, helpfully trying to educate persons who witnessed only few live broadcasts of football games - for example the last nine editions of an obscure thing called "FIFA World Cup final", in which one team with two names happened to be involved five times. BTW, did someone somewhere mention "sour grapes" yet? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Ethnic war brewing, and abuse of WP:MINOR

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

• For nationality, he replaces United Kingdom (sovereign nation, U.N. member, passport) with Scotland (neither of them) every day [20][21]. To me that's not content dispute, but unencyclopedic.
• Conceals all his changes under abuse of WP:MINOR tag.

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

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

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

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

Please clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Scotland isn't a sovereign nation. Readers of an encyclopedia expect "Nationality" to give them the sovereign nation, the U.N. member, the passport -- which is UK/British. There is no Scotland at the U.N., and no Scot passport. This is unencyclopedic, and playing on words, the UK's internal affairs and diplomatic choice of words isn't Wikipedia's concern. And the original "Nationality: British (Scottish)" had it covered anyway for full information, so the reader is even free to decide. Doing otherwise would be as unencyclopedic as writing "Nationality: Texan". Not all readers are from the UK or the U.S.
• There is nothing on the talk page because the incriminated user first changed it without edit summary and concealed as a minor edit [22], then after I changed it back with full rationales he simply reverted again as minor edit without any counter-rationale[23], thus displaying contempt for the point made and showing that he's not in for discussion but for ethnic warring. For centuries people have been ready to die for a piece of fabric, today they're ready to be banned for a word on Wikipedia, nihil nove sub sole.
• And sorry for asking another, but I would really like to know what are our policies or guidelines or arbitration cases about this topic? When I posted this, I only expected an admin to brandish a WP:SOMETHING that would lay down the law on the matter -- not a POV discussion about whether someone's fans would considerer him this or that. Is this an encyclopedia or a fanzine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various comments and answers:

• First, I need to apologize for how this turned into a long debate: as explained above, I honestly believed that in 2007 we had a WP:SOMETHING policy or guideline or arbitration precedent about such a simple encyclopedic topic as nationality fields, and I thus believed that WP:ANI was a good place for asking quick enforcement of such a policy. So it looks like we have no actual policy or guideline after all... I'll try to propose one in RFC or Pump/Policy, Wikipedia is becoming a total mess and a laughingstock with respect to nationalities, apparently everybody is too scared of ethnic terrorists to move, but we need something on that topic. It's not just the British thing, have a look from the Categories to articles about Canadian people (lots of "Canadian" deleted in favor of just "Quebec" or "Quebecois"), or Belgian people (most of them have erased "Belgian" and replaced it with "Flemish" or "Walloon", the two subnations that hate each other). I haven't even looked into Basque, Breton, Corsican, and the like...
• To ThuranX: I think that having a lead section say that "Sean Connery is a British actor from Scotland" is hardly the pejorative apocalypse you're writing about; the "clear information" you ask is precisely both terms, not a single one; the objective facts of British passport, U.N. representation, or UK embassies aren't addressed; and if you invoke Readers, the NPOV is to give them both "British" and "Scotland" and let them decide which piece or pieces of information is useful to them, since both are true.
• To JzG/Guy: about "British (Scottish) is OK, if a bit weaselly", I believe that no peace will come if we just try to impose the sovereign citizenship only, and also that it's often accurate and useful to mention subnationalities or local ethnies that have their own identity or a history of separatism. As long as it's sourced, I wouldn't be bothered by some infoboxes telling "British (Scottish)", "Canadian (Quebec)", "Belgian (Flemish)", or even "Spanish (Basque)". We just need to keep it to actual territories and forbid racial/ancestry things such as "German (Turkish)" or "French (Jewish)".
• To Figaro: you can't rewrite the article's edit history, you didn't "commented that Graeme Garden was born in Scotland", you deleted thrice the word British in "Nationality: British (Scottish)". And the fact that most Wikipedia articles are currently owned by ethnic warriors (such as our international laughingstock "Charlie Chaplin is an English actor" where they delete the word "British" on sight everytime it's inserted) doesn't make it right nor a point; for instance, if all our articles about Muslim subjects were dated using the Muslim calendar, that still wouldn't make it right or encyclopedic, just massively needed to be changed (and how far is it before such madness happens, if we let it slip?). It just means we need a policy so as to be able to clean the nationality fields of those unencyclopedic articles, and ban the ethnic warriors who'd revert again. Also, the difference between "Nationality: British" and "Nationality: Scottish" isn't what you call "nitpicking". No dictionary or encyclopedia use your "Nationality: Scottish"; this point, too, is never addressed.
• For the record, the edit war has continued after this discussion: Figaro reverted again so as to delete "British" (and also delete the infobox and replace it with a made-up table)[24] – so I have restored the article[25], then tried compromise #1 by adding the additional info he wanted but this time inside the regular infobox[26], then compromise #2 by removing the Flagicon from the infobox's "Nationality: British (Scottish)"[27] (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)

Inspector_Lee is fake, and has several other accounts

Resolved

 – It's clear this is nothing to be concerned with. --Haemo 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This user Inspector_Lee definitely has some other accounts, look at his contribution, he created that account specially to stalk his "enemy" summerthunder. he has not done anything constructive to wikipedia, other than stalking that summerthunder person. and he always uses that account whenever he thinks that his stalkee summerthunder is back online. so someone should ban this faker's account, he definitely has some other accounts which is against wikipedia's rules. --Tuand029 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The very first edit from User:Tuand029. Interesting. Raymond Arritt 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts allows for such single purpose user accounts. As long as the account isn't being used improperly, it's allowed. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this wouldn't be User:SummerThunder, would it? To anyone concerned, there is personal information on my regular account. I created this one to participate in the ST sock-bopping shenanigans, which incurred onto some articles i edit. I'm cool with my personal info being visible on site amongst collaborators, but all in all i'd rather not leave a calling card with where i live, etc, to some others.Inspector Lee 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to track an indef blocked user who abuses multiple accounts to circumvent their indefinite block. In fact, it's encouraged. We need more people to do this, and if they feel they need to use single purpose accounts to do, that's a legitimate use. --Haemo 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Beat socks with socks, i say! Inspector Lee 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not funny. WAVY 10 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Near funny. Someguy1221 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's up? Is there work to do? Scabbers the Rat 22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Inspector Lee, you may want to consider dropping a small note on your talk page to that affect. Not too much information, just that this is a secondary account used in a manner permitted by the sock policy. Natalie 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put something on my talkpage to that effect today. Going after ST has been fun, but I may try extending my field of permabanned possible targets as I have the time. Inspector Lee 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. 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 ([37] [38]) 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 – [39] [40]. 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)

Molter Karoly image

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

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

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

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

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)

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: [41]), that someone would start at very least start blocking the sockpuppets, if not the base account for continuing to edit war and add libelous material. The Evil Spartan 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lexicon's block of Iwazaki

As amply demonstrated by these incidents, [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], 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.[47] 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.[48] 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.[49]

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.[50]

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 [51][52][53] 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 [54] by User:Tariqabjotu for harassing User:Lustead identifying the user with Rajsingha and AFD [55] 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 [56],[57],[58].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)

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)

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

In this diff, Sam Wightkin, a victim of libel, wants his attack entry removed in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

Legal threat User:Real77

Contentious and difficult user is making legal threats.[59] It's not clear from WP:Legal what I do now, tag it, what? KP Botany 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 [60] and [61]. 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 ([62]). x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

improper ? licencing

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

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

The following are the images uploaded by you:

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

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

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

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

User:Milk-maid

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

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

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

Removal of AFD nomination

Resolved

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

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

Merge Template has no image?

I noticed last night that the merge template had no image, but assumed someone was noodling with it, and it would be back in the AM. It's not. As the images often work as a shorthand for regulars who might gloss over the text of templates like that, can we get it back soon? thanks you. Example here: [63] ThuranX 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be honest, given this [64] 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)

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)

Fake admin???

Resolved

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. [[65]]. 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 [66] - 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)