Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive299

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


WP:DUCK (or not) on Conch Republic[edit]

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 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) joining in briefly as well.

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

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

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

Guy with good faith edits but...[edit] (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[edit]

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

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.

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

No. Consider the possibility, given the other good edits by the user, that they are not clear what the tags are for or what is required to have them removed. Perhaps you could explain to him/her on his/her talk page? ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If he continues after being told this, report here.Rlevse 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of blocked Float954[edit]

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

I knew that username was suspicious. El Greco (talk · contribs) 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Report all this per WP:SOCK.Rlevse 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New Ron liebman sockpuppets[edit]

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)


Resolved: edits removed, user already warned
  • Caoimin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has twice made potentially defamatory comments in breach of WP:BLP about Stephanie Flanders[12] [13]. Warning was given after 1st edit. It would seem reasonable to completely remove all evidence if this is possible. I don't know if this is the correct place as reporting problems is so fragmented and difficult on WP and as it's not now a current incident the WP:AIV is inappropriate, if not please can you send it to the correct place - Thanks. John 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the edits from the history. If he does something similar again, give him a {{uw-biog4}} and then report to WP:AIV if he still does not stop. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Improper licensing on about ten images[edit]


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 · edit 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:

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

Think you want: WP:PUI. I'll do the dirty work though. The Evil Spartan 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Velebit, Purger, Guivon, et al, and IP[edit]

(et al)

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

Nah, I wouldn't worry about collateral damage. 99.9% of addresses out there have no edits, and the ones that are multi-user addresses are usually quite obvious. This one isn't it. You would have been quite appropriate to block the thing for 1 year, and a hard block at that, especially given that the checkuser turned down the request. The Evil Spartan 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I was the checkuser that investigated this IP, if that wasn't clear. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot tagging fair-use images with imperfect rationales for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

I've already started a thread about it here. Let's discuss this in one place. Thx. El_C 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty; I'll see you there. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Linda Hamilton[edit]

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 [edit]

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:

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:

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. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
revert and notice given - [14]. JaakobouChalk 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!.

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) --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)

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)

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

User:Matthead and Germany/West Germany[edit]

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

Most of his edits seem to be being reverted by other editors, though in some places he's made the edit twice, and may be approaching 3RR. I'll leave a note at his page. ThuranX 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
ArtVandelay13 (talk · contribs) himself concedes above that "West Germany" was only an informal name for the (BTW still existing) Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990, as well as for sport teams like the Germany national football team which is fielded since 1908 by the German Football Association. The team was and is called Germany even during the German Empire eras of Emperor Wilhelm, Weimar Republic, and Hitler. Its history continued after WW2, as accepted by FIFA in 1950, as well as in 1990 when the separate East Germany disappeared. Some people have pushed their view by trying to establish West Germany national football team as a separate article, a POV-fork which was replaced by the proper redirect again (see discussion in which many revealed both ignorance and Anti-German attitude). Links to this POV article had been planted in over 200 articles, a number which was reduced by me recently. It is ArtVandelay13 (and others) who makes many destructive POV-pushing edits that go against consensus by reverting like in [15]-- Matthead discuß!     O       12:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia, and the common English name for The Federal Republic of Germany until 1990 was West Germany, as opposed to East Germany for the The German Democratic Republic. Of course term West Germany was unknown within the Federal Republic, since they term the nation Deutschland anyway, but the DDR was referred to as "Ostdeutschland" (East Germany) and the BRD as "Westdeutschland" as well as their formal titles. The appropriate English language names for both countries are established in the principle WP articles, and therefore those conventions are to be followed. Ultimately, consensus is against you - multiple editors are reverting you and you are in the minority in the discussions. You should now cease your unilateral revisions. LessHeard vanU 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The football team remained the same in 1990. The "common English" separation into pre-1990 "West German nft" and post-1990 "German nft" is artificial, and not backed up by any serious source. It is informal, like calling the early-1950s Hungarian nft Golden Team, see Category:Nicknamed groups of soccer teams. While nobody would claim that the pre-1956 Hungarian Revolution team was not Hungarian, the pre-1990 German team is called "West German" and claimed to be something different, just because East Germany vanished. Current use by said multiple editors violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It often creates a mess, like a town and team being called West German in 1989 and German in 1991, with 1990 being left out, see my example at the RfD (link below). -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Post World War 2 and pre 1991 there were two German football teams that competed in FIFA sanctioned matches and tournaments (and played against each other?) The fact that the current national team retains the title of one of those entities does not mean that the former owner of the name was the national team at the expense of the other. Again, and more importantly, it is the custom and practice of referring to the Bonner Republic as West Germany in the English Language Wikipedia. Please conform to the existing standards. LessHeard vanU 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In the 1950s, there were three German football teams that competed in FIFA sanctioned matches and tournaments. Please look at 1954 World Cup qualifiers and a map, and then tell which team, if any, should be called "West German". How come that the peaceful access of a state to the FRG in 1957 is overlooked by you while the peaceful access of five states to the FRG in 1990 is treated as a bigger deal than the border changes between the World Wars? These had no effect on the naming of the DFB team in English - or should "Huns nft" and "Krauts nft" be used for the 1910s and 1920s, maybe? -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Matthead, Just stop. You've shopped this issue to multiple forums. You got the same answers each time: This is En.Wikipedia, and as such, reflects En Language use. You don't like that. We get it. You want it changed. We get it. It's not going to change. Find other ways to contribute to wikipedia, or better yet, go to De.Wikipedia, and contribute there. That's a good solid WP, enjoy it. ThuranX 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how illogical the different name appears to you Matthead, the fact is, it happened, and it was their name - not a nickname nor a racial slur, and you cannot rewrite history. ArtVandelay13 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

"The editor" has requested the deletion of the redirect [16]. -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop this, everyone uses West Germany in the english talking sense. Talking about something in post-1990 and saying Germany, ppl will probably think you're referencing Germany as a whole, and not just West Germany. ps. re-instate the West Germany national football team Chandlertalk 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, people accept that the official name was never West Germany. People accept that "West Germany" is rarely used in Germany itself. People accept that the DFB and the national team are - officially - unchanged since reunification. People accept that English-speaking people often refer to the West German team as simply Germany. But you have to accept that, in English, "West Germany" is the most common name for the country, and its teams, by an overwhelming majority, up to and including th most official records and most mainstream media. The English language Wikipedia has to reflect this.
This clearly isn't going to get through to Matthead, so I'd say to the admins that the sheer number of edits are difficult for mere users to revert, and it's difficult to see that Matthead can be stopped mere debate and conversation. ArtVandelay13 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It has to be accepted that "West German(y)" is an informal name which might be used for additional information, but never in lieu of a correct name - surely not in an encyclopedia, unless it aspires to mirror the sloppiness of mainstream media like tabloid newspapers. While it is okay to mention "West" here or there, it is ridiculous to insist[17] that a city/club moved from "West Germany" in 1989 to "Germany" in 1991, skipping the 1990 season in the process, too. I have encountered so many ridiculous mistakes and misuses on Wikipedia that I have decided to tackle this problem, which mainly consists of the attitude "we've gotten used to our habits, don't bother us with facts". This also refers to editors born as late as the 1980s or even early 1990s, helpfully trying to educate persons who witnessed only few live broadcasts of football games - for example the last nine editions of an obscure thing called "FIFA World Cup final", in which one team with two names happened to be involved five times. BTW, did someone somewhere mention "sour grapes" yet? -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Insulting all the editors of Wikipedia as being too young to 'get it' is lame. It's quite simple, it's been explained over and over again. At this point, all I can see is some sort of bizarre POV thing going on. You ignore EVERYONE, and repeatedly declare YOU are right, and YOU are the only one who knows it. ThuranX 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't reduce the entire English-speaking world to "tabloid newspapers" - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should aspire to accuracy, and that does not mean disagreeing with FIFA and the IOC over who won its tournaments. NB the error with that Rummenigge article is nothing to do with reunification, they had simply missed a year by accident, listing 1989-90 as 1990-91 and missing 1991-92. Otherwise, the FRG/GER distinction is entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talkcontribs) 09:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Molter Karoly image[edit]

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

hmm. Not sure. we don't have a PD-Hungary tag (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain. Rlevse 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Solved by another user.Rlevse 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry to add libelous info on John McCain[edit]

Is now confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knivesout8. I respectfully request, that as this editor has continued to add this information after being warned, and continued to sockpuppet (surprise! brand new editor comes along and readds the material: [18]), that someone would start at very least start blocking the sockpuppets, if not the base account for continuing to edit war and add libelous material. The Evil Spartan 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Knivesout8 and Jumanjisalvo blocked indefinitely, IP blocked for a month with account creation disabled. Anything besides those three? Picaroon (t) 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well goodness, glad to see Wikipedia actually works: someone blocked for sockpuppetry and POV pushing! The Evil Spartan 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I knew Knivesout8 was a sock. As soon as it was created he attacked an admin and pushed pov on that article. Glad it was proven and action taken.Rlevse 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wybot mishandles iw links on templates[edit]

Apparently this is where I'm supposed to report that User:Wybot is misbehaving. It's incorrectly inserting/removing interwiki links on templates. See [19] and [20]. The first change causes the interwiki links to be included on all transcluded pages, while the second change removed valid interwiki links intended for the main template and inserted other interwiki links that should have been wrapped in a noinclude section to avoid being included on the main template. --PEJL 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is something better posted at User talk:WonYong. EVula // talk // // 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note there referring to this discussion. I was merely following the instruction at User:Wybot that said: "Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.", generated by {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}}. If that instruction is inappropriate, perhaps it should be changed. --PEJL 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's in case the bot is still screwing pages up and needs to be suddenly stopped. I'm not saying that the instructions are bad, I'm just saying that dropping the author a note is also fine. EVula // talk // // 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well then I guess posting here was appropriate, as it was still screwing up templates at the time, and did need to be suddenly stopped. It so happened that the bot operator responded within minutes, but I couldn't have known that at the time. --PEJL 18:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh~ I am sorry. I run " -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)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Would WP:AWB help? Either way, yes, the bot operator is responsible for any messups, but the discussion on the operator's talk page wasn't "removed", it was the nasty User:ClueBot III that archived it ([21]). x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
AWB may help. I also left a note on his talk page to address the concerns and fix the bot or it'll get shutdown.Rlevse 11:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
How are the notes messed up? I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. El_C 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to WP:AWB. I am not familiar with that tool, but as far as I could see, that tool gives rather limited assistance. Still every single article has to be manually edited and checked. And the list of messed-up articles is already available.
As an example of messed-up notes, se Featured Article City status in the United Kingdom (which should either be fixed, or it will soon become a "former" FA). In this case the destroyed part is not in the "References" section, but in the middle of the article (footnotes to a large table). (This article was even one of those listed already during the approval process, with the comment "I made 25 edits, but the robot has worked fine".) Somebody also explained the technical detail in User Talk:Alpta (later automatically archived, because the page owner created the page with auto-archiving). Oceanh 12:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Give me 12 hours to fix it. Alpta 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

improper ? licencing[edit]

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)
DenizTC 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. DenizTC 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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


This user has been making irritating changes to several articles ( 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[edit]


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. EdokterTalk 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Template has no image?[edit]

I noticed last night that the merge template had no image, but assumed someone was noodling with it, and it would be back in the AM. It's not. As the images often work as a shorthand for regulars who might gloss over the text of templates like that, can we get it back soon? thanks you. Example here: [22] ThuranX 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Block evasion[edit] is using to evade his block, as he said he would. -GnuTurbo 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

ILikePikachu (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Already blocked as I was entering a reminder to avoid attacks. I do concur with the block however. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Including the IP? I was threatened with the promise she'd harass me through my talk page as an anon, and my talk page is semi-protected because of BlackStarRock sockpuppets, leaving WODUP as the only other possible victim since he was the one with the banhammer. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The default settings for blocks (when blocking a username) is to block the underlying IP for 24 hours and block account creation. If this block had not blocked the underlying IP, there would have been a note to that effect in the block log. The IP can't be blocked for longer than 24 hours though, so s/he may show up later. There really isn't anything we can do about that until they make themselves known. Natalie 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Might want to check it against the user Iloveminun, which was banned by arbcom for a year for harassment, as both usernames follow the formula pronoun-positive verb-electric pokemon. Will (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Iloveminun wouldn't need to; her ban ended app. a month ago, and she's stale in CU eyes (unless she's edited within the past month). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Principles 7 and 8 still stand if it is Minun, though. Will (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
8 does not apply in this case; she did not resume the agenda of her "WAPAM" thing (the page is deleted and salted, but I believe admins would still be able to see the underlying edits) and the only page she's really disrupted is her own talk page, which is currently protected for 24 hours because of her gratuitous use of {{unblock}}. She did not revert anything I did to enforce the merge consensus (i.e. reverting her WAPAM-related mainspace edits), either. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon's block of Iwazaki[edit]

As amply demonstrated by these incidents, [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], Lexicon (previously Osgoodelawyer) has had a number of content disputes with Iwazaki on Wikipedia since at least November last year. He has repeatedly made uncivil comments to Iwazaki such as "okay, this is the last time I'm going to bother responding to you", "reply to yet another non-argument", left edit sums like "comment on what is clearly Iwazaki's IP voting" (about an IP from Ohio, while Iwazaki is from Japan) and made senseless, unproven allegations like "the last vote by the IP address is obviously you, Iwazaki".

In July he gave Iwazaki a "warning" based on a previous AN/I complaint by Taprobanus, but apart from saying "warned", Lexicon failed to reply to any of the subsequent postings questioning the validity of the warning.[28] Note, on that occasion Taprobanus directly posted on Lexicon's talk page asking him to comment on the report, instead of simply leaving it up to uninvolved administrators.[29] Yesterday, Lexicon blocked Iwazaki for 48hr for alleged "personal attacks", following another direct posting by Taprobanus on Lexicon's talk page.

On both occasions, the comments in question were those Iwazaki made calling Taprobanus a "contributor to racist websites". It has been previously proven here on AN/I that Taprobanus has contributed to websites such as and, both extremely racist websites, and repeatedly cited them in controversial Wikipedia articles.[30]

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

Also note, Taprobanus gave Lexicon a barnstar a few days before the first "warning", Iwazaki has never been blocked on Wikipedia for any reason before (he has been contributing since July 2006) and Lexicon hasn't blocked a user on Wikipedia since the 13th of August.[31]

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

Are you forgeting that Iwazaki asked for a block review. Which was denied by another admin who has never been involved in such disputes ? Have you forgoten that Iwazaki was warned multiple times before ? Including other Personal attacks on editors warned by an Admin. It seems that Lexicon is more than justified for that block! Watchdogb 06:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to your general point, an admin should know (and almost invariably does) when an action could be construed as controversial, and knows they have the option to seek an outside opinion before acting. From what you have outlined above, it may have been appropriate for Lexicon to do so. However, I am not personally well-versed in the finer details, nor have we heard from Lexicon here hence I pass no judgement. So, with regard to your specific point, if you feel this merits further examination you may wish to head over to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges Deiz talk 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Deiz, I created a RFC on Lexicon here, and notified him about it. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Lexicon warned in July on basis of a complaint in the ANi.[40]All this took place in the ANI July 26th 2007.
  • Warned. If he continues to further imply that you are racist, notify me. Lexicon (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[41] and user Taprobanus notified him leading to Iwasaki being blocked.I do not see him acting properly he asked Taprobanus to notify him in the ANI on 26th July 2007 which he did and it was reviewed by a neutral admin.All this was transparent.

While I strongly defend Iwasaki's right to his views I believe that his controversial comments are a violation of WP:CIVILand WP:NPA while he is free to express his views it is not necessary to post the same comments again and again he could have illusrated his points without these comments and further he is weakening by saying he would do so in the future [42] .Leaving aside the ban ,I do not see any hidden agenda as everything took based on what took place in the ANI on July 26th 2007.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

In this diff, Sam Wightkin, a victim of libel, wants his attack entry removed in this diff: . 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. DurovaCharge! 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it's too far down in the history for oversight, and there are too many revisions that need to be zapped. So I've done two things - I've deleted the suggester's edit, and I've courtesy blanked the section. This way it doesn't show up on Google. Maxim(talk) 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleting the vandal's edit but allowing page versions that contain the libel to exist violates the GFDL and will probably implicate the wrong person or IP as the vandal who did the libel. However, removing the libel from the live view is kosher. Jesse Viviano 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Allowing us to delete seriously libellous material from history is one of the basic reasons oversight was created. If the defamatory content is a serious enough real-world problem, a purely theoretical GFDL concern must yield. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New sock of user blocked yesterday[edit]

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

I don't see User:Snootchie44 being blocked. Navou banter 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like EliminatorJR blocked the sockpuppet, but not the sockmaster or the IP. However, there's not much doubt in this case, MR-WRIGLEY (talk · contribs) is even uploading the same screenshot that PixieGuard (talk · contribs) (the sock from yesterday) was. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked MR-WRIGLEY (talk · contribs) as a sock of Snootchie44 (talk · contribs). Navou banter 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

  • Quack. Quack quack. You can either believe that I'm a sad pathetic person who spends his life creating sock puppet accounts on Wikipedia and attempting to vandalise the system by uploading images and annoying administrators by wasting their time, or... no, the "or" is superfluous. Quack. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • search Occam's Razor into Wikipedia and read the article, the basic principle is that the simplest explanation is often the right one. Yes, a sock is the simplest explanation. And there is enough evidence to make that assumption. - Dean Wormer 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn that I blocked User:Snootchie44 when I blocked the first sockpuppet. Obviously I didn't, so I'll do it now and extend the block since he's created another one since. ELIMINATORJR 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Angrygurl2007 [edit]

Resolved: removed, user blocked

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

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

Need some assistance with User:Blytonite[edit]

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

Previous report, which was archived. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the images from the article, and am now looking into the history to see how many warnings he has been given. ElinorD (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left another explanation, with links to image policy pages, and with a warning that future violations will lead to a block. I've also speedied the two images, which he had simply re-uploaded, following a previous deletion. Thanks for bringing it here, Videmus. ElinorD (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Elinor, hopefully that's the end of the issue. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnomonist spam war[edit]

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

All 3 have been semi protected for 48 hours. I also changed SunDoggie's block to indef. A quick perusal of their contributions is enough to tell me they are not here to contribute constructively. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I will monitor these articles, if they continue to spam, they will be blocked, its sad that we have to protect pages because of crap like this. Block the perpetrators and be done with it. —— Eagle101Need help? 05:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Also blocked SunDoggie's IP sock Raymond Arritt 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually forgot one, Diptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). /SvNH 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Hopiakuta[edit]

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. EdokterTalk 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I got that impression when I encountered him some time ago - is there any kind of support group here for that sort of thing that he could be put in contact with? --Random832 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That would also explain the concern with others signing their comments. For the sighted, it is a simple thing to click on the history tab and see who made the edit. On the other hand, if you have to have it read to you, what an ordeal that must be. -- But|seriously|folks  01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm blind and use a screen reader - using Wikipedia effectively with a screen reader can be very difficult if one does not understand much about the technology. The closest thing to a support group for users like that is probably wikipedia talk:accessibility but I suspect English is not this user's native language. I've left a message at the talk page anyway and I'll see what I can do to help. Graham87 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well this is the response. Make of it what you will. Graham87 12:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In trying to make sense of it, I managed to track down the "extremely racist, extremely handicappist, policy page, about vandalism." - he objected to the inclusion of this image to illustrate the concept of "doppleganger" [which apparently meant, at the time, closer to "sock puppet" than to what we now use the term for] - He considered it racist because the subjects are black (though, no comment on whether he would think the same if a picture where the subjects were white had been used instead), and handicappist because either he considers being a twin to be a disability, or because of the (by no means obvious from the picture itself) fact that one of the subjects suffers from Aplastic anemia (though it seems the motivation was not in fact racism, but simply because it was an available picture of twins, the use of a picture of living people to illustrate it was certainly in bad taste) - he had some difficulty communicating this objection, leading to accusations of vandalism etc which understandably left him with negative feelings about the wikipedia community --Random832 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a somewhat detailed look at his contribs, and it looks like apart from incoherent talk page comments, it's mostly redirects from dubious misspellings. --Random832 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
With no disrespect to the user, it looks like neuro damage to me, like someone that's been in a really bad car accident at some point. Someone I knew at school went like this, one quirk which is similar to this person is repetition of similar or inverted forms, eg the "complex" bit in the diff. I could probably find emails from that person on one of my old hard drives to compare. Mostly they are still high-functioning but the bits related to communication, both inbound and outbound, are impaired. Orderinchaos 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
DonFphrnqTaub Persina (apparently Hopiakuta's real name) is a founding member of a disability living centre in California. He probably has a cognitive disability of some sort, which would explain his incoherent talk page comments and copying of error messages. I don't think we should prevent such users from editing Wikipedia, it's obvious Hopiakuta is acting in good faith. —Crazytales talk/desk 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been following Hopiakuta in curiosity for some time, and came to the same conclusion about the nature of his disability. I'm honestly not sure what the right thing is to do about it. I agree that he's acting in good faith, but his work is disruptive nonetheless. I would like to do something to help him but I'm not sure what the best way to reach him is. It's a puzzler. Tim Pierce 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It has now become known that the user is unable to access this noticeboard (due to its length and his technical problems). We should continue this discussion on his talk page instead. --Random832 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing of David Hicks by User:Prester John[edit]

User:Prester John is engaging in disruptive editing by massive non-consensual reverts of David Hicks page. Numerous editors have reverted his changes (up to 3 a day without substantive justification or talkpage discussion, using Edit Summaries that mispresent the edit and/or prior editors[43][44][45] and are aggressively POV [46]):

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

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


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. —— Eagle101Need 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). —— Eagle101Need help? 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the block of both parties. I reviewed this report myself last night and thought both parties should be blocked given the gaming and the very clear warning they were given not to resume edit warring once the protection expired, but I didn't respond to the report myself because of my own recent disputes with both of them, but particularly Brendan Lloyd. Brendan and Prester are very disruptive, POV edit warriors and aside from the dispute at David Hicks, they have been revert warring on multiple articles for many weeks. Both parties have had plenty of warnings and they know this behaviour is not on, to give another warning would be meaningless. Brendan says in his complaint above that, "a lower threshold for blocking would exist if edit-warring resumes", so there's no excuse for then going off and doing just that, even if it was "only twice". Sarah 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

New overly-aggressive copyright bot "OsamaK" flagging valid logos[edit]

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

The bot is doing its job correctly. The example image you listed has no source and no rationale. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. And the source you just added is totally inadequate; you actually have to tell us where you got it from, not just nebulously name an organization. Is it a scan from one of their press-releases? Did you download it from their website? Did someone in organization email it to you? What's the source? --Haemo 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's an example where the image had both a source and a fair-use rationale: Image:Canterbury tales.gif. The bot wasn't smart enough to recognize them. Bear in mind that policy doesn't require such info to be expressed in a standard format. --John Nagle 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a source for that image anywhere. --Haemo 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, go ahead and delete the logos. --John Nagle 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not really familiar with the WP:BRFA process, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like this particular bot account is running a number of robots, and the one in question was approved for a trial of 50 edits. As of now, a quick analysis of the bot history shows that it has made some ~5,000 edits in the past 10 days or so (that's just this particular automated procedure; not including other automated procedures from the same bot account). Furthermore, the bot was approved for this function: "Find the images without source and telling the uploader". I would say that tagging thousands of images for deletion falls outside "telling the uploader." The bot is making mistakes all over the place, since it expects sources to be in a specific format which is not required by any image policy. Moreover, as User:Yandman pointed out,[51] the interpretation of policy which the bot's work is premised on seems inconsistent with our image use policy ("Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" -- the bot ignores the former completely), and is at best contentious. I would strongly suggest that an admin hit the shutoff button until these matters are resolved. — xDanielx T/C 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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


I'm having a little difficulty in getting this user to abide by the fair use policy, concerning image resizing. After I resized Image:LTGC Vol.4.jpg (which is now deleted) from a 1030x1365 pixel image[52] to 220×289 pixel image[53], the user confronted me with [54]. He also appealed to Jimbo for my desysopping[55], and called me an "asshole" for following the "stupid little rule".[56] He then re-uploaded many of the previously deleted images in high resolution.[57]. Could someone have a talk with him, as any further interactions I have with him will likely end in a bloodbath. --DarkFalls talk 06:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Mass edit warring by User:Digby Tantrum‎[edit]

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

Page moves by User:Salpetersyra[edit]


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

It might help to mention any possible sockpuppets and any evidence