User talk:Coren

Albe Back

The information that was posted on Albe Back's wikipedia was done for our client Albe by moonsix communications inc. We posted the copyright for the website it was originally posted on, we own the copyright so there should be no problems with copyright infringement.

copyright ok for artcile "Roger B. Baron", please re-establish

I am the author of http://regor.meta-x.org/Baron/index_en.html , text from which the wikipedia article I submitted, "Roger B. Baron", was widely inspired from. And I am willing to permit it re-use under the GFDL.

You can verify authenticity by matching the email of my wikipedia account (Montmartrebear) with the author's email on http://regor.meta-x.org/Baron/index_en.html : regor <at> meta-x <dot> org

Therefore, I kindly ask you to re-establish this article.

1944 D-Day: Operation Overlord

I actually got that info from www.1944d-day.com and I did reference it. If there's anything more I shoul do, please let me know. Legend6 (talk)Legend6

Dastoor(Poem)

I wrote in the above captioned article, the poem is a public property in Pakistan, the poet Habib Jalib refused to get it copyrighted and allowed anyone to use or publish it.added by Kalamkaar, on 4th April 09

Deletion of the Tsolomitis wiki page

I am the author of the Tsolomitis wiki page which you just deleted.

I am compiling all my family history and the wiki page you just deleted because of copyright violations is in fact incorrect.

The website that the information came from is in fact run by my family and i have permission to compile (as in directly copy all text) into a wiki page which is what you call copyright infringement even though the text, website and everything else associated with it is the sole property of my family.

James geortsis (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Signed By James Tsolomitis Geortsis —Preceding unsigned comment added by James geortsis (talk • contribs)

The content of this page are written by Michael Gruneberg, who also wrote the contents of the pages on the Linkwordlanguages website. He is the copyright holder of both texts so there is no breach of copyright on either entry Michael GrunebergLibrarydeal (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete of JUMP - The IAESTE Training and Motivation Seminar

It is right that the text is quite the same. They acctually took it from www.iaeste.org/jump which is the original and all typed by me. So I have the copyright. I wanted to add more text, so please to not delete the page.... Thanks for the support! Aekeller (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 19:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Refused to cooperate?

Hi Coren (cross posting from Roger's talk page because you implemented the block), curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? Durova^Charge! 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, to make things perfectly clear, this was not a Committee block. My action has the support of a number of Arbitrators, and there will be a corresponding finding to that effect on the proposed decision page, but the decision to go ahead with the block is mine alone.

That said, the reason I made the block is a fundamentally principled one: a community effort like Wikipedia functions because of the social contact to heed and follow the basic rules of conduct that constitute our framework. We routinely block editors when it becomes obvious that they are unable or unwilling to abide those rules; and I can think of no clearer and less ambiguous evidence than an explicit refusal to agree to them (even when it was poorly worded as a pseudolegal disclaimer).

Ultimately, what Wikipedia has as "terms of service" is the amalgamation of policies, guidelines and community expectations; Fahrenheit451 is correct, at least, in that he is in no way obligated to agree to them— but then all that is left to him is the right to leave. Now, of course, if I have misunderstood his refusal, or if he wishes to withdraw it, then I will be more than glad to unblock him (noting, however, that the arbitration case will proceed with him as a named party regardless of his decision in the matter).

I'll not argue that this position is a bit more... hardline than traditional. But I see this declaration of his in exactly the same way that I would see someone stating outright that they will ignore WP:V, or that they will sock around a block— and those also traditionally have led to swift, immediate blocks. — Coren ^(talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardline? Try coercive. His name wasn't even on the proposed decision page and he hadn't been blocked in three years. This came with no warning, and it's completely outside of both process and policy. This isn't a court of law; you don't jail people for contempt of ArbCom. He wasn't even uncivil. Bad block. I'll be glad to discuss and would prefer to handle it this way, but am also quite prepared to take it to the admin boards. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am, however, heading to bed. So let's both sleep on this. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I'm left wondering where his asserted opt-out was taking us if it wasn't to a Florida court, relying on the Uniform Commercial Code. And, by extension, if he doesn't accept being an involved party, is there any realistic prospect of him accepting a topic ban or any other restriction? In the circumstances, on top of the examples mentioned by Coren, I don't see the block as any more coercive or unusual than a NLT block for which there is mountains of precedent.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Coercive"? That is what any involuntary sanction is. Whenever someone is blocked, or topic banned, or even just warned we are — pretty much by definition — attempting to "compel by force of authority, pressure or force". You've done that yourself thousands of times (and, indeeed, you are attempting to do so to me now). — Coren ^(talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the substance of the block: I disagree with you completely. If an editor states "I don't want to follow your rules", then the only proper response is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". We are too big, and have too much work keeping the encyclopedia running as smoothly as it is, to take on the malcontents and protesters. We extend every courtesy and every effort to allow people the benefit of the doubt when they are disruptive— in the hope that they do not understand the rules. Someone that doesn't want to play nice? Internet is big enough that they can find some other occupation elsewhere.

The block is good, and IMO more blocks like this should be given out. I'm not going to unblock; but if you feel this requires the wider review of a noticeboard, then I'm not going to stop you. — Coren ^(talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I have never seen anything like this during arbitration before. Fahrenheit451 had over 6000 edits, was not an SPA, and did nothing worse than civilly decline to give further evidence in a case where s/he had already participated. Even disruptive SPAs don't get indeffed while arbitration is ongoing unless, like Ilena of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal case, they do something that would be indeffable under any circumstances (in her case outing another editor's real identity). At worst, Fahrenheit451 could be called uncooperative, and as such the remedies when they were posted and voted upon might go a bit harsher than otherwise. This is an unprecedented grab for autocratic power by an arbitrator and I must oppose it. Election to the Committee does not elevate you above the norms of this website. Durova^Charge! 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a question of being merely uncooperative, though. There's no exemption for threats directed towards ArbCom in WP:NLT; as Roger points out above, Fahrenheit451's statement can reasonably be interpreted as threatening legal action should the case continue, and he may be blocked on that basis alone. Kirill ^[pf] 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how that constitutes a threat. Editors routinely invoke spurious legal rationales of what they think their rights are, and if those rationales do not constitute threats of legal action then we ignore the statements. I see no fundamental difference between this and the complaints Commons occasionally gets from editors who want to upload images according to US law only, instead of the stricter site policies there. We explain why our policies exceed their expectations; we ask them to respect that. Many times they change their minds and abide by policy. Did Fahrenheit make any statement beyond what I see on the page? If he emailed the Committee to say I will take you to court, or if he made some onsite post to that effect that needed to be deleted or oversighted then I will strike through everything I've written here and give Coren a barnstar. But if he simply said a longwinded form of 'I think I don't have to give more evidence' (which is what this looks like to me), then off to AN this goes. I'll wait a reasonable period for reply before taking this any farther. Perhaps I misunderstand; what's apparent at this point simply astounds me. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And to clarify further, when ScienceApologist announced at his user page that he intended to disregard your topic ban, you did not siteban him preemptively--you waited for him to actually violate the restriction and then voted upon further remedy in an orderly manner. As yet, Fahrenheit451's name still does not even appear on the proposed decision page. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that SA was invoking any legal rationales in his announcement, though. As far as I'm concerned Fahrenheit451 is merely blocked until he withdraws his legal claim, not banned in any more substantive manner. Kirill ^[pf] 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You and I have very differing interpretations of how 'I think I don't have to give more evidence' may be worded, I think. From my perspective, posting a notice that one refuses to participate in arbitration on a contractual level is inherently an implicit threat of taking the matter into the legal system, regardless of whether a specific intent to do so has been explicitly stated at this point; because the statement has no relevance outside of a context of legal action, it seems reasonable to assume that the context of legal action is what the person making it had in mind—and, consequently, that the statement was intended to call up that same context in the minds of the targets of the statement. It exudes a threat of legal action in the same way that "That's a nice house. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it" exudes a threat of violence, in other words.

(That the legal rationale happens to be spurious is not, I think, particularly relevant; one doesn't need a legitimate rationale in order to bring a lawsuit.) Kirill ^[pf] 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well then Kirill, look at it this way: it happens that I am a named party to the current case as well. And I don't think I have to give any more evidence either. For all I know the Committee might enter a remedy on me too (although it hasn't happened either, I can't read your minds). So I invoke whatever rationale Fahrenheit451 was citing: note that neither Fahrenheit451 nor I say anything about what we might do if these supposed rights are violated. Now if you intend to indef me for this post, please wait half an hour. I'm uploading a restoration of an Easter egg roll at the White House lawn from 1911 while we discuss this, and I'd like to get it nominated at FPC in time for the holiday. Might take a bit longer to straighten out if you truly do see any threat in this statement. Regards, Durova^Charge! 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to squeeze a word in here edgeways, he wasn't actually asked to do anything. He just, um, withdraw unilaterally and reserved his rights, citing the UCC as justification. Anyhow I'd better leave you in peace with your egg rolling.  Roger Davies ^talk

I'm sorry, but you can't voluntarily declare yourself a party and then try to reference Fahrenheit451's rationale, since the substantive point of his claim concerns adding him as a party in the first place. You'll have to come up with a different threat.

In any case, I choose to invoke IAR and not block you for your attempts at threatening us, since you're obviously not taking this seriously. :-)

Good luck with your restoration! Kirill ^[pf] 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's newest featured picture candidate. Feel free to indef me now. Cheers. :)

Lol! Kirill, please check the case. I am named as the filing party. And note that I have not been asked to provide any more evidence either (indeed, have gotten hints from one or two of your colleagues that what I've already supplied is a bit much to read). Now do be nice and unblock this other established editor in good standing of four years' experience. Give him the same chances you gave ScienceApologist; he's been far less trouble. Happy holidays, Durova^Charge! 17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova, have you noticed, during all that, that F.451 has yet to even request being unblocked? If they do so, and withdraw the legalish posturing, he's but one click away from being unblocked. — Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Down from legal threat to legalish posturing? Which policy are you citing for having blocked him: Wikipedia:No legalish posturing? Tsk, tsk. He shouldn't need to ask. Durova^Charge! 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm just stating that their legal threat is poorly stated and based upon a very incorrect pop-understanding of contract and commerce law— WP:NLT has no provision for poor legal arguments and flawed reasoning; "legalish posturing" is an apt description of the nature of their legal threat. — Coren ^(talk) 17:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, this point is important. Although I am skeptical that there was a legal threat (I described it as "silliness"), NLT blocks are not usually permanent; they're just formally indefinite. They're reversed as soon as the party withdraws the threat. If Fahrenheit451 clarifies that no threat was intended, we would be done here. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fellows, this isn't even a threat:

"I hereby refuse this contract and any hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion connected with it. This is done in accordance with State of Florida Law. I reserve all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)"

That's all he said; be reasonable about it. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

When you state that you want X to happen or not to happen according to some law (now matter how incorrect your understanding of the applicability of said law is), then you are necessarily stating that legal action will be forthcoming unless you get the desired compliance. I fail to understand how you could not see this. — Coren ^(talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We deal with similar situations all the time in copyright disputes, and unless the editor specifically threatens a consequence we ignore the spurious reasoning. Durova^Charge! 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you are being generous in your enforcement of NTL— I'm supposing here that copious assumptions of good faith on your part are the primary reason. In this case, we are discussing someone who has had years to learn our policies, and who went out of their way to make a legal statement/disclaimer in multiple fora. — Coren ^(talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

← I've pasted this discussion to AN for broader input. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct-coupled

I have removed Coren's "duplicate article" tag from Direct-coupled because I don't think it is relevant to a disambig page. Biscuittin (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter (Tim)

I noticed User:SkyWriter's block. It was based on NLT. He has stated "I've threatened no legal action". I believe this can be taken as a "rescinded" legal threat, or the absence of one to begin with. The NLT page states "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." As he has stated that he does not intend to pursue any legal recourse, may his NLT block be removed? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coren, could you explain more fully please? You note an OTRS ticket: was there an offsite component to this editor's actions that merited indeffing? Durova^Charge! 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As an admin acting upon an unblock request by SkyWriter, I'd also appreciate it if you could tell us which edit triggered this block. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The same OTRS ticket was cited in the blocks for Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and for SkyWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please could you explain this more fully if possible? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I remember it SkyWriter/Tim was blocked as the proxy who made off-wiki contact with OTRS in relation to Alasatir Haines [1][2]. If Tim was (mis)identified as that proxy that would explain the block. But there maybe more to it - if so a little info would help a lot. BTW Coren, did Alastair send you an email? (I'm not asking about content - just rather did he attempt to explain things to you?)--Cailil ^talk 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot not logged in?

Looks like the bot is editing from an IP. – Toon^(talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)