Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive312

Incivility by Fram

• Fram (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes

User:Fram had been incivil and outright hostile numerous times despite warnings on the "Potential problem concerning episode articles" thread here at ANB/I. The discussion has been moved to a subpage on ani to /Episodes. Fram shows no tendency to stop in a self admitting manner. As per Wikipedia:Civility, I request admin intervention. -- Cat ^chi? 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of starting a section on my supposed incivility without even notifying me of this thread... Furthermore, "As per Wikipedia:Civility, I request admin intervention."... Where does that page suggest admin intervention is needed for incivility? What the page says is that "In extreme cases (of heavy or repeated incivility), a user conduct Request for Comment may help resolve the matter."

As for the actual complaint: "despite warnings" should be read as "despite warnings by White Cat", genre "The tone of this pose is a personal attack". I invite everyone wqith time to spare to read the whole thread, especially of course the posts by White Cat and the posts by me. Fram 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you are active on ANB/I so I saw no reason to notify you. People active on ANB/I are often irked when notified. Wikipedia policies are not there simply to occupy hard drive space. Violations on any kind of any policy can lead to an admin intervention which can very well be a simple warning as well as a block. Often people change their tone after a single warning. If your tone (undermining people you are disagreeing with) there is community accepted and recommended behavior, I have nothing to add here. I most certainly feel calling someone "dishonest" isn't exactly civil. I want to conduct discussions in a civil environment and I do not feel I am asking for too much. -- Cat ^chi? 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

199.82.243.71

Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has decided to block 199.82.243.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "Edits to Great Global Warming Swindle". Now there have been 2 edits from this IP to the page, [1] and [2] - I wouldn't personally class these as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. The IP was not warned about any of their edits, and after the block, they receieved no notification. Raul's justification for the block was the the first revert served an adequate warning[3]. To me, this smacks of blocking an IP because they don't agree with their edits. I'd like to get a consensus together to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unblock. Although clearly pushing an agenda, we don't block without warning for issues like this. Viridae^Talk 00:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions: has this IP been used previously to vandalize global warming-related articles or introduce POV? Is there reason to believe it was being used by a blocked/banned user who routinely vandalizes these articles? While those edits basically introduced weasel words, they were, IMHO, in no way blatant enough vandalism to block on sight and without warning. Sorry, but how is a revert (with no edit summary) a warning? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I find no evidence of this being an edit by a banned user, and I would have thought Raul would have mentioned it when questioned about the block if it had anything to do with sock puppetry or a user that vandalises these kinds of articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hardly think Raul would use his rights "liberally" without good reason. I'd like to hear his take, of course. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Check his talk page. Ryan questioned him before bringing it here. Viridae^Talk 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion. To answer Fvasconcellos, contentious articles like this one tend to be subject to hit-and-run vandalism like that. It's very common, and the best way to deal with it is to revert, block, ignore Raul654 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too bad it wasn't vandalism or maybe your action would be justified. Kyaa the Catlord 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As Raul doesn't seem to want to comment further, I've unblocked the IP as his reasoning so far has been completely invalid. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock. And I must say I'm severely disappointed at Raul's reaction. This is just the same kind of out-of-control block by content-involved admins that cost PMA his adminship (RFC), and the same that recently got Davidcannon in serious trouble (see above on this board). From an arbitrator, this is really not acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock, the IP hadn't been warned at all and this isn't really vandalism (although the edits were questionable). Blocking immediately for a week was excessive. To Fvasconcellos: I don't think he has blocked because the IP had vandalised before (his last edit was a month ago), since Raul has recently blocked multiple IP editors for a week when they edited his favourite articles in a manner he disagreed with without warning [4][5]. Melsaran (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam or sockpuppet account creations

I was looking in the recent changes, and I saw four accounts being created exactly at the same time. Here is a copy of what I saw:

1. (User creation log); 00:14 . . Lawn Fan (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
2. (User creation log); 00:14 . . Riyaz1ahmed (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
3. (User creation log); 00:14 . . Pelontle (Talk | contribs) (New user account)
4. (User creation log); 00:14 . . Shahingh (Talk | contribs) (New user account)

I just wanted to inform an admin on this. Sorry if this was the wrong page to report this, but I didn't know where else to go. Please keep an eye on those accounts, as I will be too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Sock Puppets. Miranda 07:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. The new user log often has 20 or more accounts being created at the exact same time; they're almost always different people, just a coincidental flood. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 07:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read that right, last night. Those are just coincidental due to possibly hundreds or thousands of people reading the encyclopedia at a time. Miranda 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Undoing links

Resolved

Orangenyrealty (talk · contribs) has added 40-odd links to New York state pages to their property-related forum. Even with Twinkle, it's going to take a while to remove them. [6] Any way someone with super-buttons can revert? I'm leaving a message for them now. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely spam and a WP:COI, I'll remove them. Sam Blacketer 14:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sam Blacketer and Rjd0060 for your help! --Kateshortforbob 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Notta problem! - Rjd0060 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another impostor of me

Resolved

 – Indef blocked Shell ^babelfish 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Ott (talk · contribs) is another impostor of me, created by an indefinitely banned user, Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs). Please indefinitely block this attempted impostor, who has repeatedly harassed me by adding my personal information to various articles on Wikipedia. Examples of harassment:1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also, the impostor created this article that redirects to my user page. Please delete it. Parsecboy 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The impostor also attempted to delete this entry. Parsecboy 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift action. Parsecboy 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page, user blocked. You may wish to file a Wikipedia:Requests for oversight through e-mail to get the personal information completely removed. 1 != 2 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs)

I was warned for edit warring after I reverted a good faith edit by a new editor (the page in questions has been the subject of a rather lame edit war in the past but now has a consensus version). I responded to the warning, also highlighting the fact that reviewing Gp75motorsports's warnings I'm a bit concerned the editor is warning other editors where no edit warring is ever happening. Gp75motorsports response was that they would warn the other editor involved. Looking past the fact that the editor I reverted shouldn't be warned for anything (again, they made what I consider a good faith edit, they just are not aware of the history on the article and the consensus that was eventually reached), Gp75motorsports put a warning on some random IP's page... one who apparently has never edited wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I didn't get through to Gp75motorsports with my suggestion that they try and show a bit more tact and restraint in warning editors. Does someone else want to have a talk with this editor? I think they mean well, but really these contributions are only going to fan the flames of any heated discussions if by chance Gp75motorsports finds an actual edit war to warn individuals over.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through the user's contribs of the last day and they gave an IP a warning for editwarring on Freddie Mercury. And yet the only edit made by this IP in the last two years was fixing a spelling typo on the Freddie Mercury article. This sort of behaviour worries me as they're giving warnings to obvious good faith editors. AngelOfSadness talk 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right... and that is what needs to be addressed. I don't in any way doubt that Gp75motorsports is trying to help, but I'm concerned that the efforts are being misdirected at IP editors who have done nothing wrong.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GridiotinSanFranciski (talk · contribs)

Resolved

GridiotinSanFranciski, who signed onto Wikipedia a day ago, follows me around, reverting all my edits. To choose his name, he made a lousy pun on my name and hometown, which he got from my user page -- Griot, Gridiot (cute, that); San Francisco -- San Franciski (wha?). Then he proceeded to revert all my edits at these articles no matter how minor. Look into this sorry display of cyber stalking:

• Matt Gonazalez
• Richard Francis Burton
• History of the US Democratic Party
• Rabbit Redux

Can you do anything to keep this sorry puppy from following me around? Griot 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameHardBlocked}} by User:Shell Kinney. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [7] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [8] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [9] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [10] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [11] [12] [13] [14] Removes tags [15] and has ignored requests to discuss [16] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format [[Image:PICTURENAME.jpg|thumb|right|CAPTION SAYING WHAT THE PICTURE'S OF]]. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What a rather lame edit war. The photograph (taken, incidentally, by UnclePaco) is being inserted onto the page without any caption to suggest what it is, and supported only by a single sentence ("New York is one of the places where many Dominican's (sic) emigrate to.") which doesn't really need to be there at all because it's sourced in the previous paragraph. Personally, I'd leave it out. But this is a pointless revert war; neither editor has technically broken 3RR, but repeated edit-warring after warnings is actionable, so I suggest stopping this right now. ELIMINATORJR 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I followed Iridescents advice and placed in a caption and an improved rationale behind it. Iridescent than fixed the sizing. BigGabrial simply deleted it once again. He doesn't even reply to why he is removing the photo. He has done this with multiple other edits. [17] UnclePaco 04:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again after repeated warnings as well as asking him why he's removing the photo. I have followed all advice given to me. [18] UnclePaco 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) UPDATE Alright I've reinserted the past issues that occured with BigGabrial555. [19] Apparently he's up to his old tricks again. He's deleted multiple cited insertions [20] and [21] on numerous pages [22]. I've given him many warnings. Please assist. UnclePaco 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Another reversion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=165092457&oldid=165065749 UnclePaco 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

UnclePaco, you have not followed the advice that I originally gave you on 9/25/07 diff. You have yet to address this matter at Talk:Dominican Republic as I advised. Go there and come to a consensus about the picture. This is a content dispute and does not require admin intervention. Unless BigGabriel violates a consensus between several editors, this is a matter that you should be able to resolve on your own. Caknuck 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did the first one a while ago; the second one I added today. You haven't taken a look at [23] and [24] at all. That is removing sourced material! UnclePaco 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio or no copyvio

Could someone have a look at ICD-10? I deleted it as a copyvio of [25] per listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 September 29/Articles. Without bothering to contact me it was restored by an admin who insists it should go to WP:AFD. (Since when do we decide copyvio's there?). It is a possibility it is not a copyvio, although per other editor's comments at WP:CP, a permission message in conflict with free content on Talk:ICD-10 and Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service I think it is. See also discussion at User talk:Arcadian#ICD-10_2. Garion96 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not post it at AfD? The community can decide whether it is a copyvio there. ScienceApologist 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/ is of interest here. While unlikely the WHO would sue Wikipedia (the copyright is merely to protect abuse of it's data), the crux is that the licence of the WHO site is incompatible with the GFDL. — Edokter • Talk • 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To ScienceApologist: how would the community decide at Afd whether it's a copyvio. Will legal arguments be presented and then the admin plays judge & jury? No, it ought to be blanked and sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Which is where I'm putting it. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio. It's clearly copied. The source claims: "© Copyright WHO/DIMDI 1994/2006". The asserted permission is insufficient. Even assuming that (a) the person is legit, and (b) he has the permission to release proprietary WHO copyrighted material, the permission granted is insufficient. WP cannot take permission subject to "no one can change this". All of WP (except for some protected pages) is editable. A permission with those conditions is not a release under GFDL or into the public domain and therefore is insufficient. Unless WHO releases it under GFDL or public domain, I say no permission because the first editor who changes it will be in violation of the copyright restrictions and that's not an acceptable situation. Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer Carlossuarez46 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair use, but it's like a quotation, of which we use plenty under fair use. No one really has any grounds to object... we're clearly using it within the confines of fair use (scholarly, irreplaceable, clearly attributed). AFD shouldn't be deciding on copyvios though. --W.marsh 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Within the law, perhaps, but one article consisting of solely non free content goes against Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review the interwiki links at ICD-10, and note how many Wikipedia communities have come to a different conclusion. --Arcadian 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, it might not be a copyvio. The fact that other Wikipedia communities have it, does not alter my opinion much, I've cleaned up some extensive interwiki copyvio's before. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• ICD-10 is extensively used in medical textbooks and journals. I've never heard of anyone asking WHO for permission. It fulfils fair use rationale i.e. scholarly and irreplaceable.--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not a copyvio, and frankly a daft concept (but I appreciate why other editors quite rightly have sought to have this checked as per good practice of ensuring that copyright breaches are rooted out of wikipedia). Yes the WHO maintains right to have itself recognised as producer of the work, but this is for the use of the whole world. Wikipedia, reflecting as it does the majority consensus, thus must make use of these the "international standard diagnostic classification"[26]. Likewise the WHO encourages that the IC10 codes be "used to classify diseases and other health problems recorded on many types of health and vital records including death certificates and hospital records"[27] - yet is anyone suggesting that hospitals or doctors seek copyright permission to use the codes in a patient's record (trust me they don't). As for that copyright notice http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/ - it does state "Reproduction or translation of substantial portions of the web site, or any use other than for educational or other non-commercial purposes, require explicit, prior authorization in writing" - and given wikipedia is both for education and non-commercial, we therefore do not "require explicit, prior authorization in writing". That seems good enough for me and the requirement of "use of information in the web site should be accompanied by an acknowledgment of WHO as the source, citing the uniform resource locator (URL) of the article" is definitely met.
  In addition the codes are used throughout disease articles (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Disease), thus ensuring that readers throughout the world are able to confirm that the same medical consitions are being described, even if lay-terms might vary region to region. David Ruben ^Talk 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is used for commercial purposes. A lot of our mirrors run ads, and people try to make money off selling DVDs of Wikipedia, I think. It might seem like a technicality, but it's really important to a lot of people that any content here be usable for commercial purposes. --W.marsh 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I do understand your point, but my daily work as a doctor makes me feel that the WHO material is fair use by wikpedia. To try and get a firmer opinion, I've just made use of the WHO's "request permission to reproduce or reprint WHO copyrighted material" contact form, to seek their views on wikipedia's use of the ICD-10 codes. I'll let you know if I get any feedback from them in the next few days and suggest, IMHO, that for now this discussion pauses until then :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is indeed a statement from the WHO, there already is permission on Talk:ICD-10. Whether that permission is enough for the list to be on wikipedia is something else. It would be great if they would license it free content. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User Keb25 giving unwarranted warnings to other editors

See: User_talk:Bam_toy [28]. All Bam_toy did was add EMO to a band and while EMO does not yet have an article page, it is a genre of music with growing popularity. Adding EMO is not vandalism and user Bam_toy shouldn't have been warned. There are a good dozen or more "warnings" just like this one, all unwarranted. User:Keb25 is being rather abusive and not assuming good faith.IrishLass0128 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could talk to him about that? Because this isn't really an admin issue. --Haemo 20:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How is issuing false warnings to people, incivility, not showing good faith with accusations of vandalism NOT an admin issue? It should be noted I counted over 20 incidents of the same type of warning for no good reason. IrishLass0128 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, emo music has its own article, just not at that title. –Crazytales talk/desk 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because unless you want him blocked, and admin's warning doesn't hold anymore weight than any other user's. --Haemo 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also been a victim of Keb25's unwarranted warnings. Maybe I suggest a short block so he can be more responsible Aricialam 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aricialam for speaking up. I just, still, do not see how this is not an admin issue since his warnings and false accusations of vandalism (something I got in trouble for a blocked for a day way back when I first started out ~ accusing someone falsely) border on incivility. If he did what he did to just one person the amount of times he's done it in total, wouldn't he be blocked. If he warned one person 20 times over verifiable legitimate edits that he called vandalism, would he not be blocked? ~ IrishLass0128 12:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well how about this page Katrina_Kaif where he's clearly violated 3RR? Is that cause for blocking or a warning??~ IrishLass0128 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation along w/ User:Katrina4u and User:Abhayonline. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad keb25 is finally blocked. He should be blocked indefinitely. He makes unwarranted reverts, notices, AfDs, Prods etc all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.222.220 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by Good friend100 (talk · contribs)

This user, who has been blocked several times for edit warring already, has been edit warring again at Military history of Goguryeo. I've gone ahead and blocked for one week for now pending any possible review here. Good friend100 has already been indefblocked once, and was unblocked on the condition that he submit to a 1RR restriction. It really looks to me like it is time for the community to show this editor the door. Posting here for thoughts.

Note that he is listed as a party in this arbitration case; however, it doesn't look like any sanctions against him are being considered there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just informed Kirill as he is both an arbitrator and the lead coordinator of WPMILHIST. Kirill had rejected it as a content dispute but he still accepted a topic ban as a remedy in case of troubles. I personally would go for a topic ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In general for limited purpose accounts (maybe not true spa's but you know) I like topic/article bans. For some it becomes a full wikipedia ban, as they are not able to do anything else and for some it leads to broadening of input and maybe a touch of balance when they come back to the problem areas. just my $.02, I've not looked into this one at all. --Rocksanddirt 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What topic, specifically? Korea-related articles in general, or something more specific? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's yet a broad level of support in the community for a sanction, so perhaps we should wait it out for now. Given the user's history, though, I strongly suspect we'll end up here again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Abusive language in edit summary

Does this edit summary deserve a block or just a warning? Gnanapiti 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for a warning. — Edokter • Talk • 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a warning would be all that's needed for the summary, but it may be a case for another checkuser...unless this quacks loud enough to skip it.

The user is a suspected sockpuppet of NisarKand (talk · contribs), and removed the template with an edit summary saying they are "Pashtun from Pakistan..." -- Pashtun (talk · contribs) is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of NisarKand. --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He could be referring to his ethnicity rather than a wikipedia username...--Isotope23 ^talk 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add that Khan1982 (talk · contribs) & Shshshsh (talk · contribs) would do well to stop playing games with sock tags...--Isotope23 ^talk 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't encourage incivility, we should note that editors can't change edit summaries like they can their own edits (so they can't change it even if they wanted to). For example, I just put an edit summary a minute ago and it's a stupid joke that I would change if I could....too late now. Archtransit 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing games, this user is a sure sock puppet of Raja-Hindoostani. I'd noticed that on Shahrukh Khan's page, and placed a SP template on his page. Apart from that, this user has vandalized my user page several times, using both these accounts (one more proof that he is a sock-puppeter). If you have a look what other accounts he accused me of using, you will see how rediculous it is. User:Riana blocked Raja Hindoostani, so I think this user must be blocked too. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside admin requested re: Mista-X (talk · contribs)

Can I ask an outside admin to review the behavior of Mista-X (talk · contribs)? He's been engaged in a slow revert war on Ramon Mercader (and, earlier, on Joseph Stalin). He's made the same highly questionable revert 11 times in the past week or so ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) - see the article history. He's been reverted by 3 or 4 editors, including myself. I initially tried to open up conversation on Talk:Joseph Stalin and Talk:Ramón Mercader, which he's ignored. I finally asked him directly on his talk page to discuss the issue, but he ignored that and continued reverting (now marking his reverts as minor edits to boot). He has been blocked 3 previous times for 3RR violations.

Can I ask another admin to intervene here? While this editor has been careful not to violate the letter of WP:3RR, he's clearly abusing its spirit (and has a history of doing the same, as exemplified by his block log). I would block him myself, but I'm involved in the content issue. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for disruption, edit warring, gaming the system. Rlevse 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Text writen in article Pagania is clear copyright violation. I have tried to delete text in question but there are users which are returning text again and again. For evidence of statement I will use [40] version of article. After reading that text which is taken with copy/paste from wiki source book De Administrando Imperio I have clicked wiki source. Imagine my surpise after looking that book has been in wiki source deleted because there is the gross violation of the copyright law. Because of that reason everything in article which is from this book must be deleted. Last editor of article has today only hidden fact that text is copyright violation because he has deleted link for wiki source and change it with link for article De Administrando Imperio. -- Rjecina 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a quote. Quotes are not copyright violations in general. --Haemo 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What Haemo said: quotation from copyrighted materials may be acceptable fair-use. This particular quotation runs to 150 words while the translation by Jenkins runs to a similar number of pages. The quantity of quoted text doesn't seem grossly excessive (although we might wonder if it was really necessary to quote it, rather than to paraphrase, and what was in the omitted parts). This is really an editorial issue rather than a copyright one and best discussed at Talk:Pagania. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Madchester

User:Madchester is harassing me via my TP by continually reverting his comment (in violation of WP:HAR, WP:3RR, WP:TPG, WP:DRC). I am requesting a ban of this user per WP:3RR. Relaxing 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on Madchester's talk page. No need for a ban, civil discourse is nice :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When you violate WP:3RR, that is no longer civil discourse. He knew I had read his notice, I am permitted to delete it, yet he continued to harass me. I want this to stop. Relaxing 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:TPG refers to article talk pages, which preserve the community discourse on the topic. User-Talk pages are much more free to be cleared, as we just saw some discussion here recently (see WP:CAIN). But yes, a ban seems excessive, imho, especially if the use in question may have just mis-interpreted TPG. Arakunem 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless, I am mistaken, Madchester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin, which makes it mildly shocking that he would be so unfamiliar with the WP:USER guideline, especially since he also gave [43] the user in question a {{uw-tpv1}} warning. I know that the "while frowned upon, policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" is a relatively new addition to WP:USER, but that was how many months ago? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simple: do not remove other editors' comments, unless A) you have their permission or B) it's spam or vandalism. Otherwise you can archive those comments. It's one of the first things I learned as Wiki-newb: never delete other editors' comments, even those on your talk page. I remember being informed by another editor and it's something I've followed closely ever since.

You don't have to agree with everything left on your talk page, but it's a record of your communication, and thus, you shouldn't be removing comments as it reflects poorly on your reputation. --Madchester 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not "simple", because that's not Wikipedia's policy. As I noted on your talk page, and has since been noted here, WP:TPG does not apply to user talk pages. The applicable guideline is WP:USER, which explicitly allows the removal of comments, warnings, whatever the user wants. Archiving is strongly recommended, but not required. Using admin rollback to revert their removals is very much against policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a recent change to the policy. The point of the talk page is to keep track of a user's communication history; you know a record of past actions to improve future contributions. With regards to Wikipedia:Vandalism, when vandals remove test warnings, it makes more work for an admin to go through the entire edit history to see if a warning or block is warranted. There's supposedly a RFC regarding this change and I'm just going to further the discussion there instead. It's unfortunate that this change has allowed editors to doctor their talk page with a "clean slate" whenever they please. --Madchester 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, it's been there quite some time; it reflects the consensus view arrived at after MONTHS of discussion in 2006(? maybe it was 05, I can't remember). We have history pages for a reason. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If by "recent" you mean 249 days ago [44], then yes, you are correct.  :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It has also been a part of the official policy on WP:VAN for at least 649 days [45]. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nathan.tang (talk · contribs)

There is this user, Nathan.tang (talk · contribs), who uses a similar username to my old username User:Nat.tang and I am not sure how to move forward with this: Should I report him to WP:UAA or should I leave it alone? I am unsure because this could be his name. The problem with this is that this user has done several shady things (history of his talk page) and already someone already has suspected that he might be me ([46]). I fear that using this name might harm my good, at least I think it's good, reputation. I need another sysop could like to deal with this situation, as I cannot due to the fact I will be most likely in a conflict of interest if I push any buttons to deal with this user. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be likely you could force him to change it, since you have changed your own name already, and as you say it could be his actual name. I don't think it should be much of a concern at this point, since the warning he received seemed to be for an action without malice behind it, and the message you received stated they were fairly certain it was not you. As long as it's not you, I don't think there's anything to worry about. CitiCat ^♫ 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Could just be a coincidence that he has a name similar to your old one. He's not trying to pass himself off as you, is he? --FolicAcid 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey, Turkish-American relations et al.

Could someone verify if anyone editing there are actually socks at all? VartanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically screaming 'SOCK!" at pretty much anyone who edits there and I can't say as to whether he's right or wrong, but it's turning into a huge, edit-warry mess. Maybe some article locks until it's figured out who is what? HalfShadow 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my report of User:Flavius_Belisarius on this very page. VartanM 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly stop the reverting till you guys figure out whats happening. VartanM 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that virtually everything new that turns up on Turkey-related pages these days is Flavius. All 151.37.*.* - 151.44.*.* IPs definitely are, and any new account created a few days ago as ripened sleeper accounts that show the same editing behaviour can confidently be treated as him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelocasio accuses another editor of committing criminal acts

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:4chan#Rule_Clarification and as a response to a comment I made, Angelocasio has claimed that I, quote, "enjoy seeing harm done to kids" and was an "abuser". In a previous edit, which the user later erased, the user also claimed that I "like illegal porn". Although Angelocasio has only been editoring Wikipedia for under a month and may not know how things should be, I feel that because of the extremely slanderous and offensive nature of this person's comments some sort of administrative response is needed, at the very least a warning. Meowy 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done HalfShadow 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Meowy 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP massive backup...

Suspected Sockpuppets is ridiculously backuped up, with 41 cases, some over a week old, and at least one over 2, (though I had to relist it, so not SSP's fault alone.) Any chance of getting some admins in there to clean that out a bit? ThuranX 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletes on all Satanic articles by User:Craigtalbert

I've warned him twice, now, and he keeps putting speedy delete tags on every Satanic-related article. --David Shankbone 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Graeme Frost

This article has a newly registered participant User:WorlWildWiking who keeps adding an irrelevant Children’s Civil Rights section. Please help! Mhym 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As noble as his intent, it does seem a bit WP:SOAPy.... Arakunem 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question

Counterstrike69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) redirects his userpages to (and signs his posts as) Bogdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is apparently a non-existent user account. Is this allowed by WP:USER? (It doesn't seem to fall under WP:DOPPELGANGER.) I ran into this because the user was removing speedy deletion tags from images that he/she uploaded. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Umm... weird. Could be that the user has both usernames registered, and is only using the one...? He should probably just request a rename. android79 00:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sure looks that way. Both are valid accounts, and the Bogdan account has no edits, so there doesnt seem to be nefarious puppetry afoot. My guess is he would do a Usurpation, but may not be aware such a thing exists. Arakunem 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There was an admin who signed as Bogdan or something very much like that, at some point. I can't remember his exact username, or find him on the admin list. --W.marsh 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs) is unrelated to this. --W.marsh 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wrongpageamundson

I am having continued problems with User:Wrongpageamundson. She has stated right on her user page that the only reasons she is on wikipedia is that she thinks it is myspace. The user has been warned on numerous occasions to not treat wikipedia like a forum. One example can be found here I removed these per wikipedia's guideline and warned her (the other was warned and at the moment is not a problem). I have no clue what to do to the user I have told off the user and in response has responded 2 times on my talk page here and here they aren't in order. The first one was ok but I am semi curious about the second one (first one is the second one I do not have time to re-order). As a side note I may have been a little rude and blunt to her but at this point I am at a loss for what to do...I have tried everything at this point...and she was even once on a 72 hour block. Rgoodermote 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, and deleted a mass of the personal info on her user page, except for the top bit and the userboxes, per WP:NOT#MYSPACE, as well a WP:USER clearly stating such detailed info is not allowed. I also believe, that perhaps an indef block would be the best idea here, since just looking at her talk page, its seems like she doesn't even see any difference between wikipedia and myspace--Jac16888 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indef block. User has a grand total of 3 mainspace edits, 2 of which are vandalism: [47] [48]. android79 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I freely admit that I may be assuming too much GF, but I went ahead and left a friendly WP:NOT#MYSPACE note on her talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"the only reason i go on wiki is because my parents blocked myspace from my computer so i decided i would just use wiki" pretty much says it all. If she's not here to contribute to the project, there's no reason to allow her to waste bandwidth and disk space with chatty junk. android79 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to be using this website as a social networking site. Notice her edits. Same applies for User:Footballpassion and probably dozens of other editors. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not the only one to tell her that wikipedia is not Myspace, she even has the thought that only she can edit her talk page and those she allows. I am not an admin but I hope my input will be considered. I endorse and indef block. She has been told on numerous occasions and she has continued to ignore all warnings and attempts at help. One of her messages gave me the feeling that she ignores these warnings knowing full well what will happen if she does. Rgoodermote 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I left an additional note. If the user ignores the notes, then indef block. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. android79 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote I took the liberty to warn user:Footballpassion and I decided as well to delete some personal details that were unnecessary (eye color/Dating History/and whoever Megan is) Rgoodermote 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Megan == Wrongpageamunsdon. Quite the little high school drama we have going on here. Raymond Arritt 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see 3 people involved in this, of course user:Footballpassion and User:Wrongpageamundson but user:Ben the mighty has just popped up on my radar as being one of three people treating wikipedia as a social network Rgoodermote 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RBLakes

I noticed User:RBLakes has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats, which of course we do not tolerate, but the situation on User talk:RBLakes has me thinking. We often forget that many of our users are.. not that socially mature, and getting blocked does piss ya off. So in the heat of the situation, this guy takes the low road, throws in some insults, and even, absurdly, tries to say he'll get lawyers involved. Bad, bad user, bad. Hopefully at this point he'll understand how serious we take legal threats, and while certainly he should carry out some block time, an indefinite block just seems excessive. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're being immature, most admins will be willing to unblock them if they admit that, and feel bad about their actions. This user most definitely does not. --Haemo 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't care if he feels bad about it or not, only that he will stop. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I mean. I assume people feel bad about doing bad things and don't wish to repeat them. --Haemo 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be true in some cases, but this guy doesn't appear to comprehend why his behavior got him blocked. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, and if he does decide to show some social maturity, there's nothing stopping an unblocking. android79 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the user's talk page has been protected as well. My point is that all this happened in a short period of time, and it is reasonable to understand that someone might have such a reaction like this. No one is perfect all the time, and given that this was based on one incident, an indefinite block is too harsh. Why are we are so quick to be authoritative, and so unforgiving? This is not what the blocking policy permits. It's easy to not care because we are so quick to assume that we are not at a loss in these situations, that we already know this user and everything he might be on Wikipedia. I guess it is easier to just assume these things, and try to make him feel as unwanted as possible. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for legal threats are usually removed as soon as the user retracts the threat. 'Indefinite' means just that — with no defined end. It ends when the threat is gone. It's not intended to punish the user, it's meant to confine legal proceedings to their proper venue. Now, in this case, the talk page was protected, so it's a lot harder to retract it, but if he wishes to, he can e-mail the protecting administrator or anyone else. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone goes ballistic, and they later calm down, and reconsider, they can be unblocked. I'm sure any admin would do as much. If their abusive tirade has lead to their talk page being protected, we have email channels for them to use. We're not here to coddle people who are threatening serious real-life consequences against the Foundation, or its volunteers — even if some might think they were made "in the heat of the moment". Is it a little bit bitey? Yes. But it's not even remotely on the same order of threatening legal action. --Haemo 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think it's ever reasonable to expect a reaction like this. I understand your general point, but this incident is a poor example. android79 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not demanding that our users be perfect. We really need to stop taking these things so personally and so OMG seriously. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a wide gap between "perfection" and "not acting like a spoiled child". android79 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I would feel better about this situation if it was better known to him that he had a chance to retract or apologies or whatever. Perhaps if someone could simply leave a note on his talk page to that effect? -- Ned Scott 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what good it would do, but I'm willing to unprotect the talk page if you'd like to leave a note. android79 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider it my random good deed for the day. Maybe it was because I remember how embarrassing it was to once give a reaction like this, that I felt sorry for the guy. You're probably right, that it won't do any good, but I think it might be a good thing to just say "if you've cooled down, and you don't do this again, we'll give you one more chance". -- Ned Scott 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Proceed at your own risk. ;-) android79 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Wtimrock

Evidence that I have attempted to resolve the issue [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55].

New user Wtimrock is violating the AFD process by removing deletion tags from articles and recreating deleted articles. I have tried to discuss this with him on his talk page, but he does not respond.

• Removing an AFD tag
• Removing an AFD tag
• A re-created recently deleted article

• deletion discussion

• Another re-created article Now a redirect instead.

I do not have other recently created article re-creations as they have all been speedily deleted, but you can see the notices on his talk page. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton

Voxveritatis (talk · contribs) appears to be editing his own page as he did last time it was created, attempting to censor documented information (links) including to Canada's largest newspaper online site (Canada.com) which states he has written for the National Vanguard. He is suggesting that people contact him to understand the true meaning of his writings rather then allow people to write about his past and work at wikipedia. Please take action as he interferes with the intigrity of wikipedia. Thank you. --Eternalsleeper 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest noticeboard is this way. east.718 at 12:18, 10/18/2007

Policy issues

Two days ago Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda was nominated for deletion.

A second wikipedian, Lawrence Cohen, claiming authority under WP:BLP, blanked 80% of the article.

He asserts that merely reporting allegations the DoD has leveled at Guantanamo captives violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR.

I have pointed out to him, several times, that the very first line of WP:VER makes clear that verifiability, not truth is the wikipedia's aim. He has ignored this.

I posed this question, over on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The one person who responded backed up my understanding. He has ignored that opinion.

He has stated that he will not accept me restoring the blanked section, that he won't accept anyone restoring the blanked passages, unless they can cite third party sources that prove the captives are terrorists, I avoid edit warring. I am concerned that if I did restore the blanked section it would initiate an edit war. I have tried reasoning with him. Would it be possible for an administrator to undo his blanking of 80% of the article?

Alternatively:

• Could I get the opinions of someone(s) with experience as to whether DoD documents that level allegations should be regarded as verifiable, authoritative sources that the DoD has leveled allegations?
• Could I get some experienced opinions as to whether or not {{blp}} proscribes repeating allegations leveled in official documents, even if the phrasing makes clear that the allegations are just that -- allegations?

Because the article is currently nominated for deletion I think it is important for its integrity to be restored as soon as possible, so people voicing an opinion about it can see the actual article, not a gutted version.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, as seen in the article history, there has been no effort by anyone to restore the list, and I wouldn't get into some silly edit war over it. I made my concerns known on the talk page and the AfD, and thought it best to err on the side of caution. This is the list as it appeared before I commented out the main body of the text. I'm not sure why this is raised here now as well, as it's already gotten a lot of visibility on the BLP talk page, the BLP noticeboard, and also on the AfD. The folks on AfD seem to believe there is BLP concerns, no one on the BLP noticeboard seems to care to reply, and one person on the BLP talk page seems to think it is all quite fine to include the list. My concerns as outlined on the AfD basically boiled down to: one facet of the DOD labeled these living people/groups as terrorists in some documents. Some university researchers compiled this information. We now have a list where these people are listed as terrorists/likely terrorists, with no other assertation of this from other WP:RS--it all literally comes from a sole primary source(s), these random DOD documents. The wording on this version seemed to be saying (to me) that, "Yes, these guys are terrorists," which seemed wrong, so I hid the content per BLP and likely NPOV violations.

My NPOV concern is that we're basically saying, "The DOD said this--it is true!", which is again how I read the list from when it was sent to AfD. But again, I've made no effort to keep it out beyond that, and have just discussed my concerns on the AfD. Geo Swan has also been saying I've violated civility rules by blanking the content, which doesn't make much sense. He also issued a civility warning (politely, though) to another user who wanted to delete the article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Lawrence, you wrote:

"If someone besides yourself or I restores the list for the purposes of the discussion with sourced information that meet RS standards saying these people are terrorists, I will not object."

Geo Swan 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So, Lawrence, what is the logical corollary of stating that you will not object if third parties, who can come up with the third party reliable sources that say they are terrorists? Geo Swan 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm basically saying that I wanted to get more eyes on it, and half of Wikipedia has been linked to it now, and no one has undone my editing out of the list. I vow to not edit war over this (I wasn't planning on it anyway, but going on the record here). • Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the DoD (and related departments) is the reason most of them are in there any citations pointing to anything the DoD says cannot be considered to be WP:RS as they are not an independent source. Ergo any entries that rely on DoD statements cannot be used in the article. QED. ---- WebHamster 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Evb-wiki just made an interesting point on the AfD as well: "this article, by contrast, is either a list with only one source (part of my blp concern) or an article about a non-notable list (a list without multiple 3-party coverage)."• Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am going to need you to explain this to me more fully. Are you saing that there is a black hole, where we can't report on any official allegations, until and unless the individual is tried, and convicted, or acquitted? Forgive me, but I am extremely skeptical that this is how the policy is meant to be interpreted. Are you really sure that reporting on an allegation, while making clear it is an allegation, violates policy? Geo Swan 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the article with the list, before I redacted it, for everyone to review. Did it make clear that there were allegations, and that these people were not terrorists? My point has been that there is no encyclopediac need to include the name of all those possibly innocent people in an article with such an inflammatory "List of terrorists..." type title. An article on the list itself? Fine, fine. I don't see a need to risk possible harm to possibly innocent people by including their names like this. We're basically re-posting a compiled list of possibly unfounded DOD allegations against various living people, in a manner that comes off as a research synthesis, that makes them all look guilty of terrorism. We have not one single RS that says these people are terrorists--I've asked repeatedly for such a thing. Without that, I don't think we should be putting names on a List of Terrorists type article. • Lawrence Cohen 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

An allegation isn't a statement of fact, until it becomes a fact, i.e. no longer an allegation, 3rd party reports are just repeating what the person/entity is alleging. I suppose a citation linked to an independent and reliable source such as a well known newspaper is acceptable per WP:RS, but citing the involved party making the allegations can't be considered to be independent and therefore not a RS. ---- WebHamster 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the material in question. The source is very simple- these are poeple accused by the DoD. This is verifiable and relevant. Whether we need to have such a duplication of their list is a matter for AfD. But there is no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I object. The article is a violation of WP:SYN as I've stated in the AfD and thus a BLP violation. The US government alleges these people are terrorists in random and various documents. Seton Hall university then compiled the documents, and listed these people in an appendix as a list. We, by republishing all these allegations under a List of terrorists article are saying, "These guys are terrorists." • Lawrence Cohen 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A relevant comparison is the US Government's "no-fly" list as well. The list itself is clearly notable, but would it be a BLP violation to republish the list here, including all names, and the allegations of the government of "why" these people are on the list? • Lawrence Cohen 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article is both a WP:BLP and WP:SYN/WP:OR violation. Source A (USA DOD) says, "This guy is a terrorist", in various documents; source B says, "Seton Hall has collected all these guys the DOD says in random documents are terrorists in an Appendix," and that C is this title of "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda" republishing all these names under a page called "List of terrorists". We're basically saying that they are terrorists. We can't combine sources to make a new conclusion. Listing all these people, who are not convicted of any terrorism in any sourced court of law, under an article called "List of Terrorists," while only listing various diaspora of allegations, means that this is both a BLP and SYNTH/OR violation. • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even worse, I just realized that this reference it came from here doesn't even include all the allegations listed in the "List" we host on Wikipedia. All that was gleaned from the various documents. • Lawrence Cohen 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What Lawrence calls random documents are the Summary of Evidence memos that OARDEC prepared for the captives Combatant Status Review Tribunals or annual Administrative Review Board hearings. Geo Swan 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The list as it stands that JoshuaZ restored was made up by us. The "List" we made an article out of, THIS list in this PDF, does not include these allegations. We added them all as original research and a BLP violation. Check the PDF, pages 11-12. It's a raw flat list of names. Everything else in our list on this article is our own OR, and a BLP violation. • Lawrence Cohen 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All DoD documents in this case are primary sources. You cannot have an article based entirely on primary sources, especially not when it deals with living people. EconomicsGuy 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on this, and the now demonstrated OR and synthesis we've done, would it be appropriate to again remove the list on the article before we do more harm to living people? • Lawrence Cohen 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I read it the article does not seem to be based on a primary source. The source referenced above is a secondary source which draws on data from primary sources. That is perfectly acceptable under our sourcing rules. -- ChrisO 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So its fine to take a raw list of names from a non-notable appendix (pages 11-12) of a non-notable publication, spin off an article on that appendix title, and then populate in all the names in a list with every accusation that the DoD has accused these people of...? That isn't original research and WP:SYN? • Lawrence Cohen 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect please reread WP:RS. Secondary sources are not sufficient when dealing with BLP's. Further, a secondary source that simply reprints what was gathered from primary sources with no evidence of independent verification of those sources is not reliable, it merely whitewashes the primary sources. EconomicsGuy 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. Precisely what harm could we be causing to people on this list? If they are detained in Guantanamo, the harm has already occurred (and we didn't cause it). I see no conceivable way in which describing the grounds on which they have been detained could cause additional harm. It's not as if the US Government is going to say "aha! This person is listed on Wikipedia, therefore we must keep him locked up." Nor are we releasing any information that hasn't already been released by reliable sources. I really don't see why this should be an insuperable problem from a BLP point of view. There may well be other issues (WP:NOT#LIST comes to mind) but BLP seems to be a stretch. -- ChrisO 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And if any of them are released with "no evidence found" we become guilty of libel. Inclusion of that list may actually be libel as there is no proof, only allegations, that they are terrorists. Just because the US Government locks people up with no proof, trial and legal judgement doesn't mean we can. ---- WebHamster 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is locking people up? Is there a dungeon somewhere under the Wikimedia Foundation's HQ? -- ChrisO 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I thought it was just us Aspies that thought so literally! By including any living persons name on that list we are judging them based on someone else's allegations. The US may find it acceptable to punish unsentenced people but there's no reason why Wikipedia should follow suit. The US may have let the Bush genie out of the bottle, I don't recommend that WP does the same thing. ---- WebHamster 22:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone on the list is detained at Gitmo currently, and even if they are, there is no guarantee they will be forever. We'll have an article listing them as accused of terrorism, when they may or may not be, and haven't been convicted of in any case. It also lists groups that aren't, either, convicted of anything. Add in NPOV, and it's a problem. • Lawrence Cohen 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And how is this different from a newspaper reporting the names of people who are arrested on suspicion of various crimes? The situation you describe happens in the media on a daily basis. When public authorities detain and charge or accuse individuals, that event is a matter of public record and historical fact. There's nothing that can change that. The information is publicly available and de facto retrievable forever via media archives. A responsible publication will, however, note the outcome of the detention - i.e. if the individual is released without charge that should be noted.

If a newspaper calls somebody a terrorist, they can come back at a later time and issue a retraction. Wikipedia has no methods of retracting libelous edits other than to remove them from the article. Corvus cornix 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If Bob Jones gets arrested for allegedly beating his wife, or plotting to blow her up with Taliban operatives, we don't write "Jones tried to jihad his wife[1]" were [1] as the source is the actual police report. That is exactly what this list is doing. We have no reliable secondary non-DOD sources for these terrorism allegations against living people, only the DOD's own reports and theories. BLP violation for that. Add in that the list that the article is made from as the chief source doesn't even include the allegations, and Wikipedia editors went and tracked them down from the primary sources themselves that the raw list secondary source was made from, we have only primary sources and not one real secondary source. The list is funtionally and literally a reposting of DOD allegations, and nothing else. If this was Bob Jones, we'd basically have an article about his crimes sourced entirely to the police arrest reports, notes from the district attorney, and then a footnote from a single research paper saying that the D.A. arrested Bob for trying to kill his wife with Taliban assistance. • Lawrence Cohen 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with ChrisO here. Citing this source simply means that the DoD believes that they are terrorists. For better or worse, government agencies are considered reliable sources unless proven otherwise; we don't question their reliability over census returns or unemployment statistics. If (or when) these people are shown to be falsely accused, the point then becomes not that they are terrorists, but that the DoD accused them of being terrorists. And that explains why some of them are languishing in Gitmo. -- llywrch 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In this instance the DoD does not meet WP:RS as they aren't independent and they aren't a 3rd party. ---- WebHamster 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we write articles on living persons that get arrested, that are sourced exclusively to their arrest records and criminal court filings? • Lawrence Cohen 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If a newspaper calls someone a terrorist, sure. But if a newspaper merely reports that a state authority has accused an individual of terrorism, that's a different situation. It's a straightforward report of fact - either the state has made such an accusation or it hasn't. If it has, the report is completely accurate. It makes no judgment of the veracity of the accusation. Don't forget that Osama bin Laden is likewise accused of terrorism, when he hasn't been convicted (or even detained) for any such offence. But that rightly doesn't stop us from saying in Osama bin Laden that "U.S. government officials named bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects" for 9/11. We aren't endorsing such statements, merely reporting them, which is as it should be. -- ChrisO 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And in Osama's notable case, we have no shortage of reliable sources to report this. I've asked for almost two days on the AfD and list talk page for a single reliable source that even says one of these people is accused of terrorism, and have gotten nothing. Why are we implying that DoD terrorism accusations have some sort of exemption for proper sourcing...? If I write an article on the next person I see on Google News that is arrested for murder, and source it exclusively to online police records, would that be appropriate? It's the same thing. • Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The DoD is a bit larger than a random police accusation and Wikipedia is not a newspaper but from a BLP perspective there's no problem with it that requires speedy deletion. Keep in mind that this is well-sourced verifiable information. In the same vein, the information about the person arrested for murder would go to AfD and would not need to be speedy deletable under BLP. JoshuaZ 22:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but that is getting into semantics. What if the arrest was from the FBI? Interpol? Either way, writing an article on allegations of crimes against someone using only the sources written by the group arresting them is a gross BLP violation as I see it. We can't republish accusations of crimes based on only a lone primary source, like an arrest record, by any agency. If CNN reported that one of these were arrested, they can go in a list called List of people that allegedly committed terrorism according to the US DOD or something like that. But add in the name of the article here, and it's a train wreck that amounts to us saying, "Look, terrorist!" • Lawrence Cohen 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is badly named, but the issues of its concept and content are separate matters. Like it or not, the state has to be treated as a reliable source when it comes to its own actions. If the Las Vegas PD states that it's arrested O. J. Simpson on suspicion of robbery and kidnapping, we're entitled to report that fact and cite the LVPD as a source (assuming that it's released some sort of documentation). Likewise, if the DoD states that it's arrested whoever on suspicion of terrorist activity, we're entitled to report that fact. We're not "writing an article on allegations of crimes", we're writing an article stating that a state authority has accused an individual of crimes. That's entirely a matter of undisputed historical fact and public record. We're not passing judgment on whether the individual is guilty or otherwise. -- ChrisO 23:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The State/DoD has to be treated as reliable source? You've got to be shitting me? These are the guys who said Saddam could launch in 45 minutes. You must have a different definition to Websters for "reliable". ---- WebHamster 23:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The reliability of a source, as far as we're concerned, is a separate issue from its reputation for truthfulness. From WP:RS: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Being a reliable source is essentially a function of verifiability, not accuracy. We make no claims for the accuracy of any of our sources, and we certainly don't exclude official sources because we have a personal (partisan?) disagreement with what they say. -- ChrisO 08:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. Let me put it another way. If Bob Smith, a notable person, is accused by the IRS of tax evasion but no other sources but the IRS reports on it, would it be appropriate to add that Smith is accused of that tax evasion in his article, using only the IRS as a source? • Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is where considerations of undue weight would come into play. If it was a major episode in Smith's life and relevant to his biography, then yes, that would be worth reporting. (For a counter-example, we almost certainly wouldn't report a traffic ticket since that would be a trivial episode.) In this particular case, I don't think you could reasonably argue that being sent to Guantanamo and accused of terrorism isn't a major episode in someone's life. -- ChrisO 08:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their point of view here and this really doesn't belong on AN/I any longer since this thread has turned into a fork of the AfD. But regardless of all that please do not revert war on an article that is nominated for deletion. There is no urgent BLP issue, just a disagreement about how to apply WP:RS. Thank you. EconomicsGuy 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the person is indeed notable enough, there is no reason not to accept what is in front of our eyes. This list is in the same cateogry. As Chris says, the existence of it is notable enough that the list of what is on it is also notable, and any RS would do. Wikilawering about just what counts as primary in instances like this does not contribute to an unbiased encyclopedia. RS is a guideline, to be used with common sense. If Al Queda published such a list, I'd include that also. 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the wikilawyering argument was aimed at my arguments above but if so I'll disengage despite the fact that I do believe I'm entitled to present my point of view, especially when I don't violate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But anyways, the point of the above comment was to ask that the revert warring ends + that this is turning into a fork of the AfD. EconomicsGuy 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy issues redux

I am restoring the original title of this section.

I would still really appreciate a clearer answer on the general question as to whether reporting on allegations from official sources, without taking a stand on their credibility, consistitutes a breach of WP:BLP.

Thanks! Geo Swan 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn and disruptive editing

Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been trying to change reference to Nobel Prize in Economics in the lead of Milton Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for quite some time. On talk page this was discussed and rejected in June [56]. He has been reverted on this issue by 8 different editors ( Beit Or, Jayjg, CloudNine, Edward321, SecretaryNotSure, Lost.goblin, Camptown and me) numerous times. For changing Nobel Prize in Economics to something else in template {{Nobel Prize in Economics Laureates 2001-2025}} he was also recently blocked for breaking 3RR [57]. In his edit summaries he accuses editors who revert him for vandalism, hoaxing, lying and POV pushing. I think that he is trying to wear down his opposition, and game the system in general. -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing a topic ban for Nobel Prize in Economics? Is there any problem with other articles, or is this the only one? - Jehochman ^Talk 06:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This has already made it to WP:LAME and is dealt with in another thread here on AN/I. Quite frankly the complaining from both parties is getting more disruptive than the actual edit war. This is a very lame content dispute and their repeated attempts to get each other topic banned or blocked is the real disruption here. I suggest a ban on complaining here and a serious warning that these things must be sorted out through consensus on the talk page of the article. EconomicsGuy 06:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is quite lame, but some editors are very persistent in inserting false information in Wikipedia, while other editors are just as persistent in correcting the information. That's why we have this situation. // Liftarn

Yes, that might be useful. He started to edit war on a greater number of articles showing the same kind of disruptive behavior as on Milton Friedman (Clive Granger, George Stigler, Simon Kuznets‎, Roger Myerson, Eric Maskin, Leonid Hurwicz, Edmund Phelps, Edward C. Prescott, Finn E. Kydland, Robert F. Engle – this was all today). Also, he continues to accuse other editors for "persistent vandalism" in his edit summaries. If this is not disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, I don't know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only Friedman, he's repetedly making this changes on most other winner's pages as well. AdamSmithee 12:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:NCON that says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." so the full name (or official short form) should be used in articles (and templates) instead of slang versions. // Liftarn

Actually, this is not correct according to WP:NCON. But you are changing the topic - the topic here is yout behaviour, not the name that should be used (that had already been discussed ad nausea and the consensus seems to be against you) AdamSmithee 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you come to that conclusion? Anyway, fixing articles so they conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines can hardly be called "disruptive editing". // Liftarn

WP:NCON also says it should be read in conjunction with WP:UCN which says, When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?

That aside... This content dispute needs resolving through discussion & consensus. It's a shame that, having admitted its lameness, User:Liftarn is apparently unwilling to consider changing their behviour. This debate should be carried out in one central location (requested moves?), and efforts should be made to direct editors there, not spread it further. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is being discussed again in Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Name again, for the Nth time. There may even finally be consensus as 3 editors here (Liftarn, AdamSmithee, and I) have agreed on a way to use both the official name and the common name in the content of articles!  :) –panda 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, written too quickly -- some editors don't want to comprise... [58] –panda 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest protecting the article (in any wrong version). Too many editors (perhaps including me) are unable to think clearly for the moment. Thanks, SvNH 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Which article should be protected? Liftarn made an issue out of this on more than one page. According to this comment of his, constant reverting of multiple editors is a part of his strategy. -- Vision Thing -- 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In last two days Lifran reverted 21 times. [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. Even if he is defending "the truth", that doesn't excuse massive revert war. -- Vision Thing -- 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP problem

Vanessa Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly Ank329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see [80] and refer to OTRS ticket 2007091410001587 if you have OTRS access. I removed the day and month of birth, as I don't think they are really appropriate in the case of young female subjects due to harassment concerns. I have left a message for Ank329. Cruftbane 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the beautiful Ms. Angel may not quite qualify as "young", if there's an OTRS ticket, then we should remove the dates. Corvus cornix 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oi! She's younger than me! Cruftbane 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, me, too.  :) Corvus cornix 03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being dense here, but why is it exactly that her birthdate shouldn't be shown? MookieZ 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We have generally followed the practice of not having a full birthdate in articles of living persons if the subject requests it and they are of minor notability. Some biography subjects are worried about issues like identity theft; this may or may not be a reasonable fear, but especially when the birthdate cannot be reliably sourced I believe it is acceptable to remove it. Here, the source is IMDB, which as a site relying on user contributions for much data, especially in its early years, cannot be relied upon for accuracy. Someone of greater notability will most likely have a much better source for this fact. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no admin action on sockpuppet suspects of banned user?

My report to this board (moved to here) got no activity for over 24 hours and was archived. I also reported to WP:AE and to WP:SSP because I didn't know what would act first. But none of them did, I only got admin observations, no actions; I also got accused of being a SSP of the banned user myself, and a troll (earlier), and a "pseudo-wikiLawyer", whatever that is. It's now been about 60 hours, the alleged banned user has gotten in about 70 edits since I reported, and I have spotted two suspect IPs as well (looks like my report on the second one didn't get saved, it was 66.56.206.68). In short, I do not understand admin behavior here and would like prompt explanation, as well as a swift and just ban on the sockpuppets. Thanks! John J. Bulten 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it simply got dropped by mistake. People confirmed it but nobody did the block. I checkusered and found a bunch more as well, which I am going through and blocking. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thaaank yoooouu!! (Sighs of relief.) John J. Bulten 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

I've broken the 3RR here. Block me if you will. I'm sick of being forced to remain on a list that I do not wish to be on. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or does that page say "Editors are free to remove their name from this list, and to add their names to this one. When they do, do not revert" at the top? If that really is the case, I do not understand why ^demon (talk · contribs) is having this issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• 01:21, October 18, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "^demon (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation) (Unblock)

^demon did willingly break 3RR, I endorse the block. Mr.Z-man 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? If people don't want to be on that page why should we harass them about it? I'm considering just dropping the page on MFD if this is how people's privacy wishes are handled.. the page seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Cowman109^Talk 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And it blatantly says at the top of the page that peoples' privacy wishes should be recognized and that should someone remove their name from the list, they should not be reverted. I went ahead and unblocked demon's self block, as, correct me if I'm wrong, but that could have caused collateral damage as well. Cowman109^Talk 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's up for MFD.. Thatcher got to it before I could. This is just common sense, people. No offense, but why endorse a block over such a silly issue? Cowman109^Talk 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the "editors are free to remove their name from this list" prefix on the page was added over a month ago as per consensus (Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Mikkalai name removals). I am surprised that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) insists on ignore it. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a random passerby. If a guy blocks himself as a consequence, why unblock him? It was his choice. Karnoff 06:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

to block himself, I mean. Also 3RR whatever that is. Karnoff 06:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One cannot block oneself (at least, that's what I gathered when another admin undid User:A Man In Black's block before I became admin). -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

David ShankBone Harassment

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

---

I had an old dispute with another user (an SPA who has apparently left Wikipedia). It was a long, protracted, ugly dispute, but most of us have moved on. In a completely unrelated development, I recently got involved in the THF-DavidShankBone arbcom case, and since then DavidShankBone has been harassing me about that old dispute - which has nothing to do with the THF-DavidShankBone case. I've politely asked David to stop at least half a dozen times, mainly because I don't wish to re-ignite that flame war, but David will not let it drop. So I suggested that if he was so concerned about my behavior, he should open an RfC or arbcom case - but he won't do that either. Instead, he insists on bringing it up repeatedly in unrelated discussions.

For examples, see his talk page (specifically, here and here), the arbcom case talk page (predominantly here, here, here, and here), and Ossified's talk page. There are probably others - this has been going on for weeks. Honestly, I'd have no problem if he wanted to open a case against me (I stand by my actions) but I do have a problem with him bringing this up in every unrelated debate. Given the length of time this has gone on, I feel like this is starting to approach the level of harassment.

Can someone here please help out with this dispute? I was going to file a user conduct RfC, but they advise you to get at least two others to assist first, so I came here. If there is a better place to handle this, I'll take it there. ATren 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Try the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee if necessary. They could handle it better there, but perhaps an admin could "shock" this guy into stopping.

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have several pages you post to on my watchlist, ATren, among them David's, so I have read a lot of what you are posting about here before. I don't see David engaging in personal attacks, and further, see him exhibiting a hell of a lot of patience in the face of your constant messaging. I noticed yesterday your wikilawering ways have expanded to include other editors who have disagreed with you in the Arbcom you're involved in. Perhaps it's for the best that you posted here, as with administrative eyes on you, David might at last be able to return to making his truly valuable contributions. Jeffpw 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are his friends who have piled on, as are you. And I did not say "personal attacks", I said "harassment" - those are two different things. ATren 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ATren is far from innocent here, and frankly he is harassing me in the ArbCom. He's not even a party to it, but a "concerned Wikipedian" - but if you look at every edit from the last two months, if you look at his User page, you will see he has become obsessed with this case between myself and User:THF. He's called it a kangaroo court. He is taking issues in ArbCom (where he has also taken on the arbitrators) and trying to spread them around Wikipedia. He has been very uncivil and his behavior is a little out of control on there. He's lodging accusations of bias against arbitrators; everyone has a motive, blah, blah, blah. He was asked to remove a harassing message by an admin, and he did so. It was his harassment of another editor; now that it's gone...no problem. That poor editor is now gone also, though. --David Shankbone 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The message was not harassing, it was disclosure and it was added many months ago in response to another editor who accused me of not disclosing my conflict with Avidor. But if this was David's only concern, why didn't he politely ask me to remove it? I am a reasonable person, and if David had politely raised his concerns I would have listened. Instead, he chose to pester me for weeks about this old conflict - and coincidentally it all started when I supported his opponent in the arbcom case. To me, this was clearly a case of an editor trying to antagonize and intimidate an editor who didn't agree with him, especially given that I tried to politely engage him on the issue at least half a dozen times, and each time he ignored my pleas. As for my activities on that arbcom, I have argued civilly but firmly that the proposed decisions are flawed - is that against policy? ATren 05:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to see who is harrassing who, please check all of our talkpages. Since August, Atren has had one message from me discussing Ted Frank, one from Cool Hand Luke discussing David, and none whatsoever from David Shankbone. On the other hand, Atren has sent ten messages to David Shankbone just since September on pretty much everything from harrassment to allegations of COI, almost all demandng retractions and/or evidence that has been provided elsewhere. Atren has also sent three messages to Cool Hand Luke, one trying to canvass him against David, a message to me ordering me to provide lengthy explanations for a comment I made on the Arbcom, a message on Ossified's page which was actually directed at David and is insanely long. He has carried his battle to the talkpages of FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and Raul654 (whom he has now added of his list of people in Teh Leftwing Cabal). Believe me, if someone is engaging in harrassment here, it sure as hell ain't David. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "battle" that Dev920 says I'm engaged in is nothing of the sort - I simply participated as an uninvolved third party in an arbcom case. For that, I've been harassed for several weeks about a completely unrelated dispute. Dev920 was one of those piling on, and here we are again.

I should note, Dev920 was one of the ones harassing THF several months ago, by repeatedly mocking THF's requests to avoid spurious use of his real name in light of the MichaelMoore.com thing. It seems this user likes to get involved in ShankBone's disputes.

To respond point by point to Dev920's empty charge of "canvasing" - (1) I politely asked DS to stop bringing up the dispute, (2) Cool Hand Luke has also been a recent target of ShankBone's harassment - in this case ShankBone mocking his professional status, (3) A response to David ShankBone who was talking about my conflict on Ossified's page, (4) A question directed to Flonight about the arbitration unrelated to DavidShankBone, (5) More discussion with someone involved in the dispute, again unrelated to DS, (6) Question as to Raul's conflict of interest in judging this case since he was involved in the dispute before it opened.

The basic fact is this: Cool Hand Luke and I have been the most active editors in that case in THF's defense, and - surprise surprise - we've both been subjected to harassment by DavidShankBone. In CHL's case, it is snide remarks about about his age (!) and status as a law student, in my case it was the repeated dredging up of an old, dead conflict - even after I requested him to stop countless times.

For those who are sensing deja vu - yes, this all happened before, but THF was the target. Same players, same misrepresentation of another editor's actions. THF was hounded all the way off the project, and DavidShankBone now has a proposed arbcom finding which is critical of his behavior in those interactions with THF. Now he's doing the same to me, and to a lesser extent Cool Hand Luke, for committing the crime of getting involved in that case. Once again, this is intimidation and harassment, and I will not be hounded off the project like THF was. ATren 10:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: I fully expected David's friends to arrive here to defend him, and so far I have not been disappointed. I expect there to be more. Nevertheless, I stand by my initial statement. ATren 11:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

View the hysterics for yourself, folks. Cool Hand Luke has neither engaged in harrassment nor been harrassed, of or by anyone. Although he and I clearly disagree on the facts of this case, we have managed to make our arguments in a calm and reasoned manner. Trying to drag us both into this in order to cover up his lone harrassment is a shameful tactic by ATren. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, rather than resorting to dramatics, why don't you respond to my responses to your unfounded accusations above? Or do you concede that your your accusations were completely groundless? And, FWIW, here is the link to CHL's complaint to DS - evidence that your declaration that CHL has not been harassed is groundless, just like your complaint against me is groundless. ATren 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of harrassment in that link, it was an argument which from the page appears to have been resolved.

I don't respond to you, ATren, because I am supremely unbothered over whether you think my "accusations" are unfounded or not, and because I see everyone who does take the time to respond to you swamped under your tirades on their talkpages. I am writing to all those who read AN/I and have come into this happy innocents, and I consider the links I have already provided sufficient for my point. If others require more, I shall provide more. But you know well what you're doing, I don't need to tell you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already responded in detail to all of your points (see above). You have not responded to my responses, so I can only assume you don't dispute what I wrote. So, yes, I suggest you provide more links. ATren 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to my polite message which you ignored, and subsequently complained about (above)? I assumed you wanted it removed. But as long as you've now restored it, why don't you respond to my request for clarification? It was a polite response to a very loaded charge; the least you can do is point me to my offense so I can fix it. ATren 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• What you have here is an editor who has become obsessed with a case that by his own admission he is not involved in; however, that's all he works on. The ArbCom is wrapping up; it became heated at moments, as ArbComs tend to do, but ATren has inflamed the situation. Even CHL said, "I can't and won't defend him." His own side finds him indefensible. Pretty much everyone at the ArbCom wishes he'd could play somewhere else. But, I think it's obvious why based upon his wild-eyed posts here. He has a history of this behavior, too. The history of his User page is a history of his crusades against other editors. It's best just to ignore him at this point. --David Shankbone 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"His own side won't defend him" - see, this is the problem. Everything with David seems to be "my side vs your side", "us vs them". CHL agree on some points, disagree on others. We happen to agree on the THF arbcom, and for that we have been subjected to a barrage of irrelevant comments about our edit histories, and, in CHL's case, his age and status as a law student. Case in point: "History of crusades" above - yet another vague reference to unrelated disputes he knows nothing about, in an attempt to discredit me. ATren 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

David, Don't you think you should let the ArbCom speak for itself? It seems to me that your contentions notwithstanding, ATren has made legitimate points. Additionally, your conduct in your interactions with him and others hasn't exactly been the paragon of civility or compromise either. --FolicAcid 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have zero issues with my conduct in the ArbCom (are you even familiar with it?). I think ATren's behavior and posts above speak for themselves. --David Shankbone 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

After making three patronizing comments on my non-publicized status as a student[81] [82] [83] and after an absurd thread where he promised to stop if I stopped making court of law arguments,[84] but user did it again anyway three hours later, with several sarcastic comments about my age and missing my old student arguments.[85] [86] [87] He's not as white as snow, but it's not too far off the baseline of what passes for civil behavior around here. This should be closed. Cool Hand Luke 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you go through the painstaking process of supplying diffs over things that require no admin intervention. Under definitions you have put forth in ArbCom, this could be seen as harassment since it's only purpose is to undermine me. But... I don't make that argument. Wikipedia isn't a kindergarten, and that THF's "side" )CoolHandLuke, ATren) in the ArbCom didn't get the result they wanted there, they are taking arguments outside of it. I don't effort to be a "paragon of civility" on here; I just effort to stay within reasonable bounds, and I've done so. CHL, you've tried to goad me into admonishing admins whose behavior (from months ago) you thought should be corrected, even though they were already corrected. You are by far not as white as snow, either. This is why ArbCom spats should stay in ArbCom. --David Shankbone 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking arguments anywhere. I said to close. I'm just posting diffs so that users can see that the AN/I was not totally frivolous (this is not to undermine you, sheesh). Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing is fine with me, as long as he follows through on what he said earlier ("now that it's gone...no problem."). As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem if he wants to take that dispute to proper channels - my only problem is him repeatedly alluding to the dispute in unrelated discussions, for the apparent purpose of tainting my integrity and reputation. I came here only after he ignored half a dozen polite requests from me to stop. ATren 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Undo links

Jbenet7 (talk · contribs) has added 30 plus links to various Bahamas pages to promote their commercial sites.[88] I do not have Twinkle on my computer. Can someone with super-buttons revert? Thank you. SurfsUp 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Left a {{uw-spam4im}} on both the account and an IP address who also spammed. Cross-posted at WT:WPSPAM (permanent link). MER-C 09:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! SurfsUp 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Please take a look at Hindi Programming Language which I strongly believe has copyright issues and and the following links which have the same text outside of Wikipedia and not under GFDL or any free / open access license. The authors are also different - http://technofriends.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/hindi-programming-language/ [89] (almost an exact copy-paste job) http://technofriends.wordpress.com/category/it/ [90] The Uses section onm this article comes from http://sktn.spaces.live.com/ [91]Check out Shamit's posting here [92], though this is slightly differently worded. Another similar link [93] Hi pedler 09:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

WP:CV is a better venue for this. Besides, I see organic growth that was copied verbatim from a certain revision, there's no copyvio here (except on the parts of the other sites). Cheers! east.718 at 12:16, 10/18/2007

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Angie Y.

Resolved

This case has run its course and needs to be closed. I think a short-term block for Angie Y. is warranted, based on apparent vote-stacking and personal attacks, but someone else needs to make the final decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - if it's not sockpuppetteering, it looks to be at least meat-puppeteering. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Shalom, I'll block 48 hours for meatpuppeteering and incivility. Rlevse 14:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EmperorVelocicaptor

Resolved

 – Socks blocked.

This individual has been problematic on a number of WP:AFRO pages. He has made unnecessary and disruptive edits. He persistently uses article talk pages as his personal soapbox. He has been asked to stop making disruptive edits a number of times by several users including. These include at least one last warning on the EmperorVelocicaptor account. He has also made these types of edits as User:Velocicaptor and as User:SultanOfVelocicaptorXVI. CJ 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems an obvious case of WP:SOCK. I've created a sockpuppet report for him. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No need; I've blocked the sockpuppet accounts as obvious and disruptive entities. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I closed the sock case and created the cat. Rlevse 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jcg716

Resolved

 – Vandalism-only account blocked.

This user since having an account has used their account for a single purpose: vandalism and unconstructive edits which I carefully checked before coming here most noteably on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles page. However since there are no warnings in his talk page I had to post this information here. -Adv193 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked as a vandalism-only account. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:195.252.61.164

195.252.61.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The vast majority of edits this editor makes inserts plausible but fake information about the nationality of living persons that was reverted. This is a long term pattern starting July 22 and continuing on to today. This IP appears to be static for this editor. WP:AIV reports rejected as the last vandalism today was older than 2 hours. --NrDg 17:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If he continues, block him. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This will now be the third last warning. The information he adds is deliberately wrong and is meant to corrupt the articles. He obviously already knows that the information is fake, he is just making it up. I don't see how additional warnings will change his behavior or stop this vandalism. I have already requested a block after his previous, last warning. Block was refused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Flavius_Belisarius

Shuppiluliuma/Flavius Belisariusan indef banned user, is edit warring in Armenian-Turkish relations article by adding POV to the article. He is known to have used many sockpuppets and IP addresses from the same 151 range[94]. VartanM 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He switched the IP's

• 151.37.183.75
• 151.44.156.179--VartanM 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 87.229.26.176
• 151.44.145.157
• 151.38.182.17

VartanM 02:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So? he has made doezens of reverts already anybody? VartanM 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How about yourself? You are a "terrorist" who wants to oppress any opinion in conflict with your nationalism. 151.38.182.17 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You know the first time you called me an internet terrorist it made me laugh. Now your not so funny anymore. VartanM 02:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly an ultranationalist. 151.38.182.17 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

terrorist now ultranationalist. whats next? You're not gonna call me an alien are you? :) VartanM 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, kids. Take it somewhere else, please? HalfShadow 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I just reported a user whos evading his block and you're telling me to take it somewhere else? VartanM 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant the back and forth. Report 'im, but don't talk to 'im. You're making our necks hurt. HalfShadow 03:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Are you referring to WP:RBI? I can certainly do the the R and I VartanM 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This board is useless, I reported this 5 hours ago!!!. If his not getting blocked then I should be blocked for 3RR, because I have been reverting him the past 5 hours. VartanM 06:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected for the last 3 1/2 hours...? Viridae^Talk 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Turkey-history. And before you say that they might not be the same person [95] VartanM 06:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask RPP. If there are any more articles he's warring on, tell me so I can add to the list. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Grand National Assembly of Turkey
• Atatürk's Reforms
• Foreign relations of Turkey
• I think this is it. Are we going to protect every article he edits? VartanM 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest reporting him to WP:AIV when you see him, it probably gets a quicker response. Link to this edit to show I recommended it, in case other admins find the request irregular (it's normally not designed for treating ban-evasion, but with serial ban evaders on dynamic IPs, I think using AIV is justified.) Admins: please block on sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is the lastest sock Whitealp. Semi-Protection doesn't seem to work, or at least not yet. He's using dormant accounts, I would've reported him to AIV but it doesn't seem to be accruing right now. VartanM 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One more sock User:Henry Kissinger. VartanM 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the great effort dear administrators. I filled a report on a ban evading sock yesterday at 5pm. The same sock was engaged in a revert war and has now reported me for a 3rr violations[96]. Keep up the Great work! VartanM 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and Self-Promotion on Several Aerodynamics Pages

I have been watching the user Genick (a.k.a. potto) for a while now. This person claims to be Dr. Genick Bar-Meir, and has edited many articles in the field of compressible aerodynamics and incorporated material that is either non-nonsensical, vandalism, or self-promotion if he is who he says he is. I've been trying to re-write some of these articles since this user had not been active for a long time prior to when I created my account, but now the user is back and is re-inserting information to promote himself and vandalizing various pages like my own user page. Below are some events that have occurred lately:

First, he created my own user page EMBaero and used it to complain about my revisions and question my expertise (which happens to be in the field of aerodynamics).

I made a major edit of the page Oblique shock a couple months ago. In the history, the user made revisions [97] (last two paragraphs) that promote his own work which I believe is against Wikipedia policy. The information is completely bogus and was added with a large amount of grammatical errors. This is typical of Genick and also appears on many other edits: [98] (final paragraph), [99] (last paragraph), [100] (self-promotion in external links), to name a few. Additionally, a link to a text called 'Fundamentals of Compressible Flow' ([101]) has been placed on over 10 separate articles. This text is apparently his own and in my opinion is of extremely low quality and not worthy of Wikipedia. Much of it looks to be plagiarized from other sources, although I won't try to prove that for now.

What is more concerning is that this user appears to be using several other identities for editing these aerodynamics pages, some of which have caused a lot of trouble on Wikipedia related to other subjects. Consider for instance, the user 209.32.159.25. This user has recently added links to the 'Fundamentals of Compressible Flow' text and promoted the Bar-Meir information([102], [103]). He could also be editing as another user with an IP address of 82.19.74.161 ([104]) or perhaps as 68.107.62.119 ([105]) or 128.173.190.56 ([106]). I think more IP addresses could be found.

To sum things up, I think this user(s) is causing a lot of damage on Wikipedia with his editing. The pages on aerodynamics really need improvement, and this person is working against that improvement. Furthermore, looking into the history of Genick shows many arguments and insults with other users. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know all of the regulations, but it certainly seems to me like this person should be at least warned if not banned completely.EMBaero 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero

The relevant guidelines are conflict of interest, original research and self-promotion. Hope this info is helpful. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Symposium to Symposia

The user ResidueOfDesign is changing the spelling of symposium to symposia in quite a lot of article. I am not sure whether this is necessary as it means the same thing. Please check his contribs as I am not sure whether this is borderline vandalism or actually a typo correction. --WriterListener 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as he's changing "symposiums" to "symposia" (which was the case in the ones I checked) and not actually changing "symposium" to "symposia" as well (which would be changing singular to plural), it's fine. Pinball22 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

According to wiktionary, both forms are possible. When googling, I found this, which says that "modern usage often prefers the "iums" form, e.g. stadiums rather than the equally correct stadia", though I can't say that's a very credible source. I think that WP:ENGVAR applies. Since both uses are correct, I don't think it's appropriate to crawl through the entire Wikipedia and change this. — Ksero 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Our article English plural gives "symposia" as the plural, no mention of "symposiums". Of course neither the talk archive or the WP article are definitive. A quick googling of which is more used: Symposia generates 2.1 M ghits, while Symposiums generates 0.6 M ghits - so usage seems to be running 3.5 to 1 in favor of the changes being made. I also don't see where WP:ENGVAR helps us because the choice of plurals of symposium does not seem to be tied to any national variety of English - and it's hard to say that an article with one or two usages of the plural has evolved using a particular choice. I recall all this coming up in some CFD involving octopi, octopodes, or octopuses. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of links to copyright violation on YouTube

Resolved

Argyriou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting links in the article Zombietime to an unauthorised YouTube copy of a Fox TV broadcast (see [107], [108], [109]). He asserts that it's "fair use" on the grounds that the copyright holder hasn't complained. He has, however, persisted despite being specifically told by myself that WP:EL prohibits the addition of such links ([110]). This is a clear copyvio, and persistently violating copyrights is blockable per WP:BLOCK#Protection. I could block him myself but to avoid any appearance of impropriety I'd appreciate it if another administrator could take a look at this. -- ChrisO 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(added) He's also broken the three revert rule with the accusation that Maxim is my "meatpuppet". A block is needed here, I think. -- ChrisO 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite involved, here myself. I reverted him twice, once partially. And I'm your meatpuppet, ChrisO? Please to make your acquaintance. And Youtube, whether a copyvio or not, is not a reliable source, do I understand the policy/guideline correctly? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're my pelmenyi-puppet. ;-) YouTube isn't automatically not a reliable source. It depends on who the publisher is. For instance, the UK Prime Minister's Office has its own YouTube channel [111], which we could certainly use as a RS. However, if the linked clip is a copyvio then considerations of reliability are irrelevant - we can't link to it, whether it's reliable or not. -- ChrisO 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to notify someone when you report them here? Anyway, since Maxim actually understood my edits, and has removed *only* the disputed YouTube reference, I think this dispute has been resolved. Argyriou (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou blocked for 24hrs by User:Citicat for 3RR vio, marking as resolved. Carlossuarez46 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

Having been slapped on the wrist for making an accusation of subtle vandalism against User:Spitfire19 at WP:AIV I've been keeping an eye on the contributions of this user. My previous concerns was with misapplied infoboxes and links to sister projects which disrupted the layout of the page (I first came across this with this on the wikipedia article[112], however this was not the first article or only such article so edited. I was slapped on the wrist by an admin for basically assuming bad faith and that this was not an innocent mistake and not following the escalating vandalism warnings. Spitfire19 has since seemed to have stopped placing sister project boxes in awkward places in an article but has since created the disambiguations Castle (chees) and 9876543210 and article 7678956531675679495, which seem to serve no useful purpose. Again my first instinct, though I shouldn't, is to assume subtle vandalism. Can I ask someone to take this user under their wing as I'm worried that my behaviour is verging on wiki-stalking, having asked for speedy deletion and mass reverted this users contributions. Thankyou for any help and advice that ANI can provide. KTo288 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism and plain old bizarre edits to me. ThuranX 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the Castle redirect for speedy deletion - a correctly spelled disambiguation page already exists. If an admin would like to administer the coup de chees grace...? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ForeignerFromTheEast

This user is involved in edit warring and revert warring on dozens of articles relating to Macedonia and Yugoslavia. He was blocked for this same reason last month. He is not contributing any new information or anything positive at all. SWik78 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see:

ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His block log says he was blocked 24h for revert warring at Skopje, not at "dozens of articles." Please provide diffs of specific examples. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "this same reason" means to refer to "edit warring and revert warring", and not specifically to "on dozens of articles". Joe 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant violations of WP:NPA

I think this has been briefly discussed somewhere above. I left "final/only warnings" on everybodys pages who made personal attacks. The page I am talking about is Talk:Bernard Hopkins. One user made another attack after I gave the final warning. It is User:66.30.156.157, and the comment he just left (after I gave a final warning) is here. I already removed part of the comment. - Rjd0060 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't know if it was discussed here. I know that there was a RFP because of this, which was denied. - Rjd0060 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Both anons have been blocked, and I reverted the forest fire they created. I'm gonna work on sourcing the article and resolving the dispute, probably tomorrow. east.718 at 06:54, 10/19/2007

Another Dereks1x sock

Resolved

Tagged and blocked. Miranda 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block Polounit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The user is obviously a sock of Dereks1x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). After 2 months of being idle the user's first edit was to tell Walton One that they were a blocked user intending to come back.[113] Their second edit was to start a checkuser request against me, Turtlescrubber (talk · contribs), Dereks1x, and some editor I've never seen Greenwinged (talk · contribs).[114] To be honest, Dereks1x has got to be the most incompetent sockpuppetmaster that I've seen. Also, including me as a sockpuppet for Dereks1x is a common tactic for Dereks1x. Check out the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bobblehead and the edit history of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Thanks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this block request - and Greenwinged (talk · contribs) as well I believe is a Dereks1x sock- the only edit made by this new user was to suggest that stricken comments made by yet another recently blocked Dereks1x sock, 7F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), be restored, using language and an m.o. that has become all too familiar from dealing with many of this farm's socks this last year. Three of his socks were uncovered and blocked in one day last week, and he's still going strong. Tvoz |talk 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I indef blocked Polounit and Greenwinged. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Muramasa itachi

Yesterday, I blocked Muramasa itachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for trolling on Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260), comparing both myself and User:SpigotMap to Nazis because of (unsurprisingly) our refusal to allow SIHULM into the article due to lack of sources and the fact that it is a troll meme. After I put the template on the page, he left a personal attack ([115]) and, after I reverted it and gave him {{uw-npa2}}, he vandalized it and made a crude remark and again likened us to Nazis ([116]). I'm considering extending the block because of this talkpage trolling, but I want to know if this is a good idea since he's made semi-helpful contributions to Naruto-related pages. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You'd think that when someone is blocked for ranting and raving, they'd realize they aren't helping their case by ratcheting up the level of ranting and raving. I'll drop a note on his talk page. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi's? What are my troops doing there? ;) Karnoff 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

His block's expired now. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivilry by User:Tarc

Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Four times now, on two articles Tarc has engaged in editing disputes, and has refered to my edits as "vandalism" in his editing summaries without explaining his concerns. [117][118] [119][120] He has also been warned about this three times, and has been asked to stop. Once during the warnings, he said "I really don't care what you think. Do not inject yourself into matters that do not concern you (i.e. your pseudo "warning") and there's not need to take that Talk:AoIA thread here. Stop harassing" [121] He has also said the following when asked for an apology for his incivil comments: "And I have said that you will be receiving no such apology, as none is warranted or deserved. So now that your question/query has been answered, you can now cease this line of communication. Thank you."[122] Yahel Guhan 01:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:Tarc warned. Whether his recruiting efforts for the Waffen SS was anti-semitism or anti-Zionism seems to be a matter of debate among the supporters of Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni, Tarc's calling the opposing side vandalism. Both editors should strive to maintain a neutral POV in that article. Carlossuarez46 02:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I call some serious BS on "resolving" something before I have had a chance to respond. If you will look at the most recent edit by this user, you will see an edit summary of "rv. new version is better". Oh, really? The version that this user reverted to wiped out some standardizations of Husayni/Husseini, plus restored some typos and grammatical errors made by Zeq in his edit attempt. Guhan is simply reverting to a version based on who edited, not what the content is. That is vandalism. Tarc 12:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the "resolved" because it seems like you have not learned civility. I thought that my warning would have had a positive effect, but it hasn't. You ought to read WP:VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and specifically WP:VANDALISM#What_vandalism_is_not. Your continued assumption of bad faith, restoring typos and grammar errors in connection with that editor's reverting your edits which were seen as POV should be seen in that light. Remember to WP:AGF. Always. Carlossuarez46 17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• A nice quote on the vandalism page reads: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." You may wish to reflect upon your actions and see whether this resonates with you. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not restore typos and grammar errors, that is what I stated that Yahel Guhan. And AGF is all well and good, but in many of these cases, people fail to take note of the "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." part. There is strong evidence that Guhan made a blind reversion based on no other reason that it was an edit of mine, and not on content. Tarc 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc has refused to engage in meangifull discussion. Providing such arguments as "my methods are better" [123] and refusing to explain why. Instead he continue with stream of insults about other people level of understanding: [124], [125], [126] and focusing on edit partice of others instead of meangifull discussion about the actual subject [127].

Tarc continue not to repsond to simple questions that ask him to explain why his "methods" are better: [128] . When he does provide explnation it is by describing his POV as "fact" and the opposing view as "opinion" [129] (while in pevious descussion on the same content he argue that he only move it from one paragrpah to another and does not disagree with the actual conntent [130],[131].

To sumup it seems he just use any possible argument to get his way. This is called Wikilawyering and in part seem to violate WP:NPA . I hope he can become more coperative . Since after 58 edits all the suggestion I made were reverted see Talk:Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Results_so_far - I am taking a timeout from this article in hope tarc can cool down and when we resume he will be more willing to listen, accept changes and compromise. Zeq 22:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite cool, and there is nothing that Zeq has said here that is even remotely apropos to this discussion. The "fact" vs. "opinion" is in regards to guidelines of WP:LEAD that he is ignoring. The "methods" refers to a discussion about simple google test of which is a more prevalent/common name for the article, and my opinion that his method was not viable. If we look at Zeq's history of community bans, article bans, probations, sanctions, page move wars, etc..., we clearly see who is the one with a history of unwillingness to listen, accept changes and compromise. Tarc 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What Zeq said most certianly is relevant to this discussion. If you provide nothing to the discussion, except something along the lines of "I'm right because I'm right" that does nothing toward reaching a consensus. If you think Zeq's edits violate probation, report him on the noticeboard, and leave it at that. That is no excuse for making personal attacks. Nor is it acceptable to just assume because a user may have been bad in the past that they automaticly are a disruptive user. People can change. You are still supposed to assume good faith, and try to reach a consensus. Zeq's history is no justification for making personal attacks and overall incivilry. Reguardless of Zeq's history, currently it is you who is being disruptive: not assuming good faith, making personal attacks, and not attempting to reach a consensus through compromise, not Zeq. Zeq has actually tried to compromise and help reach a consensus on that page, and is remaining very civil dispite your numerous personal attacks against him/her. Yahel Guhan 01:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am staying away from the article for few days in hope more editors can jump in (I filed a RFC in the bio RFC page: wiki/Template:RFCbio_list) and in hope Tarc will decide to change his/her behaviour in this page. Wikipedia works on cooperation not on constant rejections of other people work. Tarc should be mindfull how to combine his view, his work , his POV with the views and contributions by others. Zeq 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about personal attacks, this is about me labeling your (Guhan) edit of the al-Husayni article as vandalism. And I still stand by that assessment. You reverted to a poorer version of an article for no other reason than it was me who had last edited. Tarc 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another false accusation - which is a clear violation of both WP:NPA and more important WP:AGF. I think you are slowly disqualifying yourself from being a wikipedia editor. First step is to ackowledge your errors and appologize. Zeq 14:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack IMO, it is my interpretation and understanding of thr event in question. Guhan did not revert based on the content of the article.

Furthermore, I have a right to defend myself here, and provide the reasons and explanations for my actions. Your suggestion that this self-defense itself is a personal attack or AGF-violation or whatever is a ludicrous stretch of anyone's imagination. If Carlos or whichever other admin steps in and wants to say "I have heard both sides, and you're still wrong, Tarc. Case dismissed, take your warning", then that's that and there's not much else one can do. But don't you dare give me this "slowly disqualifying yourself from being a wikipedia editor" nonsense. The reason I re-opened this is because it was closed 30 minutes after Guhan posted it, in the dead of night my time. I have a right to have my say, and I have said it. Tarc 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you support your claim with Diff ? Zeq 12:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained what my interpretation of this edit is. Tarc 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with this edit ? if you reverted it because you did not WP:AGF you should simply self-revert and applogize to Yahel. If you think she violated policy in this edit explain specifically what you saw in it. Zeq 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have, and I am not going to repeat myself for you. Tarc 12:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "exalanation" is: "Guhan did not revert based on the content of the article.". This is not an explnation at all - so please explain why you reverted Guhan's edit ? Zeq 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an explanation. Whether you agree with it or not is an aspect of this that I am really not concerned with. Unless there is a question from an admin, then this is the last I intend to say on the matter. Tarc 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone do a better job (I am obviously failing here) and explain Tarc about WP:AGF and why what Tarc thinks were the motives of an editor - it still does not explain why he made this revert ? Zeq 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Terroristic threat made in school article

The Ewing High School (New Jersey) was modified this morning with an edit that could be construed as a hostile threat to the school and its officials. Click here for details. The IP is from the school itself. Do we have a mechanism to deal with this type of situation?. Alansohn 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Revert, block, ignore. Possibly call the school and police as well. Likely to be just some kid who's had a bad day, though. Moreschi ^Talk 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Contacting the school would be sufficient. The phone number can be found at their website. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not possibly, definitely contact the school. Ronnotel 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, has anyone called ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that they can't seem to spell school, I doubt there's any intent to actually do it, but if someone near New Jersey could give them a call, that'd be good. --Deskana (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, that's the new "cool" way to spell school on the internet. Scary what our children think is "cool" now a days. IrishLass0128 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get through now; they don't make it easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to a secretary. They weren't aware, she had no idea what Wikipedia was or how to spell it, she indicated with certainty she would immediately speak with their computer person and get on it. We *really* should have a better means of dealing with this; as I was on the phone, I realized I was compromising *myself* by being the one to report this, and I'm not at all comfortable about that situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this would be a good topic for WP:THREAT? E.g. all school-related threats should be reported to the local school, etc. Ronnotel 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a gunman in the middle of the night... sorry.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the simple and best process should be that "the Wikipedia office" as site owners officially email the diffs to the school concerned, with a bog standard "you should be aware of this" type message. Not for individual editors to become invoved at all. Giano 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I think it was pretty stupid of me to make that call; I'm still shaking, and half expecting the police to show up here any minute. But no one was doing anything, so I did. That's a pretty scary message if you ask me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with sandy. There needs to be an official avenue for dealing with these sorts of things. Official Wikipedia employees need to make these sorts of calls anonymously per notifications. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• They must not make then anonymously, and neither must editors or they could have their phones traced and God knows what repurcussions. The site owners have to deal with such threats in a competent and efficent planned manner. Giano 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not calling back, I can't believe how stupid I was to do that and possibly involve myself, but how do I know that secretary actually *did* anything or even knows how to find Wikipedia? Someone needs to follow up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct thing to do is call the local police in the area. Let them contact the school. The trouble with contacting the Wikipedia Office is that they can be slow to respond, and they are not available 24-7. There is precedent here with how we deal with suicide threats. Call the school as well, but as you've found, if you were talking to a police officer, they would be dealing with it in the right way. Someone should probably call the police anyway. Carcharoth 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't kick yourself and call yourself stupid; something needed to be done in a serious situation, and you stepped in bravely in a situation where that might be just what was needed. Kudos to you. However I agree completely that we need a procedure so no one else will have to try to do this on their own in the future like you have. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a kid messing around, I'm astounded people can see that. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe there has been a case before where people saw internet postings and thought it was a joke, and it turned out it wasn't. Carcharoth 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(99.99% probability this is a joke) * (Sum of admin time wasted) << (0.01% probability this is plea for help * calamity) Ronnotel 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What does that actually mean? Carcharoth 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I expect it is a kid playing arownd but a bloody good fright will do him no harm. Sandy has done her good citizen duty the school have been notified end of story. Giano 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure this is a joke and people are kicking up a fuss over a little kid having a laugh. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it kindest just to ignore Ryan. Giano 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was EVER a time to be better safe than sorry, this is the time. This is not something that you take lightly and it isn't something that you brush off as a "joke" when it could be much more. Notifying the local police would be the best thing to do. The only way you can know for "100%" that this is a joke is if you did it yourself, otherwise you're assuming. This is most likely a hoax, but these situations aren't meant to be taken lighly. Ever. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We're a website, we create an encyclopedia - we aren't NYPD. If anyone cares that much about it, block the IP for being a dick - no need to start phoning the police or ringing a school, we're just over reacting as per usual. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have newspapers in your part of the world? Giano 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. There was a news story the other day about a kid with an arsenal. School violence is rising all over the U.S. If I ignored a threat like that, and some kid blew up a school, I could quite probably never sleep again. If it is just a kid fooling around, well - they'll never do that again. - Philippe | Talk 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely horrible attitude to have. I'm not sure if you're based in the US, Ryan, but we have a problem with school shootings — there's no other way to put it. For example, in the SuccessTech Academy shooting 6 days ago, it has been widely reported that the shooter gave multiple warnings (psychologists would say he was hoping to be stopped, but I am not one) that were ignored using this same reasoning as an excuse. It takes a few minutes to report it to those better-equipped to handle it; if it is a joke, then that person will learn quickly what humor actually is. If not, then someone who needs help will get it. There's really zero downside. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan is based in Britain - home of the Dunblane massacre. Giano 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get off topic and argue about attitudes here. Someone E-mail or call the local police from a pay phone. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

oh, for gosh sakes, this reaction is just astounding. There's a BIG difference between a school full of people at risk and a suicide threat, whose victim is the person making the threat. I've done my deed and very stupidly put myself at risk. Will SOMEONE PLEASE do the right thing and figure out how to get someone at Wikipedia to follow up on this ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not gullible Giano, if we took every thing as fact that IP's put up here then world war III would be about to break out. There is no reason to believe that this is any different to any other immature threat made by an IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, don't worry, no one is going to show up at your door and put you under bright lights. You did what needed to be done. Ronnotel 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have sent a brief email to the principal with the relevant facts, e.g. diff, time, IP. Ronnotel 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel, the secretary asked me what time the message was, and I wasn't able to calculate from UTC to New Jersey time, so I couldn't help her. I told her how to find the article and the history tab, and that they should have a computer person in the school who could figure out what kid was on that computer at that time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I believe the time of the edit was 10:08am EDT. I included that in my email of the details. If you do speak with the secretary again, you might let her know that Dr. Logan has an email with relevant details. Ronnotel 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just dropped a Barnstar on Sandy's page, and I'm including the text of the citation here, because I really feel that she did absolutely the right thing, and shame on Ryan and others for giving her a hard time for doing the right thing. My text was: Our community extends beyond our keyboards, and I know you're still shaking from your phone call, and having second thoughts about making it, but I am fully convinced that you absolutely did the right thing. What we need more of is for folks to take the concept of "citizenship" and make it personal. There's just too many instances in life of people not making the call because they "don't want to get involved" (and if you'll notice from my user page what line of work I'm in, you'll understand why this matters to me so much). Maybe it was 99.999% sure to be a hoax...that doesn't matter. You did the right thing, and I want to commend you for it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. Ronnotel 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Akradecki; I thought the message was quite disturbing and demanded immediate action. As I was reading the message to the secretary, the full force of it hit me, and I realized I was reading a threat over the phone, and I could be interpreted as an involved party. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan's almost certainly correct - it's a kid acting like an idiot, but it's also essential to notify the proper authorities. I talked to the police about a kid that was making fairly specific death threats on Wikipedia a couple of months ago, at the request of the OTRS folks. I didn't personally believe that the threat was real, but was uncomfortable with just ignoring it. The police officer was bemused by the whole Wikipedia thing, and the kid was just a kid acting like a jerk, but really, how do we know? In my case, I was OK with telling the cops who I really was. But I can't agree with revert, block, ignore. Acroterion _(talk) 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a parent and an editor, not an admin, but I'd like to say that what Sandy did was absolutely the right thing to do. We had a boy threaten our school last year via myspace and it wasn't a hoax. He had guns and was learning how to make bombs on the internet. You can't take the chance. If none of the parents that saw that boys threat from our school hadn't called, I could be missing a daughter now instead of celebrating her 16th birthday. Never assume, not in the world today. IrishLass0128 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, too, that in the most recent school shootings, a student saw the gunman in the bathroom loading his weapon, and when interviewed on NPR about what he did when he saw that, he said he just went back to class and forgot about it. Result: 4 injured, and it could have been prevented. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) Yes, while chances are 99.99% it's silly, I think we have to pay attention to such things in a way that we don't to other sorts of vandalism, unfortunately. I assume someone has told Bastique or someone else office-y, in case they get a call from the school? Pinball22 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume anything; we've got a long thread here, but NO indication yet that Wikipedia office is aware or that the police know or that the secretary even did anything. I'm still troubled. And I don't have a clue how to contact anyone "office=y" at wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I did follow-up with an email to the principal. If someone contacts WP office, I'm sure they'll be able to locate this thread and get up to speed. I'm not sure there's much more to be done. Ronnotel 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think such cases as the ones mentioned above should be dealt with by the Wikimedia office staff. I don't think contacting the police or relevant parties is something that standard editors should do due to the legal processes etc which may be involved. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's for sure, after the fact. Had to be done, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be a good idea, while we are all here if we agreed that as editors we feel, and tell, the Wikipedia site owners that they should have a procedure in place for dealing with this kind of situation. Perhaps a standard email including the diffs to the local police and the school which could be sent by an Arbcom member (or person of similar standing - a sort of duty officer) if such threats occur while "the office" is not manned. While Sandy did the correct thing the onus should not have been upon her, an official procedure needs to ne implemented. Giano 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I agree that there should be some sort of policy that takes into account the special nature of threats in a school environment, particularly in the U.S. The title for such a policy might be something like WP:School Threat. Thoughts? Ronnotel 19:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There should be a clear procedure for such situations. The policy shouldn't just cover schools but all specifically targeted threats in general. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not a problem confined to the USA, Wikipedia is well enough known for an individual to use it as a medium for conveying all manner of threats. So it is time for an official procedure to be in place - that works like machinery - just needing a responsible person to type in the relevant details and addresses. Giano 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been the case for a while, but each time it comes up people want to avoid installing the processes from the ground up. This is something that needs to be imposed from the top down. The point about involving the Office is flawed, as I pointed out before, because the Office is not available 24-7. The only solution is for concerned individuals to take it on themselves to respond to this sort of thing. The comparison I like to make is if you are elsewhere on the internet and you see this sort of threat. What do you do? E-mail the website owner, or call the police? It should be call the police every time. One problem is that the more threads there are like this, the more likely it is that trolls will continue to act like this (though maybe a few headline cases of pranksters getting jail sentences will stop that). Carcharoth 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just responding to Sandy's point further upthread: "There's a BIG difference between a school full of people at risk and a suicide threat, whose victim is the person making the threat." I agree there is a difference, and wasn't implying that there wasn't. The point I was trying to make was that the nearest thing we seem to have to a semi-agreed way to deal with threats involving emergencies is WP:SUICIDE. That makes the point that you need to: (1) minimise the aggravation of ongoing threats (that's the reason for the block bit); (2) pass over to responsible authorities (we aren't qualified to deal with this); (3) notify anyone who needs to know, including updating the situation here on Wikipedia (to minimise repeated effort). This seems to apply in this case as well. Anything else is just asking for trouble. Carcharoth 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of the essay Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users I think that the general principles there, what's been done for cases of apparently suicidal Wikipedians, are at least relevant here. I think that SandyGeorgia did the right thing here in calling the school. Calling local Law Enforcement there would also have been appropriate. The posting here was also highly appropriate as well.

I don't know if an attempt to procedure-ize this from the community will work (for the same reasons that the suicidal user policy attempts failed), but perhaps the Foundation will decide on something along those lines. Some discussions have started on the mailing lists. Georgewilliamherbert 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should whatever random editor who passes by ANI and happens to care enough be the one to sort things like this out? The foundation should be the ones doing something about this (if indeed they ever do anything useful). 86.137.25.192 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• All that is needed here is some sort of red alert page where the diffs are posted by whoever spots them first, all Arbcom members have this page on their watch list and then have the tools to activate the apropriate machinery of an oficial alert to all those concerned from Wikipedia. Giano 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The foundation office is not 24 by 7. IF there's anyone at the office, THEN they are probably the best responder. However, that option is not available if nobody's at work.

ANI is the red alert page, currently. It appears to function to get senior admins and editors attention promptly anytime 24x7.

It wouldn't be bad for the Foundation to set up a response plan, but if nobody appropriate from the Foundation is able to respond in good order, there's nothing wrong with allowing anyone else who feels like they believe it's serious enough to respond. Georgewilliamherbert 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. YES Ryan is probably right, but that is not a certainty BUT IF he's wrong does anyone want that on their conscience?
2. YES Sandy did the right thing
3. YES The wiki office needs some sort of "hotline" for these things Rlevse 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to the Foundation email address asking what we should do. Right now we are just stumbling around in the dark every time this comes up, which is probably the worst possible thing. I'll report back (or possibly to the village pump) if I get a reply. Mr.Z-man 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Which e-mail address? It's probably best to e-mail Cary at cbass [at] wikimedia[dot]org so that he can draft a policy on it or incorporate it into WP:OFFICE when he gets back from vacation. Cbrown1023 talk 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we also have to think about WP:BEANS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What you did was fantastic and the right thing to do. You should contact the school or the local police department if you see a threat, it is a civil obligation of us to contact them with this information. Thank you for contacting the school. Cbrown1023 talk 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also talked to m:User:Wikiblue on IRC. She also said that we should contact Cary if he is available. If he is not we should do it ourselves if we deem it urgent or else wait for Cary. Mr.Z-man 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has commented at my talk page; I'm still concerned about the WP:BEANS aspect of this situation, so I hid those sections in HTML comments, and think it's probably best to keep discussion confined to one place. Thanks again for the reassuring comments; no mug shot yet :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify here, and respond to a few points: (1) "Why should whatever random editor who passes by ANI and happens to care enough be the one to sort things like this out?" - I couldn't agree more. We don't want ANI to become the "place to go to report something and then walk away". The assumption should always be that you are the only one aware of what is going on until you get a response from someone (whether that be an ANI post, a mailing list post, an IRC response, or some police officer on the end of the phone line saying "message received and understood". You then take it from there, but the responsibility is still yours until you have been made aware that something is being done. ANI is the place to make an initial report and then work with others to deal with the situation. The reason admins are needed is to block the IP/account making the threats and protect the talk page. This cuts off the source of the problem and avoids further aggravation (you would be surprised how many people try to be 'helpful' by engaging the person in a conversation, with helpful questions like "are you joking?" or "are you a troll?"). Then the situation is reported to the authorities. Then a report is made back here. It's the second stage (reporting to the authorities) that tends to be the hardest stage. (2) "The wiki office needs some sort of "hotline" for these things." Possibly, though they would have to man it 24-7 and would have to deal with the responsibility that comes with that sort of thing. Again, you want to avoid a situation where people leave an e-mail or telephone message and assume the situation has been dealt with. Sometimes the fastest and best thing is for the first person who sees the incident to contact the police immediately. That is a matter of personal judgment of course, but if you see an emergency situation, you don't just e-mail someone or leave a phone message, you call a number that gets an immediate response. In most places in the world, that is the police. Carcharoth 22:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be dealt with by the first person who sees the threat. I think there should be a system to report such cases where either office staff or volunteers can deal with the case. Contacting the police would involve legal procedures and these may vary in different countries. Alot of users may also not want to get directly involved with such legal procedures which may also involve giving out personal details which some users may nto want to do. So in my opinion ti is more effective to setup some kind of reporting system than to let users deal with it themselves. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin delete the diff, it still appears to be there, as was done with the previous related suicide threat case? Can an admin confirm as a kind of closing thought which actions were done that needed to be? Perhaps an ANI boilerplate would be useful. And people could sign with the 4 tildes by each stage that they had done, after an issue gets reported to ANI. Something like:
Issue described here

• Blocker user/IP: _____
• Contacted police: ______
• Contacted Wikimedia office:________
• Deleted edits: ______
  Perhaps this would help minimize drama and maximize efficiency? Sounds like in any case this was handled appropriately, not sure if the police still need to be phoned? ~Eliz81^(C) 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete the edit right away? If the school officials or authorities need to reference it they would have to make a special request if it is deleted. Mr.Z-man 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I modified the order above, with user block first and deleting edits last. The edits should be the last thing, per that reasoning. They can still be easily retrieved though; oversight creates more of a hassle in getting the edits, but neither action is undoable. ~Eliz81^(C) 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, This should be considered a credible threat. That region of the US has had a number of high and mid-profile chooting/guns in school incidents in the last few weeks. Not only the Home schooled student whose mother bought him guns for a school massacre plan outside Philadelphia, but a shooting in south Jersey at an elementary school, a faked gunman on campus at the state college (TCNJ) and at least a couple other cases in south jersey (camden region) of students having weapons on school grounds. Any student paying any attention to the news, or the in-school gossip, would be aware of the tensions and the stories. If it's a hoax, it's a prosecutable hoax, and if not, it could be saving lives. Ryan Postelwaithe's dismissive attitude isn't a good one to have about this sort of thing; no one wants to be the one to say 'oops, dropped the ball on that one, wiki's bad.' ThuranX 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit is still plainly visible in the article history: [132]. If an admin could delete this, that would be great. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the revision. -- John Reaves 01:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's the best course of action. I would prefer to let WP:OFFICE deal with it, since Cory has been notified. We don't know if the edit is needed for anything. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletions are both easily reversible and viewable by admins, thank goodness. If anyone at the foundation needs to see it, they can. Think of the deletion not as a permanent removal, but ensuring that the majority of Wikipedia will not see it. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw you're an admin, Bbatsell, so I hope this response did not come off as patronizing. But WP:SUICIDE, while not official policy or guideline, suggests that it's better to remove these type of edits from the history. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more strongly about removing the revision. The school's administration will need the revision as evidence as they attempt to identify and deal with whoever did this. In fact, my email to the Principal, Dr. Logan, specifically includes a link to the diff to assist in this. The revision should be put back in place immediately. Ronnotel 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision still not there. Another reason why we need a Foundation-coordinated policy on this issue. I know someone has emailed Cary, and I have left a talk page message for Mike Godwin as well. -- Satori Son 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this does, in fact, require police/school action, they won't be able to see the difference, and might just write us all off as cranks. It should be put back, at least for now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletes as it seems like there is consensus here is to so. Ronnotel 14:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother, this is almost the same as the thread I launched a while ago except this one is more realistic. People, especially immature 13 year olds, should stop making threats like this on and off wiki. Though this has an 95/05 chance of this happening (95 being not happening at all), we should forward this to the police or the higher school authorities (like the district) because this threat is serious, if not critical. PrestonH 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

An edit by the same IP to the same article on 8 June [133] said:

The people here threaten to pull a "Virginia Tech" thing and to "put it in her butt"

This must be a reference to Virginia Tech massacre. I'm not reporting it anywhere other than here. PrimeHunter 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring on Western Sahara-related articles by User:A_Jalil

Again still After a lengthy discussion here a few days ago, A Jalil (talk · contribs) waited until the dust settled and went about blind-reverting on Western Sahara-related articles again. Note that I have posted on talk and he's ceased responding, and he's back to the same hijinks as before. Will someone please intervene here? I have done everything short of begging and offering money for some kind of oversight/intervention/mediation/etc. with no avail. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

While everyone stopped making changes to the disputed articles as the previous case is ongoing, koavf was the only one to go and make changes to them. Koavf reverted all the articles to his versions. In the process, he even reverted many editors contributions, including interventions by admins like FayssalF he himself asked to intervene like on Template:Africa topic, which I restored to the admin's version. Previously another admin, Zscout370 has also had to deal with Koavf's unnecessary POV pushing. So, being under 1RR parole for disruptive behaviour and editwarring, Koavf is slow-edit warring, and misusing the ANI to give the impression he is pursuing other means along reverting. If anyone wants to try, just make an edit that makes a distinction between the disputed territory of Western Sahara and the SADR, the government-in-exile of one of the conflict's parties, and you will see what will happen to your edit.--A Jalil 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right I'm posting on talk on the Africa template and on the flag's talk page, you are not. It's not like an admin's edit is the be-all and end-all of editing templates, so simply reverting the changes that an admin made to it is hardly inappropriate per se. Furthermore, ZScout asked the contributors to post on his talk for intervention; I was the only one who did. If anyone wants to try this experiment, I encourage it. Here's another: mention the fact that Western Sahara is occupied in an article and see if Jalil reverts it as "POV." As a bonus, try posting on talk and see if he gives a coherent response, or if he plainly ignores you and rails on about your behavior. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You claim I have not posted on the africa topic, but I did. You claim I did not post on the flag's page, but I did. You claim you were the only one to post on Zscout370's intervention but that is wrong: wikima was the one to ask him for intervention. I already agreed the same day Zscout370 asked for confirmation of acceptance of his intervention. So, all of your claims are false and at worse can be seen as lies. As to the coherence of the responses, that is not a surprise you see all different opinions as such.--A Jalil 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong wrong I never claimed that you never posted. You gave a post or two and then just stopped talking and started reverting. Also, I was referring to what ZScout asked here, and no one responded to that other than me. You weren't serious about having someone intervene and I am. You also aren't serious about having a rational discussion on these talk pages and I am. You want to throw around petty accusations and twist around my words, but they speak for themselves. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From saying I am not posting, to saying I gave only one or two posts!!. That's an improvement. Zscout370 asked that we respond to his suggestion of mediation, Wikima was the one to ask him to get involved, and I responded on the same day. How can you twist that? Oh man oh man!!. You were asking FayssalF to intervene, but when he did, you reverted him (with others) when his/their edit did not go your way. Just keep on twisting. I won't waste more time on this.--A Jalil 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am consulting this issue w/ some admins. This time it seems that some actions must be taken to stop this mess. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do I have asked for intervention on several occasions. I would prefer to see some kind of binding arbitration on the content of these articles, but I will accept mediation from an admin; this has proven helpful before. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am talking to other admins now, but I kindly request that FayssalF could email me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it again in a few hours as i don't have access to my email account right now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Butseriouslyfolks reverting license tags in spite of wide consensus on wikipedia

Butseriouslyfolks removed the Public domain license on this image Image:Himmler45.jpg twice now [134], I explained to him on his talk page that captured German photographs from WWII in US holdings such as the SS records (where this photograph is from) are public domain in the U.S see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pharos/NARA and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/supremecourt/main510937.shtml and http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-1111.resp.html. He claims that these only 'relate to ownership of a tangible object, not the intellectual property rights underlying the work'[135], that is incorrect and it's just original research to make that claim. wikipedia would also have to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg and many other images if we dispute the US governments claim that captured German government records and images are not public domain. Atomsgive 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this image is that we do not know this is from NARA. It helps to have a URL resource or an NARA ID tag for this image. None was provided and we have to delete it. With the other image you cite, of Hilter, has a source and ID tag we can say "yes, this is from NARA" User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also please see your talk page, as Butseriouslyfolks has quite eloquently explained the situation to you there, as well as provided you some helpful links. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 03:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on the Hilter image, I don't know that we can accept the LOC's position that "there are no known restrictions on publication". If we know the author, when the author died, that the image was first published in Germany and that it is still under copyright in Germany, I don't think we can use it. The Price/Hoffman case deals with physical paintings, not the intellectual property rights underlying them. I'm going to tag Adolph as possibly non-free so the issue can be discussed. -- But|seriously|folks  04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about German copyright law, but didn't one of the pronouncements from the Foundation say that no project could have a free image policy less restrictive than Commons? In other words, if Commons can't accept this image, neither can we? --B 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if they don't have an exemption policy. Since we do, the image could be classified as fair use if determined to be. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I had not considered that. The English-language Wikipedia has traditionally accepted all images considered in the "public domain" in the United States, regardless the copyright status in other countries (even the country of publication). I think, then, that we should not begin deleting images on this basis, but instead consult the Foundation, as this is a discrepancy that I am fairly certain has not been previously noted. --Iamunknown 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some other noteworthy exceptions to that, such as the copyrights of countries such as Iran, which we have been asked by JW to respect, even though the US does not recognize them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I still like Iamunknown's suggestion and we should contact the Board. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The copyright status of this type of image is very clear. Please read User:Pharos/NARA, which is a copy of a letter I received from an official at the National Archives and Records Administration.--Pharos 02:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That was cited in the original note at the top of the thread, but the counter-claim above seems to be that 'the US government cannot release them from copyright because they are German government property'... so, theoretically, the German government could sue anyone using them. While I see the reasoning, it seems implausible to me. There have been thousands of uses of these materials for decades without the German government saying boo about it. If nothing else, wouldn't the failure to assert copyright for all that time invalidate efforts to do so now? They can't suddenly say, 'we allowed all those other uses, but you... Wikipedia... you and you alone are violating our copyright'. The US government treats them as US government documents and therefor public domain. Why should we be the only people in the world challenging that? There's got to be a point at which policing Wikipedia for possible copyright violations becomes overzealous... and I'd say that for these German images seized by the US government that point was a few blocks back. Law IS precedent. Given the existence of thousands of uses of these images and ZERO cases of that being found to infringe copyright... it doesn't. --CBD 11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mostargue blocked, why?

User:Mostargue was blocked indefinitely, after an administrator claimed he/she was the sockpuppet of User:Kirbytime.

Yet no evidence against this user was compiled, and as far as I know, this was never brought to community attention. User:Mostargue was never even given a chance to defend him/herself. I've tried bringing up the issue to the administrator who blocked Mostargue (User_talk:Spartaz#Mostargue), but thought it would be better to have community input.

Maybe I'm foolish to believe this, but shouldn't there be a compilation of evidence and some sort of community discussion (which includes the party affected) before a user is blocked indefinitely?Bless sins 04:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a request about the circumstances of the block at the blocking admin talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contrib log, there are some similarities of interest, such as Islamic topics and the Reference Desk. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin already posted his reasons for this block on his talk page, if you scroll up two sections from hwere Fayssal requested it be repeated. The admin did his homework, ran the tools and blocked based on the results. Case sounds pretty darn closed. Kyaa the Catlord 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - yes I have already documented my reasons for the block on my talk page. I don't have anything add. Feel free to endorse or overturn as you will. Just a comment - it would have been nice to have been notified that one of my blocks was being discussed here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was [136]...I'm interested in the tool you used that enables extensive comparison of users contributions, that would be useful. I haven't heard of it before. RxS 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a script from VoA that I have in my monobook [137]. It works best for me in Firefox. If you go into a users contributions you get the option to compare their contribs with another user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, shiny, I want. 1 != 2 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So basically this tool has allowed you to conclusively determine that User:Mostargue is User:KirbyTime without a shadow of doubt. Is there a policy page regarding the use of this tool? Where can I learn more about it, its advantages and its limitations? Or is this information not available to non-admins?Bless sins 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Go and ask Voice of All if you want to know more about this.. While you are at it, go re-read what I wrote on my talk page about how I determined that this user was a sock. Also read the bit where I said that while there were a lot of similarities between the two users that I wasn'r conclusivlely determining that it was Kirbytime. Also remember that this account was being used to harrass a good faith contriburtor to the project and that their early edits showed so much knowledge of the geeky bits of wikipedia that without a shadow of a doubt they had to have previously edited wikipedia before. The sockpuppet policy clearly allows benign dual accounts and this only became an abusive sock and therefore blockable on sight as soon as the behaviour changed to become harrassing of other users. This Kirbytime thing is a major red herring as that wasn't what I blocked the account for. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP removing notability tags and other templates

71.107.135.28 (talk · contribs) is inappropriately (in my view) removing notability tags and other related templates from a large number of articles. I warned the user, but am unsure what the next response ought to be... Thanks, --Paul Erik 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon. The anon IP has now offered the following context: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, the user who had added all the tags... --Paul Erik 05:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Considerable amount of discussion in my RFC is related to the tagging or RPG articles which have no secondary sources, footnotes or evidence of notability. My concern is that these cleanup tags are being removed without good reason; I have stated that I am not prepared to enter into an edit war to get them restored, even thought the removal of the tags is an attempt to stonewall the cleanup work which is underway. I request that this users edits be reverted; their removal is not justified by any change in the articles content.--Gavin Collins 08:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added this incident to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.107.135.28 as I belive this to be the work of a banned user JarlaxleArtemis. --Gavin Collins 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not up to speed with the recent discussions of what constitutes notability for role playing game articles, but it does appear that a case could be made for reverting 71.107.135.28's edits—all the more so if this is the work of a banned user. --Paul Erik 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have taken another turn overnight. I re-added the very valid {{primarysources}} to Forge World, which was then removed by 71.108.54.135 (talk · contribs) who certainly doesn't seem to be civil, and then just "happened" to put the same templates on World of Spectrum (which I just happen to have a conflict of interest with respect to). --Pak21 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Seaweed (again)

• Dr. Seaweed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Not really vandalism, but talkpage disruption, provocative personal attack and more and still more - and again. Also (still) under investigation for sock-puppeteering. See also links to disruptive messages in previous request for intervention. DVdm 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Warned. I'll continue to monitor the situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, let's see how his isotopes behave :-) - DVdm 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New disruptive edits ( This and this) removing perfectly sourced and referenced sections of the article. DVdm 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another: this. DVdm 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And an invitation to get blocked?: "I'd just like to state that I find DVdm a particularly snakish kind of fanatic." and "He is a particularly abnoxious little jumped up nobody who has probably read a book on relativity and thinks it's cool. And in order to convince himself that he understands it, he spends his days slagging off Herbert Dingle knowing that it will gain him brownie points with the establishment.". Nice :-) DVdm 10:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that there's a heap of sockpuppetry going about (all of the users type the ~~~~ inside parentheses). I've blocked Seaweed, Brigadier Armstrong, Fagrah Sawdust indefinitely and the IP that acts the same for a month.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. For a longer list of suspected puppets, see open request for checkuser. Cheers, DVdm 10:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, You got the wrong villain. The real vandal here is DVdm. He is a sockpuppet for Denveron. He has been disrupting the Herbert Dingle page by insisting on imposing his own POV on the main article. The ones that you blocked were trying to keep the article neutral. Check for yourself. Look and see the bit that Dr. Seaweed kept trying to delete. Note how the 3RR never applied to DVdm. 58.8.180.181 12:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another invitation to get blocked?

• "What a sneaky cowardly character"
• "DVdm/Denveron get on their soap box"
• "young pimple faced undergraduates with inferiority complexes who want to pose as geniuses."
• "Obviously the wikipedia administration is teaming with those kind"
• "They see DVdm in their own likeness and they are probably also relativity fanatics."
• "The Herbert Dingle page has been vandalized by creeps"
• "It's easy and cowardly to attack a dissident with the establishment behind you"
• "We are witnessing cheap and cowardly attacks on a great scientist."
• "Shame on the wikipedia for backing the likes of DVdm"
• "Wikipedia is a total farce"

58.8.180.181 = ADSL HUAWEIBB TRUEHISP INFRASTRUCTURE TRUE INTERNET CO. LTD, BANGKOK, KRUNG THEP MAHANAKHON, THAILAND.

DVdm 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at it because I noticed the Thailand connection from the RFCU... and this totally passes the duck test to be one of those blocked editors above evading.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block right now, but I will say that I think you could very safely remove any contributions from that IP under WP:BAN because that individual is absolutely the same person who used one (or more) of the above blocked accounts).--Isotope23 ^talk 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iso... The following exchange seems to provide even more than duck proof:

• Edit by 58.10.102.42 aka "THAILAND, KRUNG THEP MAHANAKHON, BANGKOK, TRUE INTERNET CO. LTD".
• My reply to 58.10.102.42 pointing to a place where and how he can get help.
• Reply and addition by Dr. Seaweed, writing "You are very presumptious indeed to think that you might be able to help me."

I think this clearly proves the link between the now established puppets and the "Bankok Connection".

Cheers, DVdm 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a shared computer

I log in to make edits from three different computers. One is a shared computer. When I came to the project on this computer just now, I noticed that the anon IP for this computer had a warning for vandalism on its page. How do I make certain that these acts of vandalism are not attributed to me by proxy? Any advice in this matter would be appreciated, as vandal FIGHTING has become my main area of contribution. It's embarassing to me that someone who uses this computer has been placing vandalistic contributions in the project. K. Scott Bailey 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remember to log in under your user name. Raymond Arritt 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take your word for it. No need to do more.--Atlan (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You could leave a "Don't vandalize Wikipedia" sticky note on the monitor... Caknuck 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we'll all accept that you wind up on AN/I for your own actions, and won't likely hide behind an anon IP. Further, any editor logging on from a public internet acccess point risks the same, and we continue to do so. Use your account, and keep on truckin', and I doubt you'll have much trouble. (Unless this is all a clever plan...(joke.)) ThuranX 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you log out of the shared computer when you're done, too. And make sure there are no password sniffers, Trojan horses, viruses, or any other nasty bugs on there. For added security, remove the hard drive from the shared computer when you leave it. (Oh, wait, that won't work.) Just log out and all should be fine. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This same problem occurs in homes where more than one person uses a computer, such as husband/wife, father/son, etc. The best thing is to always use your own account and always log in/out.Rlevse 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, if the IP address is blocked (this is why anon blocks are not for long periods of time), just ask for auto unblock and someone will look at your edits, see nothing and unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Petty personal attacks

See User:Mike92591 on Talk:History of the Linux kernel#Pre-history. I've got better things to do than lower myself to real responses, but there's presumably some response policy less involved than mediation. Chris Cunningham 23:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Two days off for Mike92591.--chaser - t 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And I hate to tattle but his poor decision on how to word his unblock request got it extended. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-war at Shatt al-Arab

I'm currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some extra eyes on that article would be most appreciated. - Best regards, Ev 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you recognize that you are edit warring, stop. Yes, leave the article in the wrong version, go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the steps listed there for resolving content disputes. The editor you are warring with seems to have come from another Wikipedia, so maybe they're not familiar with our customs at English Wikipedia. Let's not bite them. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the process, Jehochman :-) Allow me to indulge myself with a little rant. In this very same article, solving the naming issue (a simple, clear-cut, straight-forward application of our current naming conventions) demanded months (30 March - 23 June 2007) and two long talk pages (1 & 2) of sterile dispute resolution. We were almost talked to death by editors who simply refused (and still refuse) to follow our policies.

It's precisely to stop edit-warring, and as an attempt at dispute resolution that, after failing to get any discussion going in the article's talk page (notice that all my edit summaries include a link to it), I posted here in lieu of filing a request for comment or something similar. I did so despite of being aware that "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process" because I believe the issue to be too straight-forward to require more elaborated -and time-consuming- methods of gaining consensus.

Now, please, take a look at the current issue, as I explained it in the article's talk page. It's a simple and blatant infringement of our policies on verifiability & no original research, and above all of common sense: a book stating "Arvand = Tigris" was being used as reference for a sentence saying "Arvand = Shatt al-Arab".

I mean... this is not about being a newbie, knowing your way arround the English Wikipedia, being familiar with our policies, or something similar, but about the most basic common sense.

The verifiability policy includes a quotation of Jimmy Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. [S]peculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information [...] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Edit-warring obviously isn't the best way to archieve this, but I really don't want to spend the next three months arguing over and over again about how articles are supposed to reflect what the sources say instead of using the list of references as mere text-contradicting ornaments. The sole idea of facing such a discussion is so frustrating...

Rant over. Sorry about that. And reminds to stop improper behaviour are always appreciated :-) Best regards, Ev 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My mode of operation is always to scrutinize the person making a complaint before looking at the person being complained about. An effective strategy in this situation is to say something like, "This other editor made two reverts [diff][diff] that went against a consensus that took months to develop [diff]. Here's where I warned them after the first revert [diff]. I refuse to edit war with them, so I need help, now." At that point, I would tell the other editor that next time they revert, they may be blocked for edit warring, so they should please take it to dispute resolution instead.

Additionally, I urge you to join the Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Club. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a sound approach, and I appreciate very much your intervention, Jehochman, both here and in user talk pages. The same goes to Swatjester.

Since all my edit summaries (that of my original edit and the two of my subsequent revert-warring) included a link to my detailed explanation in the article's talk page, while Kaaveh Ahangar's were unexplained, I thought that the context was clear enough, making diffs or further details here unnecessary. My mistake; I won't repeat it :-) Best regards, Ev 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rollback needed for 121.45.191.163

Resolved

Edits reverted, IP blocked by Chaser Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

121.45.191.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has spent the day adding unsourced "gay" questions,[138] uncivil uncivil insults, [139] [140] [141] [142] and the like to articles. No constructive edits dating back to the first.

Can we have a blanket rollback please? / edg ☺ ★ 09:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the two others (you?) hadn't gotten to yet and blocked the IP.--chaser - t 09:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's still a few standing.[143] [144] [145] This user has made about thirty troll edits today, and the best of them are merely uncivil. Normally I'd fuss over these but I'm on dailup today. / edg ☺ ★ 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately SineBot has signed a load of his trollish comments on talk pages, meaning that they're no longer at the top of the history. I'm going through them manually. :-( Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if SineBot was a problem. Thanks much for helping with this. / edg ☺ ★ 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, all today's edits have now been reverted. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah drat, I missed that! Thanks for your diligence, Iain.--chaser - t 09:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hystlen Caeth

Resolved

 – indef blocked

Caeth has constantly vandalised articles special:contributions/Hystlen Caeth. Rick-Levitt ^{Talk Contribs} 11:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Been blocked, but this kind of thing should go to WP:AIV. Trebor 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Indef blocked since it's not a new account. Usually you'll get faster response times if you list the vandal at WP:AIV. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page? Rick-Levitt ^{Talk Contribs} 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, directly in the User-reported section. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:One of this users edits was to create User:Davedaape‎'s userpage, even though they have been signed up since march and have made no edits. The page could sort of be called an attack page, and i have speedied it as such, but it would be easier if a admin on here could just delete it, if thats the right thing to do, which i'm fairly sure it is. Thanks--Jac16888 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, already deleted.--Jac16888 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:B_Nambiar in Ezhava

Resolved

User:B_Nambiar has ween vandalising the Ezhava article for last one week. The editor User:B_Nambiar has ben warned by mutiple editors not removing content and not reverting the revisions identified as vandalism. 3RR revert warning can be found at [[146] ] Tulu war 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR; in the future, please report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Merope 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to block User:Mightywayne

Reason Created a hoax article Vael Victus. - Mafia Expert 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is an obvious copy of Luciano Leggio, and I've tagged it (again) for speedy deletion. As for the editor, a look at his contributions indicates a few positive edits, a number of vandalistic edits (a flurry of vandalism in February, for example, and others including this with an edit summary of "Removing vandalism"), and this hoax article. Not sure if this editor is really making a contribution to the encyclopedia, all told. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

one hoax, and vandalism he hasn't being warned about is not really a good enough reason to block him. The page has been deleted, and i gave him a warning on his talk page--Jac16888 15:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)