Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Longer term discussions

Potential problem concerning episode articles

Moved to /Episodes. Mercury

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

Moved to /User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John. -- Cat ^chi?

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

Moved to /PR. Mercury

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

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. [1][2] [3][4] 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" [5] 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."[6] 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" [7] and refusing to explain why. Instead he continue with stream of insults about other people level of understanding: [8], [9], [10] and focusing on edit partice of others instead of meangifull discussion about the actual subject [11].

Tarc continue not to repsond to simple questions that ask him to explain why his "methods" are better: [12] . When he does provide explnation it is by describing his POV as "fact" and the opposing view as "opinion" [13] (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 [14],[15].

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)

Everyking blocked

I've given Everyking (talk · contribs) a week-long block for his persistent restoration of comments made by Amorrow sockpuppets. He's asked me to bring the matter here for discussion.

I am open to anyone reducing the length of the block if/when Everyking agrees to cooperate in this matter. I'd ask that anyone thinking of unblocking him to be quite sure he's going to do so, however. Kirill 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at his contributions ... is this about the edits to Everyking's talk page? If so, it's user space - who cares? The policy says that it's up to the page owner whether he/she wants to revert. --B 05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a somewhat unusual situation; you really need to know a bit of the background of why this particular user was banned. To put it simply, Amorrow is absolutely not welcome to participate in the project in any manner, even on the level of innocuous talk page comments. (And these were not innocuous, in any case.) Kirill 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does Everyking want to restore the comments? I can't imagine a good reason, but I have a poor imagination. --B 05:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lar#Amorrow has some useful background on this particular incident, I think. Kirill 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha ... Lar won't give Everyking access to deleted Amorrow articles, so Everyking responds by leaving an Amorrow edit on his talk page. That sounds rather pointy. --B 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If a banned editor fixes a minor content error and the edit is later rolled back, then editors who agree with the correction are free to make the correction again. But talk page comments by banned editors should not be restored. Doing so is the equivalent of editing on behalf of the banned editor, which is a violation of the banning policy. WP:BAN The situation is more egregious because the banned editor in question is much worse than most. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I've googled around to find out who the guy is - forget my previous comments - I concur with Kirill's block. --B 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely feel that anyone aiding and abetting Amorrow knowingly and repeatedly should be blocked for a lengthy time period. Under no circumstances is Amorrow welcome back here and anyone knowingly assisting him needs to be kept on a very tight leash as well. The potential real life harm this guy has posed to various persons on this project are not to be taken lightly.--MONGO 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, Everyking wishes to make the following points:

• He pledges to respect consensus, both regarding his block and regarding the comments.
• He further pledges not to restore the comments until a consensus develops.
• He maintains that he was appropriately following the policy regarding the edits of banned users.

Please see User talk:Everyking#Blocked for more details. Kirill 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy needs clarification

The current policy needs to be clarified: reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner is being taken as either a) editors have discretion about whether to keep comments from banned users [16] or b) user talk page owners are responsible for reverting them, but should not restore them [17]. There is some value in having whatever his comment is out in the open, but the disruptive effect probably outweighs transparency, especially in this case.--chaser - t 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For right now, I just suggest that Everyking just not revert the comments until we perform Chaser's suggestion. Kirill, I am good for an unblock now, but he should agree to your terms before you do anything. I would have done it myself, but several personal factors will prevent me from being effective in this manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the situation, it appears to me that Everyking was in fact disruptively making a silly POINT, apparently due to his skepticism in the opaqueness of the checkuser process; though it doesn't seem that he was actually collaborating with Amorrow. Given the horrible things Amorrow has been responsible for in the past (and present =/), this was still an extremely poor move on his part, and I think the block was justified. Now that Everyking has pledged to respect the community's consensus, though, it would probably be best to reduce his block to the time he has served, and we can all work on better clarifying the relevant policies and make sure this doesn't happen again. --krimpet⟲ 06:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page definitely could stand more input, right now it's just a small handful of people participating. I'd encourage more folks to give their views.++Lar: t/c 11:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "user talk page" exception that Everyking relied upon is a recent addition. It has subsequently been reverted and the policy now no longer makes any distinction. I think most admins can be forgiven for not being aware of a policy change which appears to not have had consensus in the first place... ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking appears to have been blocked for a WP:POINTy re-addition of comments which had an unclear policy background. The policy backing him re-adding it is not clear, but nor is the bit of the policy which Kirill used to block him. Given this policy ambiguity (regardless of any statements by Kirill about his interpretation being right), and given that Everyking apparently received no warning beyond these mysterious "subtle hints" Kirill talks about in the block message, this block is not appropriate. - Mark 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've argued this issue from Everyking's viewpoint before (also involving a comment by an Amorrow sock, as it happens), but in this case I feel I must side with Kirill: the comment in question was clearly inapproriate, both per WP:BAN and WP:NPA, and it should not be restored. I might not have blocked Everyking for it myself, although, in retrospect, the block seems to have been the right decision, insofar as it stopped the revert war and led to this discussion. I agree that the wording of WP:BAN needs to be clarified; I'll post my suggestions for that on its talk page. In any case, as Everyking has agreed not to restore the comment until and unless consensus for it develops here, I've unblocked him subject to that condition. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) While Kirill only mentioned the restoration of the talk page comments by Everyking, that hasn't been Everyking's only effort on behalf of Amorrow's edits. He has been pressing Lar for a week to undelete an article that Amorrow wrote as well.[18] I don't think that Everyking takes seriously the concept that banned editors are not allowed to participate in Wikipedia in any manner, or that Amorrow is an especially unwelcome person here. I'm not sure why he is so fond of Amorrow's editing, but it is not appropriate for him to be restoring that person's edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the unblocking...completely disagree. AMorrow is a special case in a lot of ways, and none of his edits should stand under any circumstances and this should apply to all pages, even userpages. Any efforts to aide AMorrow should result in an extended block.--MONGO 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's concerns

I'm concerned that I'm being portrayed as being somehow soft on Amorrow. I find his actions, which, as I understand them, extend to off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians, to be absolutely reprehensible. I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not (people seem to be taking that for granted), but for the sake of this discussion I'll assume that it is. The comment on my talk page was just pointing out some policy issues and offering advice. I found nothing objectionable about it, I want people to feel free to leave me comments, and I don't believe in removing a comment from someone simply because they are banned, although I may support the ban itself (as in this case) or removal of the comments if there is something specifically objectionable about them. I recognize that other people are going to pursue the absolute removal of anything any alleged Amorrow sock has written, but I like to think my talk page is like my own little garden, a peaceful little place where comments and thoughts are valued regardless of their source, as long as they are not particularly offensive to me. Policy supports me on this; it specifically provides for users to exercise discretion over posts of banned users to their talk pages. If Amorrow is a special case, fine, let's have a decision on that—perhaps there is one developing here. Or we could even change the policy, if there's consensus for that. I am, however, upset that I was blocked for doing something that policy, as it stands now, specifically allows me to do. If I had felt anyone was so extreme on this issue that they would block me for a week over it, I would never have tried to stand my ground about it, although I may personally believe I am right. A simple warning that a block was imminent would have been sufficient to get me to surrender: I value my principles, but I also value my ability to work here and make this encyclopedia better, and I am pragmatic about things. Now my block log, which has been clean since July 2006, is stained by another block, and I had taken pride in avoiding any trouble with anyone over that time. I think Kirill, no matter how strongly he believes he is right, should show a little more deliberation, caution and tact in matters such as this. Everyking 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyking says "I don't know if this is actually Amorrow or not" ... I'm frankly flabbergasted and dismayed at that comment. How many checkusers saying so does it take before Everyking accepts it? (for me, the number is ***1***, and if I didn't think I trusted a particular checkuser implicitly, I'd take it up with the ombudsman instead of making vague insinuations) But regardless, I am not the only checkuser who ran the check here, and we all concur. By policy, the details of checks are not revealed, but I am 100% convinced that Edgesusual (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is Amorrow. I am also 100% convinced that the other socks recently encountered and tagged as Amorrow or SallyForth123 socks are Amorrow as well. I'll have more to say later but that sort of questioning of multiple checkusers is very deleterious to the encyclopedia. I'd have required a cessation of that sort of disruptive and corrosive behaviour before I lifted the block. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note... In addition to the very long thread on my talk page, This archived WP:ANI discussion has relevance. Everyking cannot say he was not warned, multiple times, about this. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I just list my views on a range of subjects and you can tell me which ones are and are not acceptable for me to have? Everyking 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that comment means, Everyking. You can have whatever personal views you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lar - no amount of checkusers can confirm that someone is a sockpuppet. To be 100% convinced after a checkuser, you have to be 100% convinced before the checkuser. It's not reasonable to expect everyking (or anyone else) to really respect the outcome of a checkuser - they're really not very useful. WilyD 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have as much experience as other CUs but I'm not the only one seeing a strong correlation here. I tend to say  Possible when others would say  Likely and  Likely when others would say  Confirmed but this is solid. Amorrow makes no attempt to hide the connection and his socks speak with one voice. This is solid as they come. Everyking can doubt it if he wants but in order to be perceived as constructive, has to say "confirmed by multiple CUs but I don't beleive it" instead of just "I don't know if it is or not" which is disingenious. It's confirmed, I stake my reputation on it. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But I really don't know if it is. That's just a simple, honest statement. I am largely agnostic about the reliability of CU, if the actual evidence is not available for me to evaluate. I am sorry that you find it so awful that someone does not have pure faith that this person is Amorrow, but I would appreciate it if you would avoid calling my absence of a firm belief on the identity of this editor "disruptive and corrosive behaviour" and suggesting that I should remain blocked because I do not profess a certain belief. Everyking 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this life is certain... however I suspect that when a sock is tagged as an Amorrow sock, the rest of us are going to act as if it is Amorrow, regardless of whether you personally decide to trust the checkusers or not. I further suspect that you saying "I don't know one way or another" is not going to be an effective defense if you again revert material that was posted by someone tagged and blocked as an Amorrow sock. You can have whatever belief you want, but to try to use "I don't know for sure" as a defense for your behaviour in violation of policy is itself disruptive and corrosive behaviour, in my personal opinion. I'd advise against it. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting me. I never used my skepticism about the accuracy of the CU as a defense; in fact, I made a point of assuming its accuracy when making my argument above. You're also suggesting that I might restore his comment again, despite my repeated and firm pledges not to, and I find that to be a "disruptive and corrosive" assumption of bad faith. Everyking 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground. If a banned editor talks to someone on a user talk page, usually the best thing for others to do is ignore it. If in some specific case, it is removed (but still in history) with a clue to why it was deleted (eg "banned user comment deleted"); then it is usually best to ignore the deletion. Minimize the wiki-drama guys. WAS 4.250 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Excessive?

The block was excessive and inappropriate; a week-long block for restoring a talk page comment in his own userspace doesn't result in the protection of the encyclopedia in any way. What was the block supposed to prevent? Certainly not a major disturbance to the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments above...anyone aiding Amorrow in any way needs to be kept on a tight leash. The level of harassment a number of our female editors have endured at the hands of this guy is truly awful. He has created a plethara of sock accounts and engaged in BLP violations on some of our articles about prominent women. Please do not aide this person in any manner.--MONGO 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - WP:BAN says it clear. Amorrow was banned for a reason, you know (in addition to the AFD, he's quite literally a creep). Will ^(talk) 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse what? This is not a vote. The banning policy is not clear on this. It also says reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner and Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing. All of which were according to the letter of the policy completely in line with James' edits to his own userpage. Apparently there is the Morrow exception to that, a decision that was not made clear to everybody. And yes Amorrow has issues that make him an inimical element to everything we stand for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.79.147 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Users that reinstated banned user's edits are treat like the banned user himself. As Everyking was reinstating a known stalker's edits, in that case he should be treat like a stalker. Will ^(talk) 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock - I would suggest that given above discussion, the consensus was fairly firmly (and correctly) in favour of removing Amorrow's "contributions". Given Everyking has pledged not to go against this consensus, I don't think unblocking at this time should have caused any problems. Whether or not the block was over-harsh is an unnecessary tangent we don't need to go down; the important issue was unblocking once we have assurances the restoration will not be repeated. We had those, Everyking was unblocked, he won't do it again, let's move on. Neil ☎ 08:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Analogy

I don't wish to defend Amorrow in any way (he's one of the few who have managed to be banned from both Wikipedia and anti-Wikipedia "attack sites", so there's clearly an extraordinarily broad consensus that he's a serious problem), but this seems to be yet another clash between two of the "parties" of Wikipedia -- the "Live and Let Live Party" and the "Scorch the Earth Party", which get into fights over whether evildoers, heretics, blasphemers, traitors, and other Enemies of Wikipedia need to be treated like Orwellian Unpersons or Scientologist Suppressive Persons, or if, especially in user talk space, somebody can allow something originating from them to remain in a discussion. The ambiguity of the current policy reflects the fact that people strongly holding these contradictory positions have had a part in shaping it. Personally, I think that if somebody wants to let comments from Osama bin Laden himself in his own talk page, we should let him. *Dan T.* 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Before law enforcement wants to get involved with a case against a stalker, they want to make sure that the complaining party has made it clear that contact is not welcome. This means that we need to make it clear that all contact from Amorrow is not welcome on Wikipedia in any form. All known edits are to be reverted. No exceptions in his case. --FloNight♥♥♥ 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan T - Osama bin Laden is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia and his comments would only be removed if he were to get banned. Assuming he edited under an acceptable username, my money would go on a block for "persistent tendentious editing". Neil ☎ 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Osama'd get hit with 'making death threats' way before tendentious editing could kick in. As to the 'substantive' issues here; FloNight describes a situation beyond WP:BAN where, in Amorrow's case, all edits post banning not only can be removed, but must be removed. So far as I know, there is no 'ruling' to such effect anywhere. Indeed, the reason for his original banning seems to have been largely unrelated to (and thus not list) the issues which have caused him to remain persona non grata since then. Thus, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Everyking to have assumed it was like any other WP:BAN situation. In any case, I don't think it is a good idea to block people for 'violating' unstated 'special restrictions'. Also, I don't know that the 'legal explanation', that we have to make clear that his edits are not welcome, is really something covered at this level. Any sort of 'restraining order' to legally keep Amorrow off Wikipedia as a whole would certainly have to be filed by representatives of the foundation... and along the same 'making it clear' lines, a precursor for doing so would presumably be that the foundation would need to have said that he isn't welcome here. Which... they haven't. Lots of us users have, but there is no foundation level edict to this effect. I don't think even ArbCom has weighed in (officially). Technically, he is banned by a single admin... and the fact that nobody is going to undo it. Realistically, any sort of foundation level legal action seems unlikely. Individual users might complain to the police if his actions have been/are illegal, but then they'd presumably need only show that THEY have made clear they do not want him around... not that Wikipedia has done so. --CBD 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have any knowledge of what this guy has done and continues to do in real life...furthermore, as I mentioned, his edits under various sock accounts are oftentimes BLP violations and are connected to his stalking activities. Banned editors do not get to edit...plain and simple...so reverting his contributions is not really controversial.--MONGO 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CBD: "Remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt Please see Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#A and this mailing list post which has been cited multiple times. Amorrow is a special case, and in no way was this unstated. It has been mentioned over and over. Block on sight, revert on sight, per Jimbo. This has been explained at some length to Everyking, who has persisted in asserting he does not agree with policy. Disagreement is not an acceptable reason to go against policy. His revert warring over a deletion supported by policy and by fiat was disingenious, at best. I agree that the policy as written gives some tiny wiggle room for those who like to ruleslawyer. That apparently needs fixing, since some people can't avoid ruleslawyering. But this is open and shut. Everyking was warned, he knew better. (remember, he read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#The_return_of_Amorrow which was what brought him to my talk page to start badgering me about deleted content) I'd suggest that no one else restore any edits of Amorrow socks either. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, CBD speaks of the unlikelyhood of legal action. There was in fact talk of legal action at the time. I don't know what transpired there. However, I have reason to speculate that the reason we are facing this new onslaught is that Amorrow has recently been released from incarceration for a previous harassment case, and I would not at all be surprised to learn that what he is doing now is a parole violation. Consistent reversion of his edits will be an important component of any evidentiary submissions, I would expect. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Everyking 1) Has a long history of disruption to this very page and was, for quite some time, banned from the Adminstrators' noticeboards pages (I don't know when that ban ended, but apparently it has), and 2) Offered to restore pages which were validly deleted and their deletion endorsed by a number of admins, so that people on anti-Wikipedia websites could salivate over the vicious stuff that Wikipedia admins do. It would take tons of salt before I, at least, would assume good faith where Everyking is concerned, and those commenting here should make themselves well aware of not only Everyking's history, but Amorrow's, as well. Corvus cornix 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Some people claim a history of disruption here based on arguments I made here more than two years ago, which were essentially that admins should seek consensus in controversial cases and that proper reasoning for blocks, based in policy, should be given. I was banned from this page for two years by the ArbCom for making those arguments; the ban has not yet expired (it will on Nov. 11), but there is an exemption for matters concerning myself. 2) This is a complex matter, and I consider your version of it to be a serious misrepresentation. There was one page in question, there was (as far as I know) only one admin who endorsed that deletion, and I refrained from making any deleted content available due to my concerns about what it might contain and potential controversy that could result. If people want to hold such past events against me and consider me somehow suspect on those grounds, they should at least understand what that history actually is. I would suggest that we instead just look at reasoning and policy to evaluate this matter. Everyking 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter how much of a "serious misrepresentation" of the situation you may feel my comments are, The arbcom felt your actions sufficient to desysop you. Corvus cornix 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but I am uninterested in an appeal to authority argument. Anyway, as I said before, I think we can look at this case best by focusing on the facts of what transpired and on what the policy on WP:BAN means (or should mean) and how it is applicable. Everyking 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lar, no offence mate, as much as a clear and frightening weirdo Amorrow can be, your remarks could be thought libellous (in the UK anyway, easy pickings I know) if wrong, so perhaps you might want to rephrase them? [although I agree 100% in reverting him instantly everywhere] Corvus cornix, I understand how heated this matter is, but Everyking has always claimed to be acting in good faith. We've never proven he isn't, we've just said that some wikibehaviour wasn't what the community was seeking in an admin. Extrapolation beyond that is probably unhelpful. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so there was foundation/legal action after all. Obviously that contradicts what I said... but it wasn't mentioned at all (let alone "over and over") in the first 30+ messages of this thread. Nor do I see any mention of it in the discussion leading up to the block. Indeed, the block itself and all discussion before and since (until now) consistently cited WP:BAN instead... and as noted there is a marked difference between what WP:BAN says and the stricter restrictions in the case of Amorrow. You state that Everyking must have known about this issue because of the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#The_return_of_Amorrow discussion... but there is no reference to the mailing list/Jimbo/the banned users list for special foundation/legal restrictions there either. I read alot of the back commentary before responding on this and it just wasn't cited. That really ought to have been the first thing brought up. You seem to be acting on the view that Everyking was ignoring this special prohibition... but you never actually linked to or explained the unique nature of it. Instead you cited WP:BAN... which just doesn't make the same case at all. Maybe he did know about it from some previous discussion... I dunno. But citing it would have made a world of difference in any case. --CBD 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Another ugly, pointless admin debate. Everyking's userspace should not be a big concern to anyone no matter who is editing it. If he wants to let the comments stand, so what? I really dislike this scorched earth/unperson business (to borrow Dan T's terminology). The overzealous misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies grows more ludicrous by the day. — Brian (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Two evils

This block has brought far, far more attention to Amorrow (whoever that is) than Everyking's edits did. If this guy is psychotic enough to have been bant from WP and that other anti-WP site whose name I forget than of course his influence should be gone forever, but I think the worse of two evils was chosen here :-\ It looks like acting on principle was detrimental to the principle itself in this case. Everyone should consider that in the future. Milto LOL pia 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What's a frown-star? ... If more editors are aware that he's back and are watching for signs of the sorts of trouble he causes, tis not all bad. If policy about reversion is clarified (in whatever way) tis not all bad. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty much all bad from my perspective. You're not the one who now has this ridiculous block tarnishing his block log. Everyking 05:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If the block actually WERE "ridiculous", and if nothing at all else good came of this, I'd agree. But I think your perspective is a bit narrow. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? Are you saying that you were not warned by an admin? Eiler7 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There was certainly no clear threat to block if I restored the comment. All I got was this from Lar: "It is POLICY that edits of banned editors may be removed by any editor. Restoring them, rather than rewording their thoughts in your own words and then standing behind them as your own words, is editing on their behalf, and is against policy. I suggest you not do that." Although I found the tone of that to be a little ominous, I was more incredulous than alarmed, since it seemed impossible to believe he would actually block me for such a thing. Furthermore, I felt that what Lar wrote was a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of what the policy says. So I restored the comment again and went to his talk page to propose that we seek a wider consensus on the meaning of the policy, but when I clicked save page on my comment I found that Kirill had already blocked me. In retrospect, I would have left the alleged sock's comment out when I proposed seeking wider consensus, but at the time I had no idea that they were going to escalate. If someone had acknowledged that I was correct in policy terms but said that Amorrow was privately considered a special exception, then the whole thing would have been quickly defused and could have been resolved quietly. Everyking 01:28, 20 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: [19]. 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 [20] 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)

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[21]. 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 [22] 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[23]. Keep up the Great work! VartanM 18:48, 18 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)

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 [24] (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: [25] (final paragraph), [26] (last paragraph), [27] (self-promotion in external links), to name a few. Additionally, a link to a text called 'Fundamentals of Compressible Flow' ([28]) 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([29], [30]). He could also be editing as another user with an IP address of 82.19.74.161 ([31]) or perhaps as 68.107.62.119 ([32]) or 128.173.190.56 ([33]). 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 [34], [35], [36]). 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 ([37]). 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 [38], 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)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

This page has been a problem for a long time. There was some edit warring in which I was a participant (sorry D:), and the page was protected a bit more than a week ago.

During this time there was some pretty "good" discussion on the talk page as far as good discussion goes on policy development. Basically what happened next was that User:MONGO and some others showed at at Will Beback's well-intentioned RFC on the page and basically drive-by "voted", after which the above edit warring ensued and the page was protected. Not any of our proudest moments but also nothing to get upset over.

So while the page is protected there is some discussion on the talk page again, except that now MONGO was particpating briefly, and it really seemed to me like the talk about the policy was interrupted by venomous remarks by MONGO followed by outrage by myself and some others. MONGO's wild accusations and refusal to discuss the policy rather than the personal affiliations of his dissenters got to be pretty problematic but MONGO eventually left the talk page so I didn't pursue any action. But now the page was (briefly) unprotected and MONGO immediately shows up, edit wars (which was again not one-sided, but I forget who was reverting him) and the talk page has once again turned into MONGO and now User:Crockspot slinging mud at anyone who disagrees with them and making completely uncalled for insults pockmarked by all this crap about those disagreeing with them having an "anti-MONGO agenda"

I think the basic problem is the refusal of some parties to even entertain the possibility of those they disagree with acting in good faith, which is not only a barrier but an outright detractment (imagine someone shouting in your face "I'M IGNORING YOU AND YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT BECAUSE YOU ARE A SCUMBAG" while you're working on something collaborative). Something really needs to be done about this disruptive behavior. There have been multiple attempts by myself and others on that page to get the conversation on track and away from personal remarks that have fallen through. If editors are only willing to use talk pages to take potshots at other editors while revert warring then they don't need to be editing those pages. There needs to be some sort of intervention here, be it a topic ban or community-enforced mediation or whatever, or this is going to end up in front of arbcom and that will be ugly for everyone, arbitrators included. Milto LOL pia 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

a bit Off Topic - Without any comment on individuals can I just say that discussion of personal attacks and lack of good faith on the "no personal attacks" policy/guideline page is quite ironic, and makes me sad for en.wikipedia's long term health. --Rocksanddirt 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There was actually some enjoyable disagreement on there for a while. Will Beback for example has certainly been ideal about his disagreement, in fact most of the people on there are, but the current state is largely the result of just a couple of editors. Milto LOL pia 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an improved level of civility on the page. I certainly agree that personal attacks on no personal attacks is a bit sadly ironic. I don't find the comments blockable or anything like that, but we can aspire to a higher standard than that. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the failure to see good faith is evident on both "sides" of the dispute. As long as the big-endians are calling the little-endians trolls and harassers, and as long as the little-endians are calling the big-endians fascist censors who wish to knuckle others under their personal "taboos"... we're a long way from understanding. It's pretty clear to me that reasonable people can, in good faith, disagree about the content in question, and a failure to see that seems to be the cause of most of the drama we're experiencing.

If one supports a policy, that does not mean that one supports carrying it to a pernicious extreme, and if one opposes a policy, that does not necessarily mean that one opposes it for the most malicious of possible reasons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

However, while no one has actually called anyone "fascist" (according to Ctrl+F anyway) on that page, "troll" and "harasser" are by no means exaggerations of what some of us are being called on there. I'm thinking community enforced mediation is the way to go, but I'll have to read up on what it actually is. Milto LOL pia 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to allow that either side has any kind of moral high ground. There are people saying things about MONGO just as ridiculous as the things he said about others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Per my post yesterday at WP:AN#Anyone_got_15_minutes_spare_for_WP:NPA.3F I believe we need neutral eyes and ears here as soon as possible. Specifically to determine whether 'that' section has consensus / which version etc. I'd strongly urge all involved editors not to edit the page, but to discuss. If you're reading this, why not spend 5 minutes taking a look, and make a comment? A quick testing of consensus will go a long way. Privatemusings 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's not really the point. That discussion should be able to be worked out on the page but it cannot do to extensive personally-oriented hostility. I doubt the page will get anywhere until that stops. Milto LOL pia 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support your point, and also GTB's below; Privatemusings 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I add my voice to Privatemusings' plea. Fresh perspectives would probably be very helpful. We're feeling a bit embattled over there, and would be grateful for outside views. Replying to Miltopia's point, bringing more people to the discussion could dilute the vitriol, and provide outside views on precisely the personality-oriented hostility you mention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some advice that, in my experience, it's best to completely ignore editors who consistently use tactics such as casting aspersions on or misrepresenting other editors' motives and actions (i.e. mild personal attacks and poisoning the well), dissembly, and outrageous claims. Those editors who are having a civil discourse on that policy talk page should completely ignore comments by those editors who are trying to disrupt the debate for their own purposes. Act like the comments left by those editors aren't even there, even if the comments are directed squarely at you. Some of you may be aware that this is a behavioral correction technique that is sometimes used with small children. It may be the appropriate response for this situation. Cla68 06:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, it's worked before in the past, but what's a person to do when the insulter is also edit warring over the project page? I can't in good conscience just ignore them then, I'd be no better. Milto LOL pia 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the text under discussion has the "in dispute" tag on it, let them edit it to their heart's content, because once you and the other reasonable editors on both sides of the issue reach agreement you'll be able to change it to what you agree to anyway. Cla68 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DRAMA!--MONGO 09:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where Do I Begin?

If printed out, WT:NPA would run to about 65 single-spaced pages of 12-point type (34,000 words, 198 kB). That's a bit much for someone to casually wade into from the beginning. Can one of the participants suggest an appropriate point of entry? Raymond Arritt 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Section 16, perhaps? That was close to the last time protection was (briefly) lifted, I believe. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you've only got a couple of minutes, just have a look at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links, and then the last couple of sections (perhaps one screen page's worth) of the talk page before commenting. Thanks Privatemusings 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:COI/N

The problem is, and has been for a while, certain editors with a WP:Conflict of interest in the outcome of this policy's wording attempting to force their own version of the policy. But, quite possibly, the way they've reworded this makes pointing that out a personal attack, so I guess I can't name any names and will just shut up now. Anyone braver than me can feel free to extend my remarks. -- 146.115.58.152 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many takers on your invitation. Unless editors have some good outside sources to back up their allegations (such as happened in the Essjay controversy), most aren't willing to take the proven risk of their allegations being used against them later in Wikipedia administrative forums. For example, look what happened with Cyde in the recent attack sites arbitration case. Some arbitrators tried to sanction Cyde for discovering and revealing that one of our administrators had engaged in unethical behavior a couple of years ago. Cla68 06:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP has a good point, but I agree with Cla68. --Rocksanddirt 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand my point Cla68. Editors who believe they are being personally attacked in external links have a natural conflict of interest in our "no personal attack" policy regarding external links, regardless of the veracity of the information in such links. Anyway, the editor war continues. -- 146.115.58.152 01:36, 20 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 [39], 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'[40], 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 [41]...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 [42]. 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)

Hitler trolling

User:Karnoff is trolling my talk page and his user space.Proabivouac 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake! All I did was ask him why I can't edit Adolf Hitler! Why is he calling me a troll?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnoff (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old." That's why you can't edit it. Go edit something about puppies or flowers or something; you look like a troll because most people don't show up on Wikipedia, stick a swastika in their user profile and try and edit Adolf Hitler first thing. Oddly, that gives people the idea you might have a POV. --Thespian 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He just left this comment on my user talk. Can someone just ban him for life? Really, I barely tolerate spending time trying to rehabilitate an editor that's been around a couple of months, this guy should go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is blockable about that? Viridae^Talk 06:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but someone blocked him already, apparently. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

His grammar, and the fact he used the term 'widout'? That's my vote. --Thespian 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler can't be trolling. Hitler is dead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is? I thought he was hanging with Elvis someplace?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

<rimshot/> Seriously though... blocked? Isn't that a bit much? --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And declined too... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) I have asked the blocking admin to explain. There was no trolling at all in my view, so I have no idea why they were blocked. Viridae^Talk 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins can look at the deleted userpage to see why the editor was blocked for trolling. You'll need to preview it.--chaser - t 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that. That is not instantly blockable. Viridae^Talk 06:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, if you want to try rehabilitating a lost cause, then unblock him. I think it's a waste of time.--chaser - t 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to see people actually given a chance to fuck things up before we jump down their throat because they might do so. Ass I said to Krimpet - he might be here to cause trouble, or he might be a kid with a nazi obsession that would liek to add something to their favourite subject. Accounts are blocked with ease when you have solid proof, why not wait for it? Viridae^Talk 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have given him the benefit of the doubt and unblocked. Viridae^Talk 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is trolling already on this page. It's very odd that you found the swastika on his user page unconvincing. --Mathsci 07:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is that trolling... People are far too quick to use that word on wikipedia, and it rapidly poisons the atmosphere. Viridae^Talk 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm not an admin and can't see the swastika that was on his page, isn't it kind of ignoring WP:AGF to ban him/assume he's just trolling/write him off as a lost cause? I mean, so the guy has a swastika on his page - that doesn't mean that he's necessarily a Nazi - it just means he has a swastika on his page. Until he actually starts DOING stuff that proves he's editing in bad faith or POV-pushing, I'd have thought we would need to assume good faith about the guy. Just my $.02 anyway. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It wasn't a little picture of a swastika with some historical context around it. It was a huge ASCII-art swastika that was the entirety of his user page. We don't need people who display things like that. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait - he puts a picture of a swastika on his userpage, but the thing that's poisoning the atmosphere around here is when people use the word "trolling"? I probably wouldn't have blocked him, but let's think logically about what we say, shall we? - Philippe | Talk 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To toss in 2 cents here, anyone who puts a swastika anywhere is perhaps the epitome of a disruptive person, much less a wiki user. It serves no purpose other than to inflame/incite. Tarc 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm still missing something. So he has a large ASCII swastika on his userpage. Does that automatically qualify one for blocking under some rule? I've certainly seen other users with pictures of less-than-desirable people and symbols on their talk pages, but they haven't been blocked. As far as I can tell, the guy has an interest in Adolf Hitler. Ok, fine - so do a lot of people, including a lot of very respectable people. IMHO, the guy was never even given a chance to prove himself a good editor or a troll. All he apparently did was commit some faux pas and immediately got squashed for it. I'd think that if we're going to block for trolling, one actually has to troll first, prior to being blocked. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite distressing that another Wikipedian could brush aside the flamboyant display of a swastika as a mere "faux pas." Raymond Arritt 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing for nothing, but the Hitler comments aside, a Swastika on a user page could be for someone's religion, or something harmless. Just pointing that out. • Lawrence Cohen 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Second edit ("Oy!",)[43] fourth edit,[44] then immediately to ANI. How does he know me? How did he know about ANI? We are once again played for the collective fools we so obviously are.

AGF!Proabivouac 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am serious. I'm not "brushing aside" his behavior, but rather, am trying to assume good faith and not judge him too quickly. Frankly, it's a little worrisome to me that we're so quick to pass judgment on a new editor, merely because that editor isn't following what we more experienced editors consider to be good behavior. I'm not making a value judgment on Karnoff or on his interests. However, I continue to believe that the mere display of a swastika does not, by itself, constitute grounds for blocking, especially when little or no attempt was made to correct inappropriate behavior. If, after he starts editing, he displays himself to be a troll, then block him; but not before then. In fact, it looks like he was trying to apologize. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, no use continuing to argue over the past. I'll be closely watching his edits, and at the first evidence of disruptive behavior he'll be on the fast train to indef-land. Raymond Arritt 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the display of a swastika, in itself, is no grounds for a ban. More to the point, it's obviously not a "new editor," but a sock created to troll.Proabivouac 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On what evidence can we base the conclusion that this user is a sockpuppet? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ both Viridae and Raymond Arritt. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem, there is a half a dozen people watching him including myself - should it turn out to be a troll he will be very rapidly blocked indef. However nothing he did warranted indef blocking without warning. Viridae^Talk 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have gone completely black on this user, but, reluctantly, I agree he must be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to display actual hate before we can assume it. Ronnotel 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The standard should not be hateful views but like everyone else, incivility and trolling-like activities. It should be actually possible to have an editor here who is virulently a racist but is somehow civil (admittedly quite an accomplishment). We shouldn't block on the hatred but should block more strongly (I think certain attitudes justify a lower threshold of acceptable behavior) if there's any incivility or otherwise. I see enough of the "looks like this is a sock of user XX, or this guy doesn't do anything but vandalize or whatever and should be immediately blocked" before any substantive amount of edits have been done and I'm a little concerned about that. We already have enough issues with claims about the clique-like nature around here and sending users off because users (even if it's the majority) disagree with them on political grounds doesn't help that claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer

Almost every good faith edit I attempt to make on any radio station article or template in the Mid-Atlantic region is reverted as "vandalism." His refusal to follow the naming conventions of WP:WPRS in templates (radio stations should be referred to by their proper call signs at all times, not any bastardizations of them) was the final straw that lead me to formally leave said Wikiproject.

I recently reported him ([45]) for violations of WP:CIVIL. For the better part of the last 24 hours, he has been accusing me of making improper moves to radio station articles in his region, despite the fact that I did not do so, nor can he present any log or difs proving as such (see edits to my talk page over the last 24 hours).

But, most of all, I'm fed up with his constant personal attacks on me ([46]), his accusations of vandalism ([47]), his accusations of sockpuppetry ([48]), his attempts to run me off from any radio station-related articles ([49]), his pronounced joy when I formally quit WP:WPRS ([50]), etc.

Short of completely avoiding EVERY radio station article and/or completely leaving Wikipedia, is there anything that can be done? I don't necessarily even wish a ban on User:Neutralhomer, as when he is editing content, he is a valuable asset to the WP:WPRS project. But, as he's spent the better part of the last day debating me over minutiae or falsely accusing me/attacking me, I don't know what to do. I thank you for whatever assistance you may provide. JPG-GR 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacking, no...falsely accusing, no. I would show proof of the above users improper moves, but when I requested it moved back, the history that went with that page was wiped. Not an admin, so I can't show someone something I can't see myself. As for the "accusations of vandalism" is just as guilty there putting about 5 warnings on my talk page in the past 48 hours. Also, I never attempted to "run someone off" anything. I don't have that power. The above user made a big show, quit WP:WPRS but comes back when I edit a page and reverts. I have no ill-will toward the above user, it just seems when I make an edit or talk about something on the WPRS board, the above user is there in a heartbeat and a half....I won't even say what that sounds like.

BTW, User:Alexbrewer and I did apologize to each other about these edits.

Again, though, I have no ill-will toward JPG, I have no "profound hatred" toward him (though he claims I do). I just wish talking to him was like talking to a wall sometimes and he wouldn't pop up every three seconds everytime I made an edit. Little strange. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As I invited you earlier in the day to ask an admin to, I invite an admin to go looking for these "phantom" moves you claim exist -- they'll quickly find that they don't. Every warning message on your talk page (which you immediately delete, any time any user inserts one) was completely reasonable based on your edits of the time. Finally, as I have stated numerous times today, just because a member is not a member of WP:WPRS doesn't mean they can't edit radio articles. I also love how you deny attacking me, yet proceed (in the same comment) to refer to me as a brick wall. This is truly mind-boggling. JPG-GR 06:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are like talking to a brick wall. Just look at the conversation about the NavBoxes on the WP:WPRS talk page. I have to repeat something 3(!) times and I am still not sure if you got it. That's like talking to a brick wall.

Also, as anyone will tell you, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." So, I should archive them, but I don't have to. Also, it is my talk page, I can delete things if I wish, same as anyone else. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you are defending your talk page use rather than your false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as well as repeated personal attacks (as again noted in your comment). JPG-GR 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(so many effing edit conflicts today)Actually you can show page moves after they have been reverted - go to the history, click the little link at the top saying "view the logs for this page". Viridae^Talk 06:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which I pointed out to him earlier ([51]) - JPG-GR 07:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it when the history has been wiped for a merge/move. It's there, now it's gone. Let me get out the time machine. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, any one notice the the 7 edits that JPG-RG has made since 2:28a EST were about this topic? He waited some 20mins until I replied so he could? I think that is pretty close to WikiStalking. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the love of Christ, he's not wikistalking you by participating in a conversation you're also participating in, no matter how quickly the edits happen. For all you know, he's doing something else on the internet (it's a big internet, after all), while he waits for responses in this conversation. And, as you have already been informed, page moves do not disappear from the history - they are available in the page log, which is visible to everyone. Please stop saying the history has been wiped, as you now know that's not true. Natalie 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, when I look at the logs not, it shows just one edit by the admin that merged by the pages (after a request on WP:RM). I can tell you what was there, but can't see it now, but that one (and only one) edit. I can't tell you something is there now, that isn't. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The page logs weren't wiped. There was no move. That's what I've been saying, that's what User:Natalie Erin has just confirmed. Why must you continue to assume bad faith? JPG-GR 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have warned User:Neutralhomer on his talk page with {{uw-npa2}} due to his repeated name-calling as well as his continued allegations of vandalism/bad-faith page moves. JPG-GR 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be warned about your continued abuse of the warning templates. Also, go back and read my statement above and my statement on Natalie's talk page....you will see your answer about the page moves. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to accuse me of actions that I did not take, and provide absolutely no evidence. I continue to point out your violations of policy, and provide evidence. Yet, you still paint me as the bad guy because your view of the facts disagrees with mine. Unbelievable. Moreover, despite the fact that I have given you permission to have an admin look at the logs to prove my innocence, you refuse to do so. Personally, I'm convinced that you will refused to look at any evidence presented on my behalf, because it won't mesh with your view of the world. JPG-GR 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "warning of User:Neutralhomer" != "abuse of warning templates," even if you opt to claim so in this edit summary. JPG-GR 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent.) Calm down. My observation here is that neither of you is interested in escalating this issue. However, it appears that you are talking past each other.

Neutralhomer, could you please tell me what you need here, without casting any aspersions?

JPG-GR, could you please tell me what you need here, without casting any aspersions?

Hopefully, we can resolve this before any more heat is generated. --Aarktica 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like User:Neutralhomer to cease his personal attacks and name-calling (in general, and directed at me in particular). I would like User:Neutralhomer to apologize for his false accusations of any bad faith edits on my part, especially if no evidence can be produced by any user. Most of all, I would like User:Neutralhomer to apologize for his unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry against me for which he has provided no evidence. Any other issues are predominantly WP:WPRS-related, and can be discussed on the relevant pages, as they always have been. JPG-GR 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You:

1. feel harried because your correspondence with Neutralhomer has been negative?
2. would like recognition that your contributions to radio-related articles are made with the best of intentions? --Aarktica 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not what I said. Heck, barely even close to what I said. I want (a) an apology for the unfounded and false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry, which have YET to be substatiated and (b) for the personal attacks on me by this user in various places across Wikipedia to cease. Succinctly, I'd like him to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. - JPG-GR 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be best if I just file a WP:RfM as I did [back in July]? - JPG-GR 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we are in agreement, despite the semantics. In other words, correspondence should be CIVIL; additionally, one has to assume good faith and assume the presence of a belly-button about the intentions of others.

If you want to pursue mediation to resolve the issue, great. However, I think communicating your need to Neutralhomer as succinctly as you have done here is likely to be just as effective. Either way, I hope you find a satisfactory resolution to the issue. Cheers, --Aarktica 00:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Already stated as such multiple times, and it's gotten me nowhere. Probably will have to take it to mediation. JPG-GR 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been sleeping....what I would like out of this whole thing...

1. I would like JPG-GR to chill a little bit. I can understand taking your work seriously, but sometimes that seriousness gets a little much. Example: I added -AM to a template and there is an all right riot. That doesn't help anyone.
2. I would like the little snide comments about me, "creating a page for every station no matter it's notability". That isn't helping anyone at all.
3. I would like to be able to ask a question and not have an all out war ensue because of it.
4. Finally, I would like JPG-GR to get this thought of "profound hatred" he thinks I have for him out of his head. I don't profoundly hate anyone, ever.

If that can be done, I think it might be a step in the right direction. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You both edit the same articles, so you will have to learn to work together, or they'll be consequences. And that definitely means no more name calling, Neutralhomer. Thanks. El_C 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt the possibility of it happening, as we have co-existed and even assisted each other over the past few months. I've no intention of leaving (or being "run off", as I've sometimes felt User:Neutralhomer wanted). JPG-GR 18:51, 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)

Dangerous questions

User:Picture of a cloud has asked a series of worrying questions on the Reference Desk. Links can be found in the third of them here. I don't want his mom and dad to come looking for a scapegoat when their boy ruins his eyes. I'm posting a notice to the user on his talkpage about this discussion. --Milkbreath 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed that section. Isn't that sort of reckless to tell a kid what poisons to put in his eyes? • Lawrence Cohen 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dig it. Thanks. --Milkbreath 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I'm able to make my own decisions, and as I said this was purely hypothetical. Also, I'm a girl, not a boy. Picture of a cloud 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you are also a troll as I suspected, unless you actually are a girl with a large penis. --Milkbreath 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. If the reference desk answers a persons question about a "cool thing" which could possibly blind them, and said person takes the "advice" of the desk, and blind themselves, does that not make us legally accountable?--Jac16888 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer might apply here. Besides, the drops Cloud was asking for aren't available over the counter (in the US, at least) - one has to be a licensed optometrist to acquire those. And even if you do get hold of the drops, self-administering those... man - that's a terrible idea, as is self-administering any medication about which you have no knowledge. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that Picture of a cloud went on to ask a question about how to handle his overly-large penis on Misc ([52]) while nearly-simultaneously asserting on AN/I that he's "a girl, not a boy", my ability to assume good faith here is getting stretched. I've removed his penis question, and I'll warn him not to play silly buggers around here if someone else hasn't already gotten to it first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost definitely a troll. I also see no warning on the users talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

but you know what - even if he was banned with no or a single warning - who'd care besides the wikisocialworkers who rush to AN/I to defend troll accounts? why should anyone care? we spend too much time debating such minor matters. --Fredrick day 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Such trolls should be indef blocked immediately as they aren't here for serious work, they just jerk other editors around for the fun of it and waste everyone's time. -- Fyslee / talk 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman gave final warning, let's see what he does next. Rlevse 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff TOAT's, I was having a slow day until I hit "concertmate" and now everyone thinks I am a little cuckoo :P Dureo 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any ref desk procedure or established rule of thumb for dealing with questions like this? For example, if I ask, "Where can I get coke in Dallas?" or "What is the best way to run a line from my muffler's exhaust to the inside of my car?" People don't seriously try to answer these questions...? • Lawrence Cohen 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously in this case it was okay to answer, because he was asking what the side effects might be in non-medical terms </sarcasm>. This person knows enough to get around the medical disclaimer and get an answer from the helpdesk folks (who naturally assume good faith). I think something needs fixing but I'm not quite sure what. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more procedures than you can shake a stick at - see Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines and specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice, debated ad infinitum on their talk pages and at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Gandalf61 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. Dealing on a case-by-case basis seems to work better at the desks, SheffieldSteel. The guidelines are supposed to outline a certain consensual framework for reference, but there's no need or popular demand for codified procedures on how to handle the occasional user wearing a troll's mask. Ignoring works best. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of a cloud just filed this RFC regarding Milkbreath's username. Time for a block? --Bongwarrior 09:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours. --Bongwarrior 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All that remains to be seen is if the individual suddenly transforms into a useful editor in the next 31 hours or if they are on the train to Indefsville.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This amazes me; why again are we wasting time on someone like this? The user has no constructive edits, asks dumb questions on the ref desk and then makes trollish remarks when reverted. We need to deal with obvious trolls better than this, guys. I'm going to indef. And obviously, if someone asks a question like that, it should be removed, not answered or added to the instruction creep of things we can't answer. Grandmasterka 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside eyes: abuse of userspace?

I'd like to ask for some feedback about User_talk:MEagenda#Approaching_the_Gibson_Office_for_certain_clarifications. This user is involved in a dispute on the Simon Wessely article and has apparently approached a UK government source which s/he considers unreliable for further clarification. Fine as far as it goes, though such editorial inquiries are generally unsuitable for use here on grounds of original research and unverifiability.

However, the formulation that MEagenda (talk · contribs) has placed on his/her usertalk page violates a number of policies. It clearly utilizes userspace as a soapbox, and it violates WP:USER's prohibition on polemical statements. There are also borderline WP:BLP issues in that it's fairly accusatory toward a number of specifically named living people. Most importantly, it does nothing to advance the goal of community- or encyclopedia-building, which is the usual rationale for allowing users greater latitude in userspace. This is exactly the sort of content that belongs on a personal webhost rather than Wikipedia.

I've crossed paths somewhat with the group of single-purpose editors at Simon Wessely (including this user) as part of my participation in WP:CLINMED, so I'm not going to do anything; instead I wanted to bring this up here for feedback. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Wall of text... making eyes bleed... Mast, I'd agree with your points about original research and unverifiability, and about the userspace being used as a soapbox. The WP:OR and WP:V bits are certainly easier to show, but I think it's pretty obvious that he's trying to use his talk page to POV-push too. There's my $.02. Regards -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing new is added to the known facts: a small group of ME/CFS activists think that Simon Wessely is the Antichrist and want the article to say so. Nothing approaching a reliable source to adequately explain this animus has been cited, as far as I'm aware, but we do know (as in: he told me in an email) that he has been personally harassed by some of these people, so we need to exercise extreme caution and ensure that we do not risk enabling an offsite harassment campaign through Wikipedia. I would encourage MastCell not to be too reluctant to get involved, the more people we can find who have knowledge of the subject and are not involved in the substantive off-wiki dispute, the better. Read what MEAgenda says. She uses a reliable source saying that harassment by activists is a challenge faced by those wishing to advance the field, as a way of asserting that those activists are therefore right. Medics are not afraid to make waves, as a rule, if they genuinely feel that patients will benefit. Papers have been published which contradict reams of patient work, and in fact blow that work completely out of the water (e.g. combined HRT and coronary heart disease). Doesn't stop it being investigated and published. But real-world harassment, that's a different matter. Ask anyone involved with Huntingdon Life Sciences. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a hosting provider. He's using his talk page to host notes about personal research that, cast in the best light, has no use to the project. I think we should politely ask the user to delete this section of his talk page, and if he refuses or attempts clever workarounds, we can discuss what to do next. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if he/she refuses, there is always WP:MfD. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Or any admin can delete the material. Though I'm not conversant with this field, the material on that Talk page looks like it has serious BLP implications. It would be best if the user deleted this material herself as a mark of good faith but either way it needs to go. Raymond Arritt 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I mopped up his user talk page, deleting everything that looked like a WP:BLP violation. The username also matches an advocacy website, so this is probably a role account. Nonetheless, since the user has not done any COI editing I elected not to block the account. There's no need to bite. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Regarding the COI issue, User:MEagenda and several of the other SPA's with real-life ties to the issue have been pretty scrupulous about not directly editing the Simon Wessely article - which is commendable. Unfortunately, the article talk page (and, as seen here, userspace) have degenerated significantly. I haven't invoked COI since there has been no direct editing of the article that I've seen, though. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, as Guy mentioned, the more eyes on Simon Wessely the better, as it appears that there is a significant outside feud (and allegations of harassment) being imported onto Wikipedia. Be warned, though, that it's ugly over there. The last unsuspecting admin who was good enough to respond to my request for more eyes ended up asking me: "WTF have I got into here?" MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
          • A concept we need to think about is brand ambassador. Wikipedia has real influence in the outside world. We have to expect that the outside world may want to talk to us sometimes. Indeed, they are allowed to create appropriate, non-promotional user accounts to do so. However, they are not allowed to violate our policies, and they should be especially careful that their talk page participation doesn't become disruptive to the encyclopedia. This user account seems to be a bit heavy handed, probably because they don't understand the correct way to interact. Let's be patient and explain to them what they can and cannot do. Wikipedia:Business' FAQ would be a good place for them to start. Also, when discussing somebody at ANI, please leave them an invitation. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I weighed the option of notifying the user of this thread (which I usually do), and decided not to do so. I know this makes me a terrible person. However, this particular dispute has been forum-shopped to death (Wikipedia:Neutrality Project, WP:BLP/N, WP:COIN, etc) and each instance has degenerated into 200-kb densely-worded posts restating the bones of contention - with the effect of entirely discouraging any real outside input. In this case I specifically was interested in a sanity check as to whether this use of userspace was appropriate, and I thank everyone who's responded. I really do hope that patience and resources such as the Business FAQ will be helpful here, and I think that the more outside editors and admins are involved, the better. I apologize for any cynicism, but my experience with individuals who come to Wikipedia to pursue a real-life grudge by editing their adversary's article has been quite negative, and in a somewhat different category than editors who are here to promote their real-life endeavors. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have been dragged all over the place with this one. Has the user been trying to wear people down by arguing endlessly? The real issue may be disruptive editing. Such users try to frustrate our processes and need special handling. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone else who tried to step in on Simon Wessely before turning away in disgust, I don't think anything is going to end this edit-war and its assorted spinoff mini-wars; there are two organised groups of editors with such diametrically opposed views I can't see any way they'll agree, and Wessely works in such a specialised field that it doesn't even seem possible for someone not involved to make an informed decision on the validity of each side's claims. As Mastcell says, this debate has been ongoing for a l-o-n-g time, and is no further along then when it started. — iridescent 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Two? Who's the other group? 62.73.137.190 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen an organized group of single-purpose accounts who have come to Wikipedia specifically to hate on Wessely. The "other side" is really just User:Jfdwolff and User:JzG, who I believe got involved when the abuses by the Wessely-haters got so bad that Jimbo Wales had to blank and protect the page. Neither JzG nor Jfdwolff carries any water for Simon Wessely per se. I don't think there are two opposing groups here, so much as one determined group which hates Wessely and, on the other hand, a couple of admins trying to maintain a semblance of WP:BLP and decorum. But again, perhaps I'm biased as I was initially pointed to the article by a post at WP:CLINMED by User:Jfdwolff. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't the Wessley haters being blocked if they continuously break site standards? - Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

They have confined their activities to the talk page. Only a small number of admins are aware of the page, and those admins are generally involved enough to feel uncomfortable using the tools, I would assume. For my part, I've been following the lead of User:Jfdwolff, who has been making extensive efforts to reach some sort of understanding. I did block at least one Wessely-hater strongly anti-Wessely editor, Alpinist (talk · contribs), who promptly used a few dozen dynamic IP's to harass Jfdwolff. Ultimately he was unblocked and given one last chance. Beyond that, I don't know. Again, more outside eyes are probably the best solution. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This board isn't suitable for monitoring long term abuse. Each incident washes into the archives before we have a chance to connect the dots. Where shall we go that we can open a conversation and leave it open for a month or two where at least several uninvolved admins will see it? - Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I's a good as a place as there is now, a few of the topics at the top of the page have been under scrutiny for more than three weeks now. east.718 at 07:27, 10/19/2007

Firstly, as stated to JFW, in spring 2006, on the Wessely Talk page, I do not hate Prof Wessely. I have never met Prof Wessely nor have I had telephone contact with him. I have never sent him paper letters. The only contact I have had with Prof Wessely is a single email in which I politely requested a public statement from him regarding the debacle over the alleged cancellation of the Gresham College lecture, in early 2006. Prof Wessely kindly provided me with a statement. I have retained copies of both these emails which are available for inspection. That is the sum total of my contact with Prof Wessely. It might be construed, from what he has written above, that Mr Guy Chapman (no relation) is implying that I am guilty of "harassment" of Prof Wessely. If this is his intention, then this is inflammatory and there is no basis whatsoever for any such implication, and any such implication would be false, since it cannot be said that I have ever "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, either via written material on the internet, or by any other means. There is a definition of "harassment" in UK law and I suggest that Mr Guy Chapman familiarises himself with this. If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with. MEagenda 08:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I became involved latterly with the page because of an attempt by an Admin to push a POV, highly unreliable document in order to make defamatory claims against a whole patient community. I have acted reasonably and in good faith throughout (including undertaking not to edit the page), and I have even followed Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution. To then have a legitimate position characterised, incorrectly, as ‘Wessely-hater’ or ‘thinking the man is an antichrist’ sadly demonstrates how bad faith runs throughout the Wikipedia Admin set-up. My guess is not one of the Admins here has bothered to read the talk pages carefully, because if someone does take that trouble, a whole different story to the one being constructed here actually emerges.

Guys comments here ‘but we do know (as in: he told me in an email) that he has been personally harassed by some of these people‘ are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel (the libel can be seen on archive 104 of this Admin Noticeboard). This previous post from Guy also made various false claims about the issue and my work which only goes to show how dangerous ignorance of a subject can truly be.

I have never harassed Simon Wessely in any way. I make public legitimate criticism of his position on ME/CFS and various claims he has made and his methodology, as well as that of his colleagues, in their promotion of the psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS. I have never contacted Simon Wessely, although he once sent me an unsolicited email some years ago when something I had written about the psychiatric paradigm had been published.

IF ‘Guy’ really has had emails from Simon Wessely to him claiming that I personally have harassed him, such c laims would be false and therefore libellous and defamatory. I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails, specifically claiming that I have harassed Professor Wessely, to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way. I am currently corresponding with Professor Peter McGuffin, Dean of Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, and the Human Resources Director (Professor Wessely’s line managers) to establish the veracity of Guy’s claims with regard to Professor Wessely emailing him in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Kennedy (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note I have blocked MEagenda (talk · contribs) and Angela Kennedy (talk · contribs) for the above legal threats (see thread below). Neil ☎ 10:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• For purposes of clarification, MEAgenda has been one of the less problematic of the advocates here. Angela Kennedy is much more of a problem, and it is the writings of the group she formerly led that I have characterised as demonstrating a visceral hatred for Wessely. I will point out again my essay on this: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Wesselygate. The One Click group, which Angela Kennedy previously led, I believe, was the source of most of the historical problem with this article. MEAgenda appears to have been inflamed or provoked by Kennedy into an uncharacteristically immoderate response; in the past, MEAgenda has showed ever sign of trying to work with policy, even while demonstrating a POV which is clearly at one end of the spectrum. One thing is very clear: anybody who dares to venture an opinion is going to be personally involved and, if their opinion is anything other than outright hostile, they should be prepared to eb personally attacked and targeted. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe article probation for the Wessely article makes the most sense? I think keeping WP:SPA's on a very short leash there is strongly indicated, given the article's history, prior WP:OFFICE issues, etc. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 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)

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[53], 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)

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks

As a result of this ANI thread, a few accounts have been blocked indefinitely between Oct. 14th and 15th. Haomo, chaser and me blocked indefinitely a total of 4 accounts belonging to User:Lahiru k. The blocks were based on the evidence gathered at the RFCU case against Lahiru k.

User:Iwazaki tried to explain to me and now discussing it at the CheckUser page that the IPs were "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" (allocated dynamically). I've have been receiving emails for these last days from emails apparently belonging to User:Netmonger and User:Lahiru k arguing about the same. What i could know is that allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. That's "subsequently" tricky. I just don't know if that is acceptable as a justification/defense. Indeed, supposing the IPs are in fact AP doesn't mean that they can be allocated to the same wikipedia editors who happen to edit the same articles w/in the whole Sri Lanka. One chance in a million? Lahiru is a known sock master (back on 2006) and this makes me feel that the blocks are still being justified and preventive.

I'd just like if some people know further details about "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" IPs could please try to tell us about their opinion and see if blocks could be undone. In any case, those set of articles need a bit of more attention. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a thread here and AmiDaniel supplied some info about it.--chaser - t 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Updates I have received some new evidence suggesting that User:Netmonger (who is both User:Mystìc and User:Arsath), User:Lahiru k (w/ a few sock accounts) and User:Kaushini are three different users. This means that they are not sock puppets but we can call them meatpuppets (Kaushini). If any admin would like to verify they'd just contact Lahiru k and Netmonger via email because i can't reveal any personal detail w/o authorization. The evidence is composed of ID cards, Passports details and a gmail screen showing that they are 2 different accounts in contact w/ each other. I've also received some old exchanged emails between these accounts and others showing that they are not the same person. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So is it conclusive that both Lahiru_k and Netmonger both used socks ? Also is it conclusive that these three are indeed meatpuppets ?---User:watchdogb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.81.182 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It has already been conclusive that Lahiru k used socks on 2006 (see CheckUser list). Arsath/Mystic/Netmonger has a different story. These are the three accounts' edit periods (start/end)...

• Mystìc (talk · contribs) 16:17, 18 January 2006 / 07:14, 21 November 2006
• Arsath (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 November 2006 / 10:54, 20 December 2006
• Netmonger (talk · contribs) 05:31, 14 December 2006/04:22, 15 October 2007

This means that the Mystic account was abandoned. Netmonger was then opened while preserving Arsath for exactly a week back on 2006. That is sockpuppetry (though was not longer than a week in a year span) but we can just keep Arsath and Mystic indef blocked since they are not allowed to edit anyway.

The only clear meatpuppet account is that of User:Kaushini and is related to User:Lahiru k. Since the account Kaushini (talk · contribs) has only edited a few edits and have not edited since 04:16, 17 November 2006 then we can keep it indef blocked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So can I ask why wiki pedia process lets sock masters edit wikipedia ? Since Lahiru account used socks wouldn't it then mean that that account must be blocked ? I think so and I believe that wikiprocess also says the same. However, Netmonger account I am not sure about. Watchdogb 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you. If i were the blocking admin back on 2006 i'd have blocked User:Lahiru k indefinitely for being a sock master. {{sockpuppeteer|proven}}. Simple as that. This is what i did in fact in this case. I don't leave sock masters rooming around in cases of abusive sockpuppeting. Nevertheless, there are two points that should be asked. a) what to do w/ Lahiru k's case? He has been using abusive socks but no one so far in 2007. b) is CheckUser a reliable tool? c) What to do w/ ALLOCATED PORTABLE (AP) issues?

I personally believe that Lahiru k has to be unblocked since it appears that he's done nothing wrong in 2007 and i doubt there is an admin who would undo a decision taken by another admin after a year. But if there is i'd really support it. Netmonger has to be blocked for the same reasons. Both accounts were blocked for belonging to the same person when actually they are not. The rest will remain blocked.

The CheckUser system is honestly not effective. You get the evidence but here you are w/ another issue of AP (read AmiDaniel's opinion). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also passport, ID and Gmail account screen shots can be borrowed and/or faked. There should not really be any unblock because of this. Another note is this Allocated IP. No one has clearly said that this is two distinct users who edit wikipeida. So in essence why are we giving special preference to a user ?

Honestly, AP issues have very little to do with it; they may, or may not, be dynamic and we can't see which specifically. I'd really like some clarification from all the parties, accounting for when, and where, they used the colliding IPs and more input from CheckUser about the Mystic/Laihru connection. --Haemo 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have we all of a sudden forgotten a ton of behavioral evidence ? Is anyone really bothering to read that ? Sinhala freedom 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking into that (sharing a POV isn't unusual for those from the same small geographic area, but there are a few other indicators).--chaser - t 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Honostly, can you explain to me why User:Elalan was blocked and Lahiru was not ? When Elalan used only one sock. All I can say is that I am sure there are others who are watching this debate right now Watchdogb 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very enthused about using this as a basis to unblock in part because such things can be faked, but more so because requiring that of suspected sockpuppets strikes me as an uncomfortable invasion of their privacy under the duress of an effective ban. Now that we have it, I think we should consider it, but this shouldn't become a precedent.--chaser - t 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But by doing this indeed you are setting a precedent. Its like we are rewriting and applying laws as we like with selective attention span. Sinhala freedom 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is basis for unblock, then it should. Otherwise this is hypocracyWatchdogb 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is wikipedia against Tamil Editors ? Is that why Lahiru can have socks and Elalan can't ? Let me know Admins. Why are you considering Lahiru's appeal not Elalan who was claimed to be sock by a fake wikipedian (ESSAJAY). I am sure Tamils are watching this injustace by wikipedia. Watchdogb 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on Watchdogb's talk page, we're looking into this and haven't come to any decision yet. He shouldn't assume anything until that's done. I will consider future invitations to evade process as disruption and will block accordingly.--chaser - t 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand but how about users who are blocked who come and edit in their SSP case? Is that not in direct violations ? Or am I missing something here ? Watchdogb 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, technically. I think in this case blocked SSPs were told to only edit their talk page and have mostly stuck to that.--chaser - t 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no special treatment at all. I simply have had no idea who is/are Elalan and User:Trincodab. If you want equal treatment i'd ask you to bring some evidence they are not the same. i'm not a detective and i'd assume good faith and we are dealing w/ normal people though disruptive and not w/ criminals falsifying documents. i can easily verify that if i were a detective. If you could i'd definitely do the same and treat the Elalan/Trincodab w/ the same fairness.

And the CheckUser system is functioning well but when it deals w/ AP it turns into unverifiable (as in our case).

Lahiru k should have been indef last year and as i said above, it wasn't me who dealt w/ his 2006 case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem that everyone should consider is that not all passports or other id are created equal. Sri Lanka's yellow id, anyone can recreate in their basement with a disposable inkjet and a laminator. Sri Lankan passports, unfortunately are not taken seriously by most Western countries since it too can be easily faked. I doubt there are holographic indicators even now. As a results to get a visa, lots of other forms of id and verification from third party individuals are sought. Sinhala freedom 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry guys. I admit I jumped on the horse and started to act without WP:AGF. I will let the admins do their job as they have no axe to grind in this matter. Hopefully everything will work out for the best of wikipedia. Watchdogb 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With due respect I would like thank User:FayssalF User:Chaser User:Haemo for being impartial and looking at the issue from both viewpoints.You have shown what a firm and impartial Admin is.Thank you.Wikipedia runs because of Admins like You.

Earlier in Netmonger case .Netmonger misled that the account from which an email was sent to Wikiraja Even refusing to accept or refusing accept or deny is okay but going to extent of saying this My email address is my actual name, which I cannot reveal here. I mail only to users whom I know personally[54][55][56]

Assuming Good Faith an admin unblocked with an apology. Netmonger could have privately emailed the Admin and told him so.Further if your email and chatname is the same and your email is from a Popular service like Gmail or Yahoo.It only offers semi privacy as it is easy to guess and has happened in many chatrooms.[57][58]username and email same from Yahoo or Google offers little privacy.But replying from an email which I do not know but unarguably offers greater privacy is intriguing.But refuse to accept an email account which the same as his Wikipedia name only makes it more suspicious.Further he has used account 1 day after being blocked and posted the personal information of a user with whom he has had content dispute with another account Arsath.[59] . In contrast Lahiru has been great contributor to Wikipedia and oppose blocking people for there views,.Through I differ with him strongly ,I had accept his POV at times when they were backed by his arguments.I was really sorry to see him blocked unlike Netmonger who has used account to attack WikiRaja and post personal material against another user which Lahiru has not.Netmonger was blocked and then unblocked with apology later it was found he lied and blocked again to avoid this .[60][61]

Please note Arsath created Netmonger account and started editing even when the issue was in arbitration regarding his earlier block.[62]and it was declined.

But now it would better if the decision is refered to [63] to an Arbitration Committee for any unblock it should not be the Netmonger situation [64] where one is blocked and then unblocked and again blocked after it is found out he lied it is far to complex otherwise if an unblock is warrented I feel it should be done only by the Arbitration now as it has reviewed by another Admin and the block upheld .Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No action has been taken yet and we are still looking at the matter in depth. It is really a mess but i am confident we will arrive to a fair decision very soon. Until now the accounts remain blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins I also want you guys look into whether accounts have been shared, that is two accounts one in Sri Lanka and the other operated from USA, although operated by two individuals at times is also operated by single individual whenn needed such as violating 3RR, voting in XFD's when the other party is asleep. The evidence is langauge skills. The account holder from Sri Lanka has poor English command where the US account uses Queen's English but sometimes the Sri Lankan account starts using the impecable command of Queen's English. Infact we have evidence of the US account holder forgeting to sign on when trying to do some clean up of the Sri Lankan account. This can be caught only by checkuser of specific time frames. This issue is tantamount to taking the entire Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia organization for a ride by a bunch of people. So I think this really needs to go to Arbcomm. Thanks Taprobanus 03:10, 20 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

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)

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.[65] 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).[66] 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)

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)

Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that 131.104.219.176 is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 70.15.116.59 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 70.15.116.59 19:03, 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 ([67]) and, after I reverted it and gave him {{uw-npa2}}, he vandalized it and made a crude remark and again likened us to Nazis ([68]). 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)

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,[69] uncivil uncivil insults, [70] [71] [72] [73] 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.[74] [75] [76] 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)

Incivility and general disruption

Cliffs-Notes version of the situation: Four editors were edit and revert warring on the Winter Soldier Investigation article, so I requested (and received) a Page Protection to motivate us to discuss the edits. One of the four, JobsElihu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), decides to wait until the protection is lifted before engaging in discussions about his edits. When I informed him that I would request an extension of the protection if we haven't yet reached consensus, it didn't sit well with him. He suggests it will just have to stay protected forever. When I later asked him again to discuss his edits and sources, I get this response, with an edit summary that threatens, "I guess we can just keep it locked." I have deleted his latest comment. His threatening to hold up discussions is one thing, but I took offense at the untruths and personal attacks he made. He has reinserted his comments each time I delete them, even though they violate WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I'm requesting someone give some "administrative encouragement" to JobsElihu to engage in discussions and consensus-building, and to refrain from personal attacks. If I start dropping warning tags on his page, I'm sure he'll view it in the wrong light.

I noticed his account is less than two weeks old, so my first inclination was to just patiently try to work with him. However, I also noticed that his very first edits used inline citations, Wikifying and detailed editing. He has also taken to lecturing various editors on how Wikipedia does things; what rules certain editors are violating; he has been canvassing support for (just) his positions; etc. Not sure what to think now... Xenophrenic 09:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking someone to check whether he is a sockpuppet of one of the other people involved in the dispute? Good luck. Geo Swan 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angela Kennedy, User:MEagenda

I have indefinitely blocked the above users, in line with the Wikipedia policy on no legal threats, for this edit from Angela Kennedy and this very similar edit from MEagenda in particular. I have informed the users that they can be unblocked at any time if they rescind these threats of legal action. Would appreciate feedback, having never really taken action on legal threats before. Neil ☎ 10:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. My only problem is the daft idea that, after those who made the threats (typically grudgingly) rescind them that we do indeed unblock them. Legal threats are a spiteful attack on members of the Wikipedia community, with the clear goal of intimidating them into compliance or silence. Those who issue unambiguous threats, such as this one, should be permanently excluded for Wikipedia, regardless of whatever post-hoc wailing they make when the find their bully tactics have repercussions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Finlay's response was before I mentioned MEagenda was also blocked (although I think the response would be the same?) Neil ☎ 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusly so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by (somewhat) involved editor: My personal impression is that AK is doing two things here: (1) accusing JzG of libel and (2) requesting information/material to be used in possible legal action against Prof. Wessely. However, I can see how it may be interpreted it as a legal threat and would hesitate to propose unblocking. I would advise the editor to accept Neil's offer and retract the problematic text. (A request for said information/material can be made via foundation e-mail; since the editor appears to be corresponding with Mr Wales, who was the designated contact last time I checked, it would be easiest to simply ask him). PS The same applies for MEagenda. Avb 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These blocks seem completely unfounded, since the 'no legal threats' rule applies only to legal threats against users, not outsiders. There is really not an obvious legal threat, either. One can see a limited potential for a legal action, but it has not been announced. I am therefore kindly requesting to unblock both users. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guido, they will be unblocked when they retract any legal threats. To me, it reads like they are threatening the preparing of legal cases against Guy Chapman / User:JzG. That is, by definition, a legal threat. Without even looking, I guessed you were not neutral to this, and a quick look of your contributions shows you are not. Neil ☎ 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Can someone other than Neil take a look at this? There is no legal threat against anyone. There may be a legal issue with Wessely, who is not a user, and that's all what can have been implied. Guido den Broeder 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. User:Angela Kennedy: "Guys comments here... are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel... I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails... to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way." ([77])

User:MEagenda: "If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with." ([78])

Either those are textbook legal threats against an editor, or we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, most likely, both of the above. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about: She wants to go after Wessely. If Guy thinks she has libelled him, forward the evidence to her so her lawyer can deal with them (IE, Defend her). That is what I get from the gist of the whole matter. Legal threats against Wessely and defense against Guy. Spryde 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I still read it as threatening to unleash a solicitor upon Guy, and I note Angela Kennedy has not denied that on her talk page in response to the block message. Even if we go with your version, Spryde, whoever they may be against, they are legal threats. NLT does not draw a distinction betwen legal threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or non-Wikipedian groups or people, and nor should it. Neil ☎ 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just pointing out another angle people may have not considered. That is all. Spryde 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Point by uninvolved editor: It probably should raise some red flags when someone's username contains "agenda". shoy 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Point by involved target: I never said who did the harassing, and certainly not down to the level of individuals, only that Prof. Wessely told me in an email that he had been harassed and threatened. It looks very much as if they were trying to iport their external battle, whihc is what they've been doing all along. I have no real opinion on the block, other than that it probably saved a tedious ArbCom case. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'm very serious, I'm inclined to consider this an abuse of power. It further troubles me that after my comment above, I have been called a liar by Neil, and suddenly the article ME/CVS Vereniging was deleted without discussion. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to? Guido den Broeder 00:02, 20 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)

Wrong picture : Christopher Paul Neil

In the article of Christopher Paul Neil[79] a picture keeps being added wrongfully. The posters claim it is a picture released by interpol, but on their website the picture is nowhere to be found [80] although other pictures can be seen. I find it offending that a unconfirmed picture of (in my opinion) someone else is shown in the article of a known child molester.

[81] [82] [83]

edit: I see other people have been worrying about the same thing: [84]

Avlan 12:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• The image is here - http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/vico/Default.asp The image is credited to the Thai government, and is therefore public domain. Neil ☎ 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the image he means - I removed the other one, one that Meanlevel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to provide evidence that it is of the subject (it's not on the page Neil shows). Clearly WP:BLP applies here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk

(okay , that got garbled: it should read "one that Meanlevel uploaded, for which I've asked Meanlevel to provide evidence...") -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is Image:M a1b76234bb1cccac7e17b26b5d87cfb4.jpg, which does not have adequate sourcing information. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed the one I mean, it was back just now and removed yet again... Avlan 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That picture was taken by the statue of the comedian Eric Morecambe, in Morecambe, England, see here. Not sure why Christopher Paul Neil would be there. Nuke it. Mr Stephen 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The person (or person's) who have been adding this are still at and once again close to violating the 3RR rule. Davidpdx 13:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the picture as a BLP violation. Eugène van der Pijll 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page, and blocked the IP that kept reinserting the image. User:Meanlevel probably warrants looking at. Neil ☎ 13:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Another new editor who magically finds his way to WP:AN and WP:AN3, knows the proper usage of {{indef}}, and can use uw-warnings, all in their first ten edits... east.718 at 13:56, 10/19/2007

Actually, you're right. I have indef blocked Meanlevel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which seems like a single-purpose account intended solely to troll. Feedback welcome. Neil ☎ 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I feel bad, because I'm responsible for the indef block on JWiamlmeysTNUC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as I was assuming good faith with Meanlevel at the time, and it may have clouded my judgement. Could you please review that block too? east.718 at 14:21, 10/19/2007

I would say block of JWiamlmeysTNUC was entirely appropriate after scanning his charming contributions such as this and this. Neil ☎ 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He's clearly a disruptive account, solely here to cause trouble and defame whoever is in that picture. I support the block — I would also like to commend Avlan for bringing this too our attention. --Haemo 18:48, 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 [[85] ] 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)

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

I've just blocked Gurch for 24 hours for edit warring on User:Luna Santin, he kept removing a link to Luna's blog calling it an attack site - which in my opinion was disruptive in itself. Please review at you own convenience, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look attacking at all. Will ^(talk) 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request has been rejected, and I would have rejected it too. This was being deliberately disruptive to make a point. Neil ☎ 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm talking to myself, when I keep saying that, when it comes to userpages revert wars, protection is nearly always preferable to blocks. El_C 14:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in protection if only one person is acting disruptively, if it had been a simple edit war, then yeah maybe - but this was making a point. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's a point, or I wouldn't suggest it. It isn't an article, no one else needs to edit it. It allows said user to edit other pages. El_C 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, if one single editor is being disruptive, blocking seems preferable to protection. Why should we lock off a user page that only one person is tampering with, and why should the disruptive editor be allowed to edit other pages? -- Satori Son 14:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because, otherwise, nobody is editing that page, that's why. El_C 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And if there's no disruption in other pages, why lock the user from them? Discuss that one userpage away while it is locked. El_C 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you El C - In my mind it's always preferable to inconvenience one disruptive user then most of the community. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else is editing that userpage, so how is the community inconvenienced? El_C 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But what if the page in question does not belong to an admin? Should we prevent an editor from accessing their own user page just because one person is improperly editing it? -- Satori Son 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurch shouldn't be editing Luna's page to remove links to his blog anyway - the point comes down to principal, if an editor is acting disruptively they get blocked, regardless of what page they are doing it on. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. I'm talking about this userpage (at other instances, said editor was the prospective disruptive agent). El_C 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I simply believe we need to be consistent in our block vs. full-protect measures, and should not have different strategies bases on whether it's an admin's user page being disrupted. -- Satori Son 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to be consistently undogmatic, I challenge. El_C 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually quite surprised to hear that from you. I always admired you as being a vocal proponent of parity and consistency. Applying our guidelines in an unbiased and objective manner is the key to preventing dogmatic authoritarianism, it seems to me. -- Satori Son 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen too many needless userpage-related blocks lately to stay silent on this point. El_C 15:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where someone is edit warring, WP:3RR is clear on that. If they are reverting somone elses userpage then they are causing disruption, protection does not get to the route of the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I plead for independent thinking, nonetheless, along aforementioned rationale. El_C 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, why this "regardless"? Less polemical-sounding exclamations, more practical answers, please. El_C 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there's not much else to say El C, he acted disruptively and got blocked. Most other people seem to agree that the block was correct, you obviously have a difference of opinion to everyone else. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

None of you respond to what I say, so I'll keep saying it. El_C 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec, deindent) El C, 3RR is a pretty basic guideline; Gurch has been around for a long time and can't plead ignorance of it. Given the edit summaries Gurch used, this was being deliberately done to make a point (probably about WP:BADSITES being rejected by the community), which would not encourage many admins to reduce the mandatory 24 hours. Blocking is done to prevent disruption; this was disruption, and Gurch showed no signs of stopping. Neil ☎ 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really followed the particulars of this (see above). El_C 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do take your point, but, again, 3RR is a bsic guideline, and it doesn't have special exemptions for user pages (nor should it). Neil ☎ 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless that userpage is yours (and even then, you can be blocked for 3RR) Will ^(talk) 15:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This 3RR point, that's news (and is new, period) for me as per this threaded debate. El_C 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think El C is right. Protecting the page prevents the disruption, doesn't antagonize the contributor as much, and lets work on the encyclopedia continue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At least shorten the block length, a few hours was all that was needed at most (although I do think protection would have been preferable int his case). -- John Reaves 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to shorten it because he's disrupted here plenty of times before, so he knows what he was doing. He's also not accepting what he did was wrong on his talk page. Protection would have also worked, but this was pure disruption from gurch. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems awfully punitive. -- John Reaves 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's preventative. If he gets away with a 5 hour block for deliberate disruption to make a point and breaching 3RR, then he'll know he can do it again because he thinks he'll just get his block reduced again. If the policy is applied evenly (as it would be to a user nobody had heard of before) and the 24 hours stands, then Gurch would, one hopes, be less inclined to edit war and disrupt in future. Neil ☎ 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, leniency is often a disservice to the user because it allows them to continue being disruptive until they eventually end up in much worse trouble. Firm, early intervention is the best way to prevent a small problem from becoming a big problem. This is common sense. We shouldn't lower our standards for the regulars. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. I also hadn't realized how extensive his block log is. -- John Reaves 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angelocasio continues to accuse editors of serious criminal acts

I had earlier (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive312#User:Angelocasio_accuses_another_editor_of_committing_criminal_acts) drawn attention to these postings by Angelocasio [[86]]. Unfortunately, and even after being given a warning, Angelocasio has continued to throw abuse about and make slanderous and offensive accusations, both on the entry's [[87]] talk page and in Angelocasio's own talk page. His most recent accusations like "none of you see anything wrong with harming children" and are "defending child predators" and (on his talk page) "Meowy likes the violation of innocents" are seriously over the top. I request that something stronger than a warning be given, and that his offensive and legally slanderous comments be erased. Meowy 14:59, 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)

RFC on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits‎

There has been substantial disruptive editing at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits‎/latest. Although the page says in bold that editors may remove themselves from the list and should not be reverted, certain editors are in fact reverting on the grounds that editors don't own their contributions and have no right to ask to left off the ranked list, and that a ranked list is useless unless everyone is listed. I have filed an RFC requesting community input on whether on editors should be allowed to remove their names from the list. Thatcher131 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "just protect it" on whatever the consensus ends up being, but most of the people with sand up their cracks about this are admins who will ignore any RFC that ends in a result they disagree with. Neil ☎ 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather unfortunate view of your colleagues. There are a lot of things I might do if consensus is against my own view, but I filed the RFC precisely to determine what that was so I would know what my options were consistent with policy and consensus. Thatcher131 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sand up their cracks" was rude, but the point stands - I don't forsee the RFC coming to any kind of equitable conclusion. I think the only way would be to host the page externally, perhaps on the toolserver or elsewhere. Neil ☎ 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This self-referential cruft sends all the wrong messages, and should be deleted, anyhow.Proabivouac 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I trust you have expressed your opinion at the MFD on the page? Neil ☎ 17:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Some advice please - one user, two usernames and a user page redirect

Could I have some advice please? There are two new users: Taye's Beat and Taye's Day. User Taye's Beat redirected Taye's Day's userpage to Taye's Beat's userpage. I reverted this as one editor shouldn't redirect another editor's user page, even though the likelihood is that they are both the same. I left a message on Taye's Beat's userpage to explain my reversion and suggest a name change if that was helpful.

My reversion has been undone by Taye's Beat who says: "I appreciate your input, however, I was told quite some time ago by an ADMIN, that when changing User pages and/or User names, to use a re-direct from the "old" page, to the "new" one. Teaching new tricks to "old" dogs is hard, but I'll get there eventually. Thanks.  :-)"

However, I am confused by this for two reasons: Firstly, this isn't how you change a user name, and secondly why would he be given this advice anyway? Both accounts were created today (Taye's Day at 04.49 and Taye's Beat at 14.22) and, so far, the only contribution of either account has been on the respective user and user talk pages.

Should he be left to get on with it or is there something here which needs administrator attention? B1atv 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just a doppleganger account or something. I'd say just leave it — at worst, it's a non-disruptive sockpuppet, or alternative account. --Haemo 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Socks aren't disallowed unconditionally, just discouraged in most cases. Only abusive sockpuppetry is disallowed and redirecting is actually one of the ways to provide full disclosure per WP:SOCK. He may very well just be trying to follow the rules. EconomicsGuy 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another hotspot of ethnic warfare...

Need a few more eyes on Great Fire of Smyrna, another hotspot of long-term nationalist edit-warring. Users Laertes d (talk · contribs), Tedblack (talk · contribs) and AlexiusComnenus (talk · contribs) are at it again, reverting (just below 3RR). All three are typically tendentious single-purpose accounts (1 Turk, 2 Greeks), with virtually no other activities during the last few months than messing up articles about either the one or the other side's historic atrocities during various Greek-Turkish wars. Another of their favorite hangouts, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), was recently placed under special revert ban by Moreschi, so they shifted to this article instead. - I'm too much involved to take admin action myself, unfortunately, or I'll hand out pretty long blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's connected, but the IP 125.31.7.207 has just been blocked for reclaiming Turkish islands for Greece! B1atv 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's just our good old friend Sstakis (talk · contribs). Don't mind him, just revert-block-ignore. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You know... it's too bad we don't have some sort of forum or noticeboard where we could discuss some sort of community supported restrictions (sanctions if you will) that could be imposed on tendentious editors who appear to only be here to push a POV. Something like 1 revert a week restriction which an uninvolved party such as I might suggest for those 3 editors.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, why not discuss it here? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Déjà vu. Kidding aside though, I was absolutely serious about revert restriction on those editors. I think 1 revert a week is more than fair.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the Deja vu, obviously :-) -- Revert restriction sounds fine to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism In Ezhava article

Resolved

It has been noted that there is constant vandalism of Ezhava article By User:Vivin and User:B Nambiar.The User:B Nambiar has been blocked for the violation of 3RR. User:Vivin have been removing sourced content from the article. [User:Nishkid64] have put protected tag to the version which has removed many content by the User:Vivin. please find the same here [88] and [89]. You can find the User has removed many content and [User:Nishkid64] have put protected tag to that version. i have laced editprotected tag. please revert back to the version [90] of User:Merope.Vvmundakkal 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss these edits on the article's talk page. The article is locked until people discuss changes and reach consensus. You might also want to read m:The Wrong Version. -- Merope 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin with preconceptions wiped out my proposal and wrote over it with his own

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_closing I requested my proposal that had been open for 7 days with 25 supports and 18 opposes be closed. I was hoping it be approved. However, an admin who previously started a The proposal, as it stands, is a massive waste of time section on the talk page of this proposal decided to wipe out my proposal and open his own. It is conceivable that some might agree to reconsider an alternate proposal, but I believe many would have closed debate as proposal approved because after the debate started at 10 oppose and 7 supports some tweaks were made to the proposal and it started meeting with great approval as revised. Is it appropriate for an admin with preconceptions to wipe out a proposal and write over it with his own?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting him? That would be the proper first step, not coming here. -- John Reaves 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

*scratch head* You eked out a 58% majority for a proposal to change the main page and were hoping that would be interpreted as consensus? Am I missing something? —Cryptic 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the totals were 58% overall, but the responses after modifying the proposal were 69%.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there is overwhelming support to change the main page. The question is which of three methods to use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way. This is my suggestion to him: "There is overwhelming support to put FLs on the main page. There is some skepticism about how this particular proposal would play out. However, people have given support, especially since the proposal was tweaked. Since this mechanism will have voting results on December 20th for Main page inclusion starting on January 1, we experiment with the voting and if it does not work out submit the nominees that were voted upon in sequential order of promotion date starting with January 1 main page inclusion in either case." That would be my suggestion given the responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I marked the original proposal as rejected due to lack of consensus, the rebooted proposal is proceeding. A couple of observations: bear in mind that any proposal that will result in changes to the Main Page will require very high levels of support (so be sure to advertise the proposal well), and take care that you get the process ironed out so that everyone is clear what is actually being discussed. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bede cengia

Would somebody please delete Bede cengia? It's been tagged for deletion since yesterday, it's a copy of the Michael Jackson article with the name changed, it's obviously an attack on a friend of the now-blocked creating editor's. Corvus cornix 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, sorry it took so long. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Corvus cornix 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird and trollish behavior from Scottandrewhutchins (talk · contribs)

I happened to come upon this [91]. As you can see, this person created a redirect titled "Most overrated film of all time" and directed it to "Rocky". I tagged this as db, so hopefully you can still view the history. Going through his talk page, it looks like this particular person has had quite a few problems with this kind of thing, among other ill-advised behaviors. I warned him for his vandalism redirect, but it seems like more is needed here since there's a long-term pattern of various kinds of vandalism. Has been blocked for 3RR in the past. The Parsnip! 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He also created this serious WP:BLP violation based on a totally unreliable source. There's a mixture of Wikignomish and highly disruptive edits in this user's history. It seems like a troublemaker trying to fly below our radar. Any other opinions supported by evidence? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Parsnip!, can you invite the user here and we'll ask them directly if they understand why these edits are disruptive. Perhaps they can take advantage of WP:ADOPT to learn what's appropriate and what's not. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've placed an invitation on his talk page. Let's see if he heads over. The Parsnip! 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3-revert thing was unjustified. Someone was lording over the Gremlins page and wanted the lesser takeoffs ignored, even if supported. I admit this edit was inappropriate and will do better in the future. I think you will agree that of my 8,000+ edits, the vast majority have been beneficial. I'll have to curb my occasional urges to be snarky. I'm not sure what was wrong with the (SOMEGUY) article, which I thought was a good faith edit, even though there is snarkiness in choice of subject matter. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With (SOMEGUY), who's name we won't mention here, there was a report at thesmokinggun.com alleging self-inflicted dismemberment. The problem with the underlying article was that thesmokinggun.com isn't a reliable source, and that underlying content should have been deleted. I have deleted it. Adding a redirect to that content using (SOMEGUY)'s name isn't really fair to that person. Wikipedia has high visibility. We're not trying to damage people's reputations. The incident with redirecting "Worst Movie Ever" to Rocky wasn't really productive either. I love making wisecracks, but I don't do it here. Whenever I get the urge, I use the preview feature to see what my funny edit would look like, and then I don't save it. Sometimes, I go to a site like Slashdot where that sort of behavior is condoned. Can you please agree to keep it serious here, and don't go overboard with the snarkiness. If so, you'll be fine. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is, courtesy of our friend Herostratus, though, one form of snarkiness that is encouraged here... Joe 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by 216.229.163.106

Resolved

 – IP stopped

Engaged in active and persistent vandalism c.f. User_talk:216.229.163.106 and recent user contributions Rklahn 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Usual school address. Last blocked for six months - but haven't learnt their lesson. I say block for two years. Davnel03 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped. Next time, post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- John Reaves 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

George bennett‎ (talk · contribs) and Andylane24 (talk · contribs) in weird dispute

I bumped across this a few minutes ago, and don't know whether its a simple dispute or really stupid, troll like behaviour. The two have not had communication with any other users, so I'm guessing this could be a dispute on and off Wiki. Andylane24 started the dispute off, see here, stating Bennett lived "in a cardboard box". Instead of just leaving it, bennett posted this on lane24's userpage. lane24 reverted the edit, but bennett retaillated see this and this. I'm guessing these two users know each other, and seem like they are simply here to bicker and post threats to each other. Suggest block. Davnel03 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Block bot please!

Could an admin please block User:SatyrBot for about an hour? I'm debugging and it's constantly adding to it's log for some reason I can't understand. Thanks!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done.--chaser - t 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Garcic

As evidenced on the user's talk page User:Garcic, this individual only comes around every so often to make useless edits and to vandalize Wikipedia. I think he ought to be banned, as the individual does not make constructive edits, only occasional disruptions. Bradjamesbrown 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - banned. violet/riga (t) 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rbraunwa appears to have passed away...

There was speculation on WP:AN (and the topic seems to have been archived) that Rbraunwa had passed away, and sadly, I think the rumors are true- Rbraunwa's account just added an obituary to his userpage: [92]

R.I.P... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Very sad news. Jimbo has protected the user page, and at the same time, I have locked the account, per policy. Feel free to undo that if there's any reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The account locking is fine; it is within policy (that I remember; we did that to Rob Levin's account after he passed). I extend my condolences. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My most sincere condolences. There is no point in unprotecting the userpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This might sound a bit morbid, but has anybody ever proposed a {{deceasedwikipedian}} template? Or would that be beansish? Caknuck 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but I don't think this should be templatized. Mercury 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Darius20 edits

Darius20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Could other eyes please take a look at the edits of this user? While there are some positive edits, numerous others slightly change parts of articles in ways that we can't easily tell are correct or not. This edit itself deserves a block and is what started me looking into his contribs. violet/riga (t) 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've warned him. DS 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bălţi

There's an edit war going on at Bălţi between User:Moldopodo and User:Dc76. I am not involved at all in the article, I just stumbled across this war. Corvus cornix 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 6 hours. It's a slow war that was escalating. — Edokter • Talk • 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Does anyone else think his account may have been compromised? He left a message on my Talk page today regarding some content he objected to on the Down syndrome article, politely contacted the editor who had added the content, and went on a vandalism spree an hour later?? Persian Poet Gal blocked him for 24 hours, but something's off here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah I find this quite strange myself (I noted the possibility of compromisation in the block summary). Better keep an eye on requests for unblocks or emails from this user (the block is a short 24 hour duration anyway). I do not think they would go off the handle like that just by looking through the contribs. Maybe I'm not looking deep enough.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It does seem very odd, but he supported AFDing the vandalized article a ways back [93], so maybe he just fell off his rocker. Someguy1221 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason that particular article really seems to chap some hides. --Rocksanddirt 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination)

This Afd (in poor faith in my opinion) seems to have a fair bit of obvious sock drawer activity. At least one user (Jelly the Supermodel) has only contributed to Afd's on days when contributing to afd's of the subject article. The Afd has not been disruptive (only a few modest personal attacks from the nominator), but has the appearance of some really poor behavior brewing. --Rocksanddirt 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but Dr Tobias Funke (talk · contribs) also started the previous AfD one month ago as well, which also featured other uncivil remarks towards another BLP, Chris Crocker, and has made some rude remarks about BLPs when initiating other AfDs. • Lawrence Cohen 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is plain that User:Dr Tobias Funke doesn't like her for some reason, but I was trying not to directly accuse him of the sock activity as I have no evidence. There might be technical evidence (from CU), but I don't know if this is disruptive enough to go there. If others have an opinion, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksanddirt (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go to CU unless the behavior trips a few bells, or else the CUs may just decline the request as fishing. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect one day I'm going to checkuser an entire week of AFD just to see how corrupted it is and how deep the habit of sockpuppetry runs. Thankfully it's unlikely I'll be that bored - David Gerard 01:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just mark all the accounts that have few or no other contributions than the AFD with {{spa|username or IP address}}. Unless it gets really bad, it will be sorted out when it is closed. Mr.Z-man 01:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article move

I recently came across the recently created article, Developing Community of Midvale Park. However after looking into the page history and user contributions for User:Mexican Sponge, I discovered that the article was a recreation of the article, Midvale Park which is now a redirect page to Developing Community of Midvale Park. There was no discussion prior to this move. Could an admin please take a look. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think the problem is, and what do you want admins to do? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Thats why im asking. Surely you can't just perform a potentially controversial move with no discussion but im not sure in this case. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Wikipedia policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:CorenSearchBot tagged me as copyvio the same minute I created the article for the second time this week

• [[94]] Today User:CorenSearchBot tagged my article as copyvio the same minute I created the article. Look at the article history. And not only that, the bot was wrong and accused me of copyvio of a site that was itself a copyvio. User:CorenSearchBot said I had copyvio http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/Hendricks.htm when actually that site is a copyvio of the source I cited in my footnote. If you look at the article history you will see what I am saying is true. The footnote citation was for http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/346/case.html.

• [95] Here User:CorenSearchBot tags me one minute after I created the article on October 10.

This is nerve wracking. As I tried to explain to User:CorenSearchBot, in the first minutes of creating an article an editor is worried about not losing sources in the browser and not losing edits in wikipedia if things are slow. And at the same time, to get a message flash, then an instant delete template in the same minute or one minute after creating an article is not right. This is not a good way to treat editors. Thanks! --Mattisse 01:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... It's a bot, not a human. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What you should do is delete the copyviol warnings and proceed as normal. Coren's robot will not fight you; it's not a Terminator or a Cylon. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, though: like all robots it will try to take over the world if you turn your back on it. HalfShadow 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! My master plan has been revealed! Aaaaaauuugh! — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding the stress to me of the worry of losing edits in the beginning. I know I am not sophisticated so probably this is a joke to you. What can I say except it definitely will change my edit behavior to avoid the bot harassment as it is so stressful. --Mattisse 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, CSBot will ignore sources it knows are okay, or articles which are tagged with an attribution template it knows about. Its message is quite clear that simply removing the tag if it was wrong about the copyvio is the Right Thing to do; and cannot delete articles (and, indeed, does not tag them for deletion— but for human attention).

While I am sorry that you are distressed by the tags, it serves a useful, and needed, function and since the actual trouble caused by the occasional false positive (need to remove a transcluded template) is trivial, I can think of no reason to modify its behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean when you say the bot ignores articles that are O.K. It told me I had copyvio a site that itself was a copyvio, a site I did not use in my footnote citation the bot was complaining about. And it did this in the same minute I wrote the article. --Mattisse 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I'll just cut back for a while until that bot calms down. Truly I deal with daily electrical outages and such, so losing edits because of the tagging within one minute stuff is a real concern to me, aside from the bot harassment. Plus having to chase down inaccurate bot reports is a waste of time. I spent several hours today trying to figure out what happened, until I finally saw that the bot was plain wrong. Maybe I'll stick one of those 1911 templates or the other template on the article the bot guy suggested for protection in the beginning to buy a couple of minutes before the bot harassment begins. Just so things are not so nerve racking for me. Thanks, --Mattisse 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you're stressed over this; just remove the template. Your article was tagged because it had lots of quotes in common with the other page. Even if you don't remove the template, someone is going to manually check it before deleting it, so there shouldn't be a problem. --Haemo 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have one question. What, exactly, do you mean by "losing edits"? CSBot cannot cause you to lose an edit; at worse, it will cause an edit conflict which you can resolve trivially (by cut and paste from the bottom box), losing no time (and, indeed, getting rid of the tag in one fell swoop). — Coren ^(talk) 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Return of sock puppet of MascotGuy, CodyFinke6 now CodyFinke2007

Resolved

 – User blocked.

Hello,

The User:Codyfinke6 was indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock puppet of MascotGuy, his unproductive edits and a myriad of other reasons. He appears to have returned as Codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Could some one please take a look see and block this user if it is the same user trying to work his way around the block.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Please? It took almost two weeks to get him blocked last time. Corvus cornix 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I got him because his username's too close to CF6. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:PatrickJ83

After User:PatrickJ83 vandalized the Beyoncé Knowles page rather severely, I left a warning (uw-vandal3 to be specific) on his (I assume it's a he) talk page. PatrickJ83 then deleted the message. I then restored the warning and told PatrickJ83 to please not delete vandal warnings in my edit summary; PatrickJ83 deleted the warning with no comment. I then restored the comment and left a more detailed edit summary again telling PatrickJ83 not to delete the warning; PatrickJ83 again deleted the warning with no comment. I replaced the warning and posted a notice on the actual talk page; this was also deleted with no comment. I also noticed in the talk page's edit history that PatrickJ83 has deleted a bot-created notice about a page blanking incident as well as a user-created notice about a page deleted as a non-notable biography; view the edit history for the talk page here. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against removing warnings from user talk pages. If he's removed it, then he's probably read it. User talk pages are not "permanent records" of everything everyone's ever done. But if he's vandalizing repeatedly, he should probably be blocked. FCYTravis 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong block review

I received an e-mail from User:The Technodrome's Toilet asking for help after being blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It appears that Ryulong has blocked him/her indefinitely as a sockpuppet, without a checkuser, and in the middle of a Power Rangers content dispute. I'm no expert on the subject matter, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that the person is a sock. Hasty and overly harsh blocks have been a Ryulong problem in the past, posting here for review. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked because the evidence was damning at the time, and still is. In a checkuser that did occur, it did not turn up that he was either user who I suspected him of being, but then again, he was utilizing open proxies, and several other accounts were found.

Even though there is no evidence to show he is a sockpuppet via checkuser, he still has a bunch of edits that resemble both sockpuppeteers in question (baseball-related edits, Power Rangers edits, removing the "fictional" qualifier to an article on a particular character, trying to delete the page of that same character, etc.), as well as the hoaxes that he has admitted to. This block does not come from any dispute. I saw that he was editting a page that I have watched because I'm preventing it from becoming a page totally based on rumors, and I looked into his past edits that resemble two particular banned users that I've encountered.

We should not let a user who has admitted to screwing with the project be allowed to continue to edit it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking on the basis of sockpuppetry seems a bit hasty given that the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EddieSegoura is pending. However, from his talk page and deleted edits, TTT seems to think creation of hoax articles doesn't offend anyone, so I'm not rushing to unblock. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining/looking into it. Like I said, I'm no expert on Power Rangers sockpuppets. Not sure why the user picked me to e-mail, except that I was involved in Ryulong's RfC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an episode list for a series that doesn't air until February 2008 and everything here is either nonsense or a hoax (mostly fake films or nonsense TMNT references, like his username).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I know that Eddie is still editing (he told me via some recent emails) but I'd be surprised if this him. The language and writing style seem very different to Eddie's. But that said, I agree with AnonEMouse with regard to hoaxes etc and don't feel inclined to rush to unblocking someone who has so blatantly attempted to undermine the integrity of the project. Sarah 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the block rationale to reflect the actual evidence that was received from the checkuser, as well as why he should remain blocked, even if it isn't Eddie or CBDrunkerson (who is believed to be Eddie, regardless).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These points make sense to me. For what it's worth, the username probably needs some work as well. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a random bullet from a wacked out author 'Cataschok'

Wacked = Continues to insist Jesus Christ is the Asian Master and Ruler of the Universe, and is wiping out new user pages, and laughing at people. Remind me what I did again to be the target of this?

• 03:51, 5 December 2006 Cataschok makes Jesus is Asian...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=92149755

• 03:51, 5 December 2006 Cataschok gives the newly Asian Jesus a promotion to the Master of the Universe...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=92149976

• 03:53, 5 December 2006 Cataschok wipes out instructions on the new user page for user [Z3da 9.2]...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_page&diff=prev&oldid=92150246

• 03:57, 5 December 2006 Cataschok's racial characterization of Jesus didn't go so well, so he goes back to see if he can make the changes stick, insisting that Jesus is: 1) Asian; 2) The Master of the Universe; 3) The Ruler...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=92150846

• 02:55, 12 March 2007 Obviously getting nowhere he begins to play God, Cataschok has hacked and currently been unchecked in modifying the model of the correct of the Earth...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EGM96&diff=prev&oldid=114449955

• 03:00, 12 March 2007 And for some reason, stops to whipe out my new user page and laughs at me...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cataschok&diff=prev&oldid=114450846 & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Imlookingnow&diff=prev&oldid=114450743

Imlookingnow 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This fellow, Cataschok, has only made three edits since December 2006 and that was 12 March. I recommend you just forget about it and move on with editing. Sarah 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New sock of banned user Jason Gastrich

From my comments on Jason's RfA: Along_the_Watchtower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - "New" account that removed critical site URL from a number of Wikipedia pages, including archives of talk pages and the pages of inactive users. This would indicate that this "new" user knew what to look for and where to look from long-inactive discussions, issues, and users, with the intent of removing the URL, in part, to violate WP:POINT. See the edits by Ronaldo847 and this off-site commentary, which vaguely references those edits and the aftermath. Additional comment: Though there is a sock-puppet reporting procedure, given the wrath and discord that can occur in these instances (see, for example, the history with Really33), it's probably best to see if there's an available administrator to address it at his or her convenience. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 03:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Sigh. After the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev (and my amusing, if embarrassing, original mistake there) I've spend some amount of time looking through the contributions of Sadi Carnot. What I see there is a large, elaborate a subtle walled garden of pseudoscience— probably for the purpose of hawking his books (or simple self agrandizement).

Besides Georgi Gladyshev, Human molecule, Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity which seem to be the core of his garden; he makes large numbers of sometimes subtle vandalism to many articles related to thermodynamics using his own website as source to justify them. Many of the edits lie at the edge of my personal knowledge of thermodynamics, but given that his sources are unfailingly looping back to his website or that of another dubious institution related to him.

The user has already admitted to being the author and owner of the site being pushed.

I dislike making personal allegations against a specific editor, and I am loathe to run through his contributions by myself quietly (I don't want this to look like stalking), but at this time I am convinced that we are either facing the perpetrator of a long and elaborate hoax, someone working at self-promotion, or simply the promoter of a fringe theory. — Coren ^(talk) 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)