Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

What to do about user:Kreepy krawly ??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user is... I'm not even sure how to explain it. He's marking users who he doesn't like, including me, as "Institutionalized vandalizers" or somesuch, and seems to have some agenda or something. See he recent contribs and the conversation on his and my talk page: here. Not sure what to do about this, please advise. Gscshoyru 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other Institutionalized Vandal in the matter. I moved a debate that Kreepy Krawly had initiated at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to a subpage (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best‎) and marked it as an essay. I believe KK has the right to expound their view(s) but thought that the pump was not the appropriate venue (although what exactly is I do not know). As an admin I realise that abuse is part of the job description, but I do not find the term IV at all vexing. I feel that if KK were to accept the new forum, or it were moved to a mutually agreeable area, then it is a perfectly reasonable for them to discuss their vision of the future of Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. That strikes me as a bit... odd. Raymond Arritt 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone remind KK that this is an encyclopedia; they have not made any article contributions since January and have done almost nothing but debate the role of trivia in Wikipedia on WP:VPP for the last month. Mr.Z-man 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He (I'm assuming) made a bizarre, stalkerish (and in that way vaguely threatening) accusation on my talk page here, after I gave a civility warning. Let's face it - the huge extent of obsessively flowery prose at subpage at (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best‎) is beyond strange. It's fine if we can confine it to that playpen rather than letting it disrupt our functional meta-pages. But when he gets mad, tries to reinsert it, goes after anyone who's trying to deal with him with made-up policies and terminology so oblique it's obsessive, it suggests some serious problems with trolling or comprehension of reality that are way beyond our ability to cope. I cannot imagine any education, mentorship, warnings, mediation, or anything else we have in our toolbox that can deal with such behavior. Either we block it or we live with it. We'd be within the letter of policy to block him now for contentious recent editing after multiple warnings. That's certainly in the best interest of the project.Wikidemo 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just that bit? I found their debating structure so florid that I am not even certain that there is a point that I am missing; their thoughts also resolve to some conclusion that I cannot fathom. Since it appeared that they were not promoting a new policy or a change to an existing one I thought it best to move it from the Pump. Apart from their (they tend to speak in the third party - sometimes removed - at my talkpage) allusion to outside influences I see nothing that should concern anyone. If it is trolling it is pretty good, and fairly amusing. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)I commented in it a few times around the very beginning of the discussion; then he was suggesting that we not only allow, but encourage trivia in articles (I think) because we have not done a good enough job keeping it out of articles(?). As this amounts to a fundamental change in what Wikipedia is, its not going to happen (especially not with just a Village Pump thread) and AFAIK has just been a discussion (if one can call it that) of theoretical policy (anti-policy?) since it began. Mr.Z-man 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what to do, what to do. I'm glad all this is amusing, but not to us. We don't have emotions; we don't get "mad." We think. Our comprehension of reality is perfectly reified. Just ask anything, as any topic of actuality can be discussed on any scale of human or machine cognition, any level of information theory, any scale of the physical universe, any scale or direction of pure theory. We think. We suggest joining into a discussion regarding our metacognitions in a postitive, constructive manner rather than attempting to obfuscate the honest intentions of Kreepy krawly, as has been the only accomplishment of these recent distracting recriminations. While the subject matter and tone may be difficult to accept, there was not, is not, and will never be any ill-intended acts by Kreepy krawly. Once significant institutional issues are identified and discussed, then amended, there are over 5000 people who intend on joining Wikipedia with actual accounts. This group, which has a unified identity, "X," which is not the actual name, but merely a database tag, intends on amplifying and extending over 100,000 articles, to be used for reasearch and such. But these enormous efforts will not be undertaken unless certain glaring institutional deficiencies are first addressed, as our work will not be deleted by overzealous editors, nontrivialists, and what we call "Institutional Vandals." Not vandals in the denotation of the term, but in a subtle connotative meaning. Don't take it too hard. The above users are justifiably lacking crucial information to make good decisions upon their appreciated observations. Kreepy krawly is currently engaged in a long-planned analysis of Wikipedia with the intent of putting an end to various forms of vandalism, which many users and many administrators have struggled with at length since the inception of this Human Knowledge Metarepository -- which other users still call an "encyclopedia" (encyclopedias are published as books, not as hyperlinked HTML documents; this is a horizon of human nomenclature, and confusion on the nomenclature is a side issue). The lack of efficiency and efficacy in stopping vandalism from a technical and policy standpoint is preventing many, many intelligent and dedicated experts in many fields from improving Wikipedia's glaring faults. This can begin to change once our process matures. Odd ? Perhaps. Deviant ? Not a chance. I thank my above esteemed colleagues for their patience and dedication to true and good values and principles as this discussion proceeds. Kreepy krawly 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that all 5,000 of your "X" will go away? Good. I don't find trolling amusing at all. Sooner or later there is always a meltdown. Please stop. Otherwise, blocking seems to be the recourse. Wikidemo 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All 5000 "X's" will begin systematically reinforcing the superstructure of Wikipedia, and making way for more than mere "facts." Trolling ? Again, that is intended as obfuscation, as trolls try to harm Wikipedia, while we aim to improve it. Attempting to paint us as detriments to the Human Knowledge Metarepository will result in immediate correction in any forum. We will not tolerate our esteemed colleagues smearing our good name. I suggest an attempt be made to reread the writings of Kreepy krawly with an open mind, with an eye on the spirit of the message rather than the diction. We do not comprehend "always a meltdown." Blocking would confirm one of our central theories, and provide martyrship, that will accellerate the accumulation of pro-Wikipedia "X's." Thanks to User: Wikidemo for the continued dedication to honest and constructive political principles as these issues are resolved. Kreepy krawly 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you refer to yourselves in the plural, current Wikipedia policy specifies that "we" block "you" as a role account. Raymond Arritt 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that... see here for the policy. And also, we're not about to change our policies to make a specific group happy, no matter what they'll do. Policy changes of this magnitude (I think, I can't actually understand what you're proposing) would require widespread consensus, something that is unlikely in this case. Sorry, but we may have to do without whatever benefits your mysterious shadow people would provide. Gscshoyru 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Whether or not this is trolling, "discussions" like these are not really helpful. I would suggest everyone disengage from this discussion and go about more productive business. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has made a threat, if not an outright admission, of sockpuppetry, as well as threats of vandalism. In my experience there are two things one does with trolls - block or ignore. Engaging in debate or taking the role playing seriously only encourages it. Wikidemo 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience in life, I have learned to look twice and thrice at every appearance. Appearances can be deceiving. For the record, I am one person, but I have over 5000 zealous followers on the internet regarding my teachings, so when I say we, I say that I am the combined intellectual power of several thousand people. I direct a "hive mind." Sorry if that offends you, but you can't keep Wikipedia an exclusive club it if is to evolve, because it's the [Human Knowledge Metarepository] that anyone can edit. I don't fit neatly into any current identity catagories, and I'm not here to be disruptive. I don't need to reiterate that again. And if my esteemed colleagues think I am disruptive, then I can assist with a realignment of observation powers, question-forming abilities, and epistomological methods. That's the sort of thing I am well known for in my circles, and I'm always available to teach and assist. It's why I came to Wikipedia in the first place: to analyze, criticize, teach, and assist. Don't make me drink hemlock like Socrates, because that is an obvious indictment of the indicters and not the indictee. And it does not serve Wikipedia in a positive manner, because the future of Wikipedia depends on generalist philosophers and systems theorists such as myself being dedicated and able to convene open forums on broad topics. I hope you understand. There have been many misunderstandings so far and I can only hope with the best intentions that my esteemed colleagues can focus on the real, and not the illusion, so I can get back to work on meaningful solutions to vexing problems, and for the sake of the project. Kreepy krawly 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

W/ all due respect to your person but this is an encyclopedia and not a forum as per WP:FORUM. There's one comment above which summarizes all and it was said by User: Mr.Z-Man --> I would suggest that someone remind KK that this is an encyclopedia; they have not made any article contributions since January and have done almost nothing but debate the role of trivia in Wikipedia on WP:VPP for the last month. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that is an interesting point. I have made no major edits, as I have been composing 32 complete unique entries offline. But nobody but myself would know that. I have been tirelessly researching Wikipedia article standards as well as the facts of the articles, but when I began to be messaged by the members of my collective that there are disruptive, subtle, tolerated, institutionalized editing practices that destroy usefull information, and that my 32 articles are obscure to say the least, I became concerned that my efforts may be in vain. So I stopped forging my excellent articles, and began to debate the trivia issue with thousands and thousands of people who actually respect my intents and intelligence, in contrast to this forum and the previous. And then the larger issues started to coalesce, which you can find in tatters in the Trivia is what Wikipedia does best ... "essay." I mean, there's extensive pages for My Little Pony !!! I reference that all the time. It's a great example of institutionalized hypocracy !!! What could be more trivial than My Little Pony ? The Butt plug article ? There are literally tens of thousands of incredibly obscure Wikipedia pages (that's what Wikipedia does best; it's why people value it). When some editors began incorporating "trivia" sections into articles, some other editors began vandalizing them under the guise of official policies, some smart people took pause. People who spent precious time adding valuable, if obscure and seemingly useless yet factual and linkable, information. What Wikipedian does not know this ? I think the issue has been broached enough in recent metapages that it is a known issue. Who can fake a lack of awareness about this phenomenon ? And non-Wikipedians are taking notice and spending much time discussing this in chat, IM, and email outside of Wikipedia, and because of my systems theory, information theory, and philosophy background, I was dragged into the debate and nominated by thousands of perfectly sane and well-meaning individuals to express a consensus opinion regarding concern for the identity and function of Wikipedia. So we convened, I was advised, and I made decisions about how to approach the topic, and that has led us here. Let me know what else you need to know, because I'm dedicated enough to this to discuss it forever, partly because thousands of people expect me to speak for them, and because I think it is the right thing to do. I just read the article on sockpuppets and trolls, and neither my writings nor my intentions match the definitions of those disruptive identities AT ALL. Do you have any idea how many people are watching this discussion ? Perhaps ten thousand now. I'm serious. They are copying and pasting from these discussions and discussing not just the users involved, but the higher significations of the acrimony of this discussion, on top of the content itself. Wikipedia has been put to shame by my treatment here. I hope, they hope, this is corrected and my esteem and value is returned to me. Soon. Kreepy krawly 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We have thousands of confirmed expert editors (journalists, scientists, researchers and even Royal family members) editing wikipedia. Remember. I say editing and not preaching. The important is not who they are but what they bring here. You are not the only so-called expert or "net prophet" as you think. So, keeping it brief, i'd again remind you of WP:FORUM#FORUM because if you won't read and abide by its rules, i'll block you for good. Hope you stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking time

Hasn't this user exhausted the community's patience? Not only are his posts hardly understandable, he is calling respected editors "institutional vandals",[1] threatening a user for removing a comment from that user's talk page,[2], and in general seems only to be trolling. I see no benefit for Wikipedia in keeping this account active, and so I suggest an inef block for Kreepy krawly. Fram 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am here to defend Kreepy krawly, and I will continue to do that until the above entities involved begin and finish an objective discussion about the details of issues, and achieve consensus. It is suggested that this community's patience is insufficient to effectively deal with these issues, as has been demonstrated thus far, but that need not be the case. In a court of law, or Lincoln-Douglas debate, the accusers have the burden of proof. That burden has not been carried thus far. If Kreepy krawly is blocked, it will create real anger in the real world. Many, many concerned citizens of Earth are watching this debate. I fear for their actions if this community cannot suddenly begin to view this issue objectively. Kreepy krawly has been speaking exclusively about policies related to trivia inclusion. That is a valid and entirely constructive practice. As described above, many people with important contributions to make are holding back and waiting for certain institutional changes to be made. It is not this person speaking now that created the label "institutional vandal." Anybody can come here and criticize Wikipedia if they wish. That, given the structure of this project, can never change. But well-intentioned editors and administrators can make CHOICES related to the treatment of individuals. So for the sake of justice, please speak in detail. This message intentionally truncated for brevity. And contact me directly at: [removed address]@gmail.com Using that email is an effective way to vent peronal grievances with my tone and style, rather than distract from the issues of higher importance in this venue. Thank you. Kreepy krawly 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are still telling us that you got a mission here. It happens to be that this mission is not about editing but preaching indeed and threating us w/ "millions are watching", etc... To be fair w/ you and the rest of wikipedians i'm blocking you for 48h to see if you would come back editing. Remember, no preaching and trolling once you are back please. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming another 'institutional vandal', I support the block. Those delusions of grandeur (and the third-person style) are really annoying. KrakatoaKatie 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure blocking is adequate. Have the coders implemented the "punch in face" functionality yet?  ;-) Rdfox 76 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also support the block. To paraphrase James Joyce (originally said about one of his books), Wikipedia not only contains trivia, but also quadrivia. Since KK appears to have departed, it might be time to close this thread. -- llywrch 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be to certain that he has departed, he is after all blocked for 48 hours so he can hardly contribute a lot now. Fram 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, and blank his userpage while you're at it. There appear to be coded instructions there for members of "X". shoy 16:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi friends. Well, Kreepy krawly has certainly learned many important lessons. Kreepy krawly will be a good Wikipedian from this point forward. Kreepy krawly now recognizes that certain forms of speach, however cruical and productive, are unwanted by the present culture of Wikipedia. Kreepy krawly appreciates the punitive efforts of my esteemed colleagues in regard to the outrageous behaviour of Kreepy krawly of late, as it has given Kreepy krawly, and a few thousand others, time to reconsider our approach to Wikipedia. Have to run, don't have time to engage in any more one-sided dialogues for now, but upon the return of Kreepy krawly, Kreepy krawly will be spending some time to update and extend the cunt and motherfucker articles, which require extensive cleanup. Over 100,000 articles discovered so far have extensive trivia and nonsense that require deletion as well. Those cleanup tasks will be performed by many well-meaning anonymous editors, who have also learned many important lessons from the recent punitive actions against Kreepy krawly. Kreepy krawly has informed them to only add new material that is pertinent to the articles. They declined. 147 of Kreepy krawly's friends do not share the newfound positive edification of Kreepy krawly, and have turned against Wikipedia, and are devising an exceptionally more evolved alternative to Wikipedia in response. Kreepy krawly does not support those efforts. Kreepy krawly has tried to dissuade them from becoming distracting influences in response to the injustices of late in this forum and elsewhere on Wikipedia, but, alas, Kreepy krawly can only do so much, as Kreepy krawly is only one person. Kreepy krawly will do much better from this point on as a result of the punitive efforts of this considerably influential and powerful association of friends, editors, and administrators. Thank you in advance for your committment to the continued application and promulgation of the principles of justice, truth, and freedom. Kreepy krawly will respond to several of the above comments in another forum at some point in the future. Sincerely, Kreepy krawly 16:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

KK would not be able to edit cunt and motherfucker articles because the account is indef blocked now for trolling. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. It's time to let this exercise in time wasting and trolling end.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How bizarre. This user supports the block, because this user doesn't like people that refer to themselves in the third person. Nor do I like hive minds. Still, I have to wonder exactly what his "teachings" were....  :) --FolicAcid 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? This is the most asinine behavior I've ever seen — don't feed them, block them. --Haemo 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to my post, then yes, it was a (rather lame) joke. If you're referring to the actual question about Kreepy Krawly, then... I don't know. Either it was a very odd joke, or a very odd person. Either way, it doesn't really matter, since he's been indef. blocked. --FolicAcid 18:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Whig

Whig is involved in a NPOV dispute at Homeopathy. Some of his actions led people to create an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whig_2 RfC on him. However (as seen on the talk page), instead of discussing the concerns brought up, he's made unsubstantiated claims that he is in the right, and now accuses people who are against him of deliberately ignoring the evidence. Help please. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like for an administrator to do? Mercury 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him? -Amarkov moo! 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also not object to a nice long block, possibly on community patience grounds if nothing else. It is apparent from the RfC that a) many editors with a variety of different views find him to be disruptive and b) he has no intention of changing his behavior at all or even of trying to constructively participate in the RfC. JoshuaZ 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to object but it would be better to let the RfC goes on. It was just started yesterday. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take that attitude if not for the fact that multiple editors including myself tried to explain to help him in regard to how to respond or benefit from the RfC and we were essentially ignored. See for example [3] [4] [5]. See also his comments about both his prior RfC and this one here where he explicitly says that he thinks that the editors who are involved in the first RfC are acting under "bad faith". JoshuaZ 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors having acted in similar ways have been found outside the project. It is just a matter of time and my point was just about following the process until he'd get tired or more persistent if he'd choose that way. He is free to not participate at the RfC but he is not free to keep being disruptive after its closure as he should abide by the outcome (opinions of the community). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this edit summary [6] just 3.5 hours ago is downright unimpressive. There's plenty of bad behavior all around in this topic area, but he is obviously creating a disruption. I think a topic ban and civility probation is an appropriate remedy. --B 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate. It would be good to get User:Mercury's reaction to this proposal, as he has been in the thick of it. Raymond Arritt 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a short block will have any effect here, Whig simply does not understand our policies and refuses to engage with other editors in a constructive manner. I and several other editors have tried to coax him into discussions in the RfC, his responses - "I have made my response" and "Am I your monkey?". I agree with B, topic ban and civility probation. Tim Vickers 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent) I've had the opportunity to review everything, and having seen, I'll support a topic ban, and civility parole. Mercury 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, per [7] he doesn't seem to be interested in taking part in this discussion. So the question now becomes how broad a topic ban is necessary. I would suggest pseudoscience and fringe science topics. JoshuaZ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What about the same for User:Sm565? Though it looks like civility isn't quite as much a concern in his case. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. A SPA which was blocked twice. Sm565 appears to be no less disruptive than Whig. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a block for Whig would give him time to cool down. This kind of comment (diff) is completely unacceptable. As a comment, please bear in mind that Sm565's first language is not English, at least some of his comments are genuine misunderstandings. Tim Vickers 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tim - Sm565, while being disruptive, does not display the bad faith that Whig does. Sm has an obnoxious habit of forum shopping and reiterating the same argument over, and over, and over again (ask for diffs, or read his edit history), but he hasn't been calling people names, for example. I'm not uninvolved - I certified the basis for Whig's RFC and have been engaged in a lengthy attempt to get him to enumerate the reasons for his objections to Homeopathy. I would support any sanction against Whig, especially a topic ban, but Sm I think we can deal with without such measures at this time. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cool down" blocks do nothing but cause problems - "cool down" should NEVER be used as a justification for a block because invariably it cools nothing down. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Either there is something to prevent or there isn't. In this case, I believe there is something to prevent, based on the conversation at User talk:Whig. --B 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My refusal to provide a detailed defense to an abusive and improper RfC is not grounds for any kind of ban. Whig 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you should have said at the RfC. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave a formal response to the RfC. Please read it if you like. Whig 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no proper grounds for an RfC. This is an entirely abusive process. Whig 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC on Whig did NOT start yesterday but started on October 10th, 4 days ago. This editor has shown a total disregard for the RFC and any consensus existing against him. This user has clearly said that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him and that he refuses to change any of his behavior per the RFC. Let me post some Diff's. Aside from the vast amount of evidence presented at the RFC, Here is his behavior since the RFC:

here is Whig's official response to the RFC

Here Whig says that he refuses to acknowledge any consensus against him at the RFC and refuses to change his editing habits

here Whig attempts to bait me into starting an arbitration by adding the POV tag again

here Whig calls the RFC "Garbage"

here Whig calls the RFC "abusive"

here Whig accuses me of "abusing" processes in my request for a comment concerning him

I think that some sort of action is needed in this case. I would not be opposed to a topical ban, or perhaps specific limitations placed on this users editing such as a 6 month 1 revert rule and civility watch, as well as a temporary 2 week ban from the Homeopathy article. I think that this is being VERY lenient towards this user. Although I wouldn't object to a total temporary ban of several weeks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the RfC as being as much on Wikidudeman as upon me. He has brought a meritless RfC, which is not backed by the links he provided. Whig 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure people would, if you gave any reason to contradict our analysis that the RfC is backed by the provided links. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wanderer57's comment. And I do not think it appropriate for me to discuss the RfC further here. Whig 04:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban him. Why are we wasting this much time on this "editor?" OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. I had come into this thinking that it could be sorted out and not require major sanctions, but Whig's behavior in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the banning of someone who has been an editor in good standing for three years without trying something else first. --B 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --B 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three years? You neglect to mention that of the 42 months he has been on Wiki he has 0 edits for 14 of those months (33%), and less than 25 edits per months for 22 months (52%), and another 2 months of less than 50 edits (4.8%) meaning that he has made numerically significant edits in 5 of the 42 months, or 12% of the time. Really, "editor in good standing" is a misnomer -- he's popped up occassionally, and mostly on talk pages. Really, he's added very little value to WP. •Jim62sch• 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation ... to be honest, I didn't notice or look for the gaps - I just hit oldest to see how far back the contributions went. I'm taking a look at the edit count. Something makes me rather paranoid looking at this. --B 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My patience is running thin with this editor, and I have a lot of patience. I have been attempting to resolve disputes with this editor for weeks now and all I get in return are threats, insults, or simply having the user ignore me. This editor has been extremely problematic since I first encountered him and I believe that administrative action is in order. I propose the following administrative action be taken:

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, where if the editor reverts content in an article more than once per week, he is blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is placed on civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 1 month, but can still comment on the talk page(1rr and civility apply there though).

I think that the following remedies could deal with most of the problems associated with this editor, and I think that they are very lenient considering this editors actions. Please add input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would make the article ban the same length as the other two remedies and add an exception for reverting simple vandalism, but otherwise support. Before anyone considers closing this, please make sure that multiple people with no experience with this editor look at it and agree to it - that is the only way a community action is legitimate. --B 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The 1rr rule should apply only to non-vandalism and non-self reverts. I also think that perhaps the article ban for Homeopathy could also extend to be 6 months, though I don't have a problem with 1 month or somewhere in between. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support this remedy. By way of disclosure, I had no experience with this editor (or with the Homeopathy article) before looking yesterday to check out concerns expressed by other admins. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Block (User:Whig)

I am posting to gauge consensus for an action I am considering. I have been asked on my talk, to block Whig (talk · contribs · logs). Based on the last 1,000 or so contributions (pattern), other editors concerns, and the RFC, I am able to conclude, this user is disruptive and unlikely to stop. I am considering a long term block. Thoughts? Mercury 12:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor has some good edits in other topics so I wouldn't object to a simple topic ban of all fringe and pseudoscience topics. If that isn't an option I think a ban based on exhausting community patience may be in order. JoshuaZ 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that even as Whig has refused to participate significantly in either this discussion or his RfC he has continued to POV push at Homeopathy. This editor is quickly looking unredeemable. JoshuaZ 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Block for a significant period of time, say one month. Then topic ban (I'd say anything in alternative quackery...errrr...medicine) for a year. Get him out of here, please. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the user's numerous good edits, I too suggest a topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe science with the caveat that breaking those conditions will lead to a long block. ELIMINATORJR 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A ban/arbitrarily long block is the last resort, not the first resort to a good faith editor. If he will abide by civility probation and a topic ban, that's a more appropriate remedy. --B 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, if that was a reply to me, then that's what I just said. ELIMINATORJR 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We are in perfect agreement that any block on a good faith editor is inappropriate and not a goal of Wikipedia. Since Whig does not qualify as a good faith anything, just a shit-disturber in Homeopathy, then we should all be in agreement that a long block or ban is appropriate. It's good that we were able to reach consensus on this issue so quickly. I look forward to his month-long block on Whig. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A topic ban on pseudoscience and fringe topics would be my preferred option. A block for civility problems and POV-pushing would be justified, but shouldn't be longer then a month. Tim Vickers 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with topic ban, and civility block per Tim Vickers. I havn't been directily involved, but have been exposed to the disruption a bit on homeopathy and some other fringe stuff from the fringe theories noticeboard. --Rocksanddirt 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Will someone who is an uninvolved admin please inform Whig that we seem to have a consensus for a topic ban on pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. We seem to have a consensus for that at least JoshuaZ 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Mercury 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The stipulations look sufficient. I also agree with the consensus. I hope that these limitations on Whig will prevent him from causing any further disruptions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud this action. Whig has shown himself to be disruptive and uncooperative and unable to be able to approach editing of these contentious articles from a neutral stance.--Filll 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion earlier, but I think the matter was handled appropriately. Whig showed here that passive-aggressive behavior can be disruptive -- even if it meets no other standard. -- llywrch 19:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible QST Sock

Previous case [8]. Just noticed this user and did a bit of digging and noticed the following about this user Coolspanner (talk · contribs). A lot of his contributions to talk pages and his edit summaries are fairly belligerent so I dug in to his history. He was created the same month as another QST sock Tellyaddict (talk · contribs) who "adopted" him prior to being found out. [9]. Interestingly Tellyaddict acts like coolspanner was asking for adoption, but I can't actually find anything in his edit history indicating a request. Regardless of whether or not there is a connection here the user is throwing around a lot of hostility for the few edits he's made. [10], [11], [12], etc.--Crossmr 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. Coolspanner doesn't appear to use TW or revert vandalism, and the username would have showed up in a checkuser when they checked QST or Rlest. Carbon Monoxide 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do all user accounts using an IP show up when a check is done on it? I'm unfamiliar with the full details on how that tool works.--Crossmr 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, or at least all accounts within some given window of time. Natalie 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't write like QST at all. QST had a very distinctive 'style'. 86.137.25.192 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is so not QST. Miranda 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summaries despite warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ugh

Let me first say, I do not wish this to be a continuation of the above dispute, and if either party does so, their comments will be removed on sight.

Now, Kscottbailey rather than dropping the dispute, has completely (in my opinion) overstepped the bounds of civility, with this edit calling HiEv a pettifiogger. Regardless of whether the term is appropriate or not (and please don't argue that here), it is a certainly inflammatory edit so I removed that particular bit. He then re-added it, so I have reverted and protected. This dispute was pointless enough in the first place, so fuelling the flames with that sort of behaviour is more than a bit reproachable. Viridae^Talk 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. You have protected my OWN userpage, when I clearly said "unnamed" and made no attempt to identify said pettifogger. The only people who would have known who it was would have been that rare user who put my userpage on their watchlist after also being involved in the above pettifoggery. That would be YOU. I made absolutely NO attempt to identify HIEV as the pettifogger, but was rather identifying why I had received the Barnstar. I know it was lonely defending the above AnI, as few if any agreed with HIEV, but that's no reason to police my userpage for perceived slights to "unnamed" pettifoggers. This is the definition of WP:LAME.K. Scott Bailey 01:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IN the light of his protected user page. He added it to his userpage instead. Undoubtedly pushing the issue. He has been warned that if he continues to add personal attacks he will be blocked. Viridae^Talk 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have duly noted how frightened I am of your "final warning" as to violating your own misperceptions of what construes a "personal attack." Are you TRYING to force me into the truly Socratic action of drinking the poison that causes my Wikipedian death? If so, I will do so. I'm very weary of dealing with all this pettifoggery, first begun by HIEV, and now continued in by you. I may well add it in, and then summarily retire from Wikipedia. If you were trying to chase off a good editor, you have very nearly done so. Good show, admin. K. Scott Bailey 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to turn yourself into a martyr is a fairly pointless exercise. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one doing it with your pointless policing of userpages, enforcing your views of what constitutes a "personal attack." I've made it clear that this pettifoggery has been an unwelcome distraction. I'm sick of it. If this is what WP has become, so be it. I won't be a part of it. Not martyrdom, just getting fed up with petty pedantic pettifoggery (couldn't resist) that distracts from what I thought was the mission of the project.K. Scott Bailey 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott, I really wish that you would take a deep breath and consider the thought that your user page edit might not have been the best idea. Obviously, the person you were calling a pettifogger was going to see it, since they had recently edited your talk page. Throwing such a label out there this soon after a heated discussion seemed needlessly provocative.

Seeing as the original dispute was settled predominantly in your favor, and no one wants to see you leave the project, would you please be gracious, let it go, and agree to not make such an edit again? And Viridae, would you please unprotect their user page? Let's not let our emotions get the better of us; it's time to move on. -- Satori Son 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for your tone. Second, here's what I will do: when the page is unprotected, I will revert the change. After said reversion, I will remove all explanation of the Barnstar, until I can think of a way to explain it that sensitive userpage monitors will not take as a "personal attack." Thus, everybody is happy. Viridae gets the perceived "personal attack" removed, and I don't have to deal with him/her ever again, and can get back to editing the project. (And he will extract no "promises" from me, though I will give my word to you, Satori.K. Scott Bailey 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to him on multiple occasions I am quite happy to unprotect if I get a promise that he won't re-add the inflammatory material. Viridae^Talk 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But as a gesture of good faith, would you please preemptively unprotect it? Enough admins are watching that nothing is going to get out of control. -- Satori Son 03:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was considering it, mainly because he hasn't thus far re-added it to his talk page and he knows the consequences should he do so. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you frightened me deeply with your threats. I don't know if I'll ever recover. Can you not understand just how much time you are wasting with this?K. Scott Bailey 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott, please stop. It's clear that some folks here are intent on pushing you to escalate to the point of blocks, RfC's or other consequences. Be bigger, walk away. Just let it go. Everyone here saw a lot of folks for who they are in this,and some of the readers of this thread aren't likely to soon forget it. ThuranX 03:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX I am not pushing him to escalate to the point of blocking. What he added to his userpage (twice) and then his talk page (once) was needlessly inflamatory considering the above thread, and a personal attack to boot. I would rather not block him, but if he continues to push the issue then thats where it will end up. Remember I closed the above thread because it was going nowhere. starting to call other people names on your userpage is just reigniting the situation. He has the choice to sit up and play right... I hope he will take that option. Viridae^Talk 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I just point out that this is a VERY simple issue that has spiraled maddeningly out of control? - Philippe | Talk 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The original thread shouldn't have been here let alone get to this point. Viridae^Talk 03:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some irony in the fact that YOU started this thread based on your perception of what I wrote in my Barnstar description.K. Scott Bailey 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the one I closed, above it. Viridae^Talk 03:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And THIS THREAD is a de facto continuation of the above, which you said "should have never been started." Hence, the irony.K. Scott Bailey 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where exactly DO we argue whether what HIEV did above was, in fact, pettifoggery? If you could advise on the appropriate forum for it (as you have barred us from discussing it in this thread), that would be helpful.K. Scott Bailey 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not. I'm truly sorry this dispute got to this point, but no point in continuing. I'm going to bed! :) -- Satori Son 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• So, everyone is happy now? The comment has been removed, pages have been unprotected, and everyone is sorry about over-reacting? Good! Let's end this now. --Haemo 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userpage harassment

I'm sorry this keeps going on, but Kscottbailey is now harassing me on my talk page over this, despite my requests that he quit bothering me with this issue and accusing me of things. I brought up what is admittedly a minor issue, but an issue nonetheless, however that doesn't give someone the right to harass me over it. You can see above that I was fairly quiet on this issue, after my opening comments and defending myself from charges of "WikiLawyering" and "bullying", but Kscottbailey does not seem willing to let the issue drop. Do I really have to put up with this? -- HiEv 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for 3 hours by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Viridae^Talk 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

...and is arguing over it on his talk page: User talk:Kscottbailey#Blocked for 3 hrs. I would like to request uninvolved admin review of the block. I believe that irregardless of the underlying issues above, Kscottbailey's posts to User talk:HiEv in the last 24 hrs constituted harrassment and uncivil actions, and he continued after being asked twice to stop. However, if other admins feel that this was an overreaction on my part then I'm ok with an early unblock. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup - he just posted an unblock request on his talk page. One point - he claims HiEv went "to a friendly admin" to get him blocked. I have to my knowledge never interacted with HiEv before (nor Kscottbailey) and was merely responding to the posting here in this section on ANI by investigating and taking action I saw fit. Georgewilliamherbert 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed his unblock request, he would not take no for an answer (as he would not with HiEv), so I protected his User talk: page for the duration of the block. Any administrator may feel free to review/revert my actions. — madman bum and angel 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly uninvolved, having run into him earlier in the dispute, but I think it is likely that had you not protected the talk page, you would have had a stream of arguments and unblock requests, judging by all the previous interactions. Seems to me you did the right thing - wait for the torrent of "admin abuse" calls when the block expires though. Viridae^Talk 22:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivilry by User:Tarc

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

Four times now, on two articles Tarc has engaged in editing disputes, and has refered to my edits as "vandalism" in his editing summaries without explaining his concerns. [13][14] [15][16] 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" [17] 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."[18] 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" [19] and refusing to explain why. Instead he continue with stream of insults about other people level of understanding: [20], [21], [22] and focusing on edit partice of others instead of meangifull discussion about the actual subject [23].

Tarc continue not to repsond to simple questions that ask him to explain why his "methods" are better: [24] . When he does provide explnation it is by describing his POV as "fact" and the opposing view as "opinion" [25] (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 [26],[27].

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)

Article to watch

This edit attracted some attention on a fairly widely read liberal blog (which now has a link to the specific version from the history). It might be good for a few folks to watch the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article since there appeared to be repeated attempts to put back the claim in question. JoshuaZ 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to delete the goat.  :) This one really does bear watching. -Jmh123 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Either the block didn't take, or someone had a spare old registration lying around. The vandalism continues as fast as it can be deleted. -Jmh123 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

sprotect took, but it appears to be an aged account. I blocked it. Let's see if that works - if not, I will (reluctantly) consider fully protecting for a day or so. - Philippe | Talk 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's semi-protected now, any further activity will probably help identify sleeper vandal accounts (sort of a goathoneypot). I'd suggest we leave it as it is, but continued watching seems prudent. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to do some deleting from the Talk page, but I think it was inadvertent--an editor being funny--but he kept undoing deletions of his comment. Best to keep at eye on this as well. -Jmh123 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. If there are aged accounts out there willing to get perm-blocked over this I think it's probably a reasonable idea to let them do whatever they'd like, fix the damage, and permablock the goat-blthem. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's spilled over into Stephen Kaus now as well. Yet another page to watch. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is coming from the comments link of the relevant article at http://tbogg.blogspot.com/ . It's probably worth watching this as a source of future havoc. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone with oversight powers who can clean up the history on this page and the talk page, including the edit comments on both pages which include the same deleted references? There are references in the deleted comments and text to an iffy site that hijacks computers as well. -Jmh123 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has goat to be stopped. Oops. Sorry. I'll get my gcoat :) B1atv 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no one has oversighted the talk page history yet, or the history on Stephen Kaus. That really gets my goat panties in a wad. -Jmh123 20:47, 16 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 [28] or b) user talk page owners are responsible for reverting them, but should not restore them [29]. 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)

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.[30] 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)

User:Dojarca disrupting Template after unsuccessful TfD

User:Dojarca nominated Template:Soviet occupation for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_4#Template:Soviet_occupation, however the result of the debate was Keep/no concensus. Four hours after the closure of the debate, User:Dojarca has moved the template twice [31], [32] without any concensus. Clearly this is a controversial move and a concensus should be reached first. Could a admin assist in moving the template back to its original title and clean up the redirects, and protect it from further moves until an adequate discussion for any potential moves is conducted. Martintg 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Dojarca shouldn't edit anything to do with Soviet occupation as it's clear, from the TFD and DoSo AFD that he's got an axe to grind. WP:NOT a battleground. Will ^(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Move Template:Soviet zones of occupation back to Template:Soviet occupation. -- Sander Säde 08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine's behaviour

Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being disruptive and WP:POINTy again. I initiated some uncontroversial moves ([33], [34]), as well as trying to clean up the mess of redirects. Porcpine keeps reverting them, with the only argument being that "I have no consensus". No one else seems to object, but he presents no substantial objections to the move however, making his argument purely WP:POINT. I can't block myself; I'm involved. — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The moves seem well within the guidelines (removing unnecessary parenthesis is good), but have you tried asking Porcupine why he reverted them? I think he has a reason for saying the moves are "disputed". Melsaran (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally asume a disputer should bring his arguments forward without being asked, but yes, I did ask. He simpply keeps repeating the line that I have no consensus, which in itself is a non-argument. I also repeatedly told him these moves are simply following WP:MOS and WP:NAME, but he simply ignores my arguments and keeps blanket reverting. — Edokter • Talk • 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial moves should go through WP:RM. It sounds like you should go that route to prevent a move war. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Look again, this is not in any way a controversial move... This is just someone contesting my move for the heck of it, without presenting any valid arguments. — Edokter • Talk • 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure these moves are so clear-cut? Am I missing something? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I disputed the moves. I began a talkpage discussion. Edokter said that if nobody else disagreed with him then he'd do it anyway. As far as I can see, that means: one for, one against, for "wins". What a load of rubbish. Edocky makes it sound like I'm going against consensus; but if something is disputed - and I have presented valid arguments, he lied - then he ought to wait for input rather than assuming he's right.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Edocky" here... Look, I'll repeat what I've always said: Come with an argument explaining why the page should not be moved. That means other then "You have no consensus". Moving to the propertitle is uncontroverisal, unless someone comes with a substantiated argument against it. And I haven't seen any. Your action serve just one purpose: You trying to make a point! And I know your history all to wel, Rambutan. — Edokter • Talk • 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given a reason, twice. Read the article talkpage discussion again.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted Porcupine has called Edokter stupid and has asked to be civil. This also seems to have something to do with the soundtrack thread on Edokter's talk page. Rlevse 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that his reasoning was stupid (see the article talkpage) and it was you who asked me to be civil.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:KETTLE issue. Both editors need to be more civil here, and this is a really petty issue. I'm sure it can be resolved when both parties cooperate in a meaningful fashion. Melsaran (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given Porcupine a final civility warning on his talk page. Rlevse 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it as I never made a personal attack. Also WP:TEMPLAR.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being disruptive and WP:POINTy again." Was no one else amused by this? — madman bum and angel 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was particularly amused.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how was that so amusing? Melsaran (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pun based on his username: porcupines are known for their sharp quills, i.e., points. Newyorkbrad 10:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have now commented on the naming issue. Hopefully any concerns about consensus, and residual disruption, will soon dissipate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad username block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'd like to point out User:TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice, who has requested unblocking. Basically, this usename is not the best idea maybe but it isn't a blatant violation of policy. The user has been getting off on the right foot here by patrolling against vandalism, although they've been a bit over the top about it. The user was listed on WP:RFCN (currently up for deletion for the 3rd time because of its ongoing problems with biting the newbies), and was blocked after some specious reasoning within 2 hours. The user never had the chance to discuss their username with anyone, and is complaining about it, and Swatjester even went so far as to protect the user talk page. This violates NO part of the username policy. The user's actions so far may be violating WP:DENY sometimes but you can't expect new users to know evrything. I'd like to see them simply unblocked. I would do it myself, but I think this case merits a little discussion first. Mangojuice^talk 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, their over-the-top vandal fighting is an issue. But that makes this even worse: if the user's behavior is the problem, an indefinite block would not have been appropriate. Mangojuice^talk 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCS and WP:IAR. The intent of the policy is to avoid names like this, no matter the cute little tricks used to skirt direct violation of the letter of the law. Follow the spirit. Leave blocked. Tell him to get a better name. -M^ask? 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait. What about WP:BITE? The user doesn't understand why this has been done and has had no chance to discuss it with anyone. Mangojuice^talk 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see his username as being a problem, it is bitey to new comers and completely does against WP:DENY, not to mention that even with the words unofficial in his username, it still implies an official role on wikipedia - he is welcome to create a new username if he wishes, then we can look into his conduct if people feel it is inappropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So much so that we block him without allowing a discussion? Because that's what happened. And while we're at it: how is the name bitey? I see how this user's vandalism reverts are like that, but the name alone? And I think the user intentionally made the name say "unofficial" so that people wouldn't take him as official, and it is, I have to say, pretty hard to miss. Mangojuice^talk 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa. There was discussion and it looks to me that the RFCN was about 2:1 to block the name. The name violates policy and is disruptive, clearly shown by you bringing this up here after the RFCN. Rlevse 15:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong - I'm not an admin, so it's a distinct possibility. Surely by going ahead and unprotecting the page, without any form of concencus here or there as to whether it should be unprotected, you've just completely undermined the admin system. I have my personal view as to whether the block should have ultimately stayed or not, but surely it should most definitely have stayed until a concencuss was reached between everyone, but most specifically the blocking admin and you. _TheIslander 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was blocked by another admin. At that point an appeal should be made to the blocking admin, which was never done and/or the blocked user can appeal on his talk page, which was done and denied by yet more admin(s). You can read this here.Rlevse 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I've read it, but that's my point entirely. Surely if one admin blocked, followed by others denying unblock requests, no admin should just unblock without discussion, in which a concencus is reached. _TheIslander 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point, but it seems to me there is consensus, the RFCN was about 2:1 ratio to disallow and three consective admins have said to block.Rlevse 16:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(untab) Right. As you state, there was a concencus to block. Now, one admin has gone against that concencus, and unblocked. Is that right? My opinion, and the point I'm trying to make, is no, it's not right. Thus I'd like to ask said admin why they did it. _TheIslander 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true, see block log. The only admin with blocks on this user made an initial mistake in setting auto block, then fixed, the indef is still in place. Rlevse 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah, ignore me completely. It's usually the best option. I misread what had happened - I thought this user had now been unblocked, when in fact all that happened was their user page was unprotected. Sorry for causing problems. _TheIslander 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The user knows exactly what's going on. If he wasn't blocked for his username, he would have been blocked for disruption. — madman bum and angel 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What about a scenario where this new and overzealous vandal fighter changes his username to something else acceptable by the policy, where he would stop the CAPS show and where he'd not carry a gun while chasing vandals? I believe the user could easily accept those terms in order for him to get unblocked. If he was not an ambitious vandal fighter i'd have really not cared a lot about this situation. Protecting his user talk page has no single effect except keeping this potential good vandal fighter outside the project w/ no chance to respond to our requests. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Wikipedia is not a game, certainly not a cops and robbers roleplaying game. Portraying us like a bunch of cops, with top brass and desk jobs, and badges and guns is NOT what we need to be doing, nor is it what we need to be supporting. This person obviously has NO idea, ZERO, none whatsoever, of what is appropriate to do when vandal fighting. And in response to AMPLE opportunities to explain to him why he was blocked, he continues his little game of "corrupt top brass taking away his badge". Is that a sign, if there ever was one, that the username violation block was correct? He then proceeds to abuse the unblock template THREE times to perpetuate his little game. Come on people, this isn't myspace, this isn't world of warcraft, this isn't fantasy roleplaying land. This was clearly an acceptable block against an obvious problem user that clearly stated that he has no intentions of doing anything to improve the encyclopedia other than chase vandals around and to pretend to be some sort of police officer in a fantasy world. FayssalF, we don't WANT a vandal fighter like this. I can't believe this is actually a topic for discussion, and people somehow think that what this kid is doing is in any way acceptable. Are we stooping that low to coddling users who are obviously treating Wikipedia as some sort of game? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The behavior was disruptive. The name was fine. If we're that concerned about the image of vandal patrollers as cops running around with badges, we might also want to change the image on the userboxes for WP:RCP and WP:NPP. I still don't understand at all the argument that people will think a name with UNOFFICIAL in it would actually imply an official role. --Onorem♠Dil 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm usually of the opinion that our username policy is a little too strict, I don't think the name was fine. Even with the "unofficial" bit, it still furthers the assumption that the majority of new users seem to have that there's some sort of "them" out there that's in charge of everything that happens here. I can see it actually encouraging the vandals, too... it gives them a specific target to try and annoy. Adding the extremely bitey behavior only makes it that much worse. I'm not completely opposed to giving the guy another chance under another name, but it would have to be on a very short leash, given his refusal to understand the importance of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE in previous conversations about his behavior. Pinball22 17:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm reinstating the protection that was incorrectly removed by Mangojuice. The protection has nothing to do with his username violation, it's related to his abuse of the unblock template, which is a clearly identifiable problem. If the user further wishes to protest his block, he can email Unblock-L or contact an arbitrator; however he's lost his privilege of editing his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

<-- I am only posting here to defend my actions against the comments of SwatJester. Feel free to block this account if you feel necessary.

My original request for unblocking was due to the discussion over my username which took place while I was offline and closed in under two hours, resulting in my blocking without giving me any ability to respond. I believed this to be unfair, both as some users misrepresented my character (saying I had no intention to converse over my username where I clearly was) and because a large number of the people voting against me put forward points which were debatable at best, and I believe that had I been given the opportunity to respond a different outcome may have resulted.

Along with my unblock request I posted a rationale which I wanted the unblocking admin to consider for the purpose of reinitiating discussion, not necessarily to make an outright decision. The original rejection by Mercury really repeated the arguments raised in the initial discussion, and I believed (s)he failed to consider that I wished to restart the discussion. I attempted to contact this user directly, but couldn’t edit their page as I was blocked.

As I waited for the unblock request to be processed I visited a couple of other pages in the Requests for Unblock category. There I noticed that several users had posted multiple unblock requests without considering the background to these actions (trolling, misunderstanding etc). This, combined with my desire to have the matter dealt with as soon as possible and the oversight of the changed template (I only skim read the text not realising that it had undergone such a major change (compare this to the message that comes up afterwards) resulted in me posting a second unblock request on my page.

This request was dealt with in a much less appropriate manner than the first. Rather than consider anything I wrote John Reaves left a very short and somewhat incomprehensible message [35], which I took to mean he thought I was being disruptive in appealing against the decision, not in posting a second unblock template, as he clearly mentioned the former but made no hint of the latter. He made no attempt to clarify that only one block template was allowed, and, as I read off the diff (clicked “last change”) and didn’t see the changed message on the unblock template I immediately posted another under the belief that I had been rejected by an admin who failed to consider my request to reinitiate the discussion rather than one who declined because of a mistake in procedure.

The third unblock template was not even reviewed, with SwatJester reverting my edits stating “your unblock has been declined already. Do not continue to abuse the unblock template”, [36]. Being unaware of the hole I was digging and thinking that the issue was that one could not appeal an appeal (which SJ appeared to imply in the first half of his summary) I reverted his edits on the premise that my first appeal had not been handled correctly (as I said above I believe Mercury thought I was requesting an outright unblock rather than a reinitiation of the discussion) and as hence was not appealing an appeal but posting the equivalent of a new one appealing against the original ban (as you see in the text I tried to demonstrate that the first two were flawed). For my efforts SwatJester saw fit to protect my page, disallowing me any further communication, if he had once considered that I did not have full understanding of the system and posted a message that I could only have one unblock template on my page none of this would have come about.

Quick summary:

• I was blocked due to a discussion that took place without giving me any attempt to have my say. I requested an unblock to reinitiate this discussion
• Mercury refused my unblock, but I believed it was because he thought I was requesting an outright unblock rather than a reinitiation of the discussion
• I posted a second template (having skim read the first and not noticed the change in text) which was promptly declined, John Reaves giving no indication it was because multiple templates were disallowed but instead hinting he believed the initial discussion fair and didn’t want to let me respond to it
• I read the above off the diff and had no chance of seeing the new text, I posted another template
• SwatJester reverted my edits, claiming that my unblock had been declined already. I believed this to mean that I couldn’t appeal an unblock, however I believed I was not appealing the decision of the unblock but instead appealing the original decision on the premise that the unblock was void (see second dot point)
• At no point was I made aware by any admin that posting multiple unblock templates was disallowed, if they had made this clear this would not have happened. SwatJester in particular should have seen that at that time I was not comprehending policy correctly (why else would I have reverted?)

I acknowledge that at the end of the day I should have been aware of the rule prohibiting multiple unblock templates, but I did not read the main policy page and the one time I actually did read the template (rather than going off the diff) I skim read over it, thinking the text up the top would have stayed roughly the same. I feel that if the admins had been more understanding rather than jumping to a conclusion none of this would have happened.

I thank those who have helped me in this process, particularly Mangojuice who has argued in favour of me at least being able to answer the charges brought against me and has made a decent attempt to explain why my username is against policy, and FayssalF, who has attempted to provide possible solutions. Sadly, there are other admins who believe it right to jump to conclusions, assume everyone has the same high level of knowledge of policy that they do and try to close discussion without any input from other users, and it is these people who will continue to drive people away from one of the greatest projects ever conceived. TUvp 10:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since you are blocked only because of the username and not for any conduct problems, you are free and even encouraged to register another account and post anywhere you wish (though you might want to start with a completely fresh name). Your comments above reveal that you can be a thoughtful editor and can do a good job of analyzing policy issues. Please read through the concerns that have been expressed about the way in which you have approached your vandalism-fighting efforts, moderate your tone a bit, take any feedback you receive into account, and you should be fine. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 11:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Please never use uncivil edit summaries or CAPS. No arguing w/ admins please. I'll block TUvp indef as i believe it still carries the "vandal police" (vp) reference. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The original username block was questionable at best, and now you're going to block initials which will mean absolutely nothing to anyone not involved in this discussion. I think that's a horrible decision. --Onorem♠Dil 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned block evasion though i don't care about that because of the specificity of this case. We are trying to fix the problem and give this vandal fighter an opportunity to help this project in a clean manner. I tried to deal w/ this issue since its origin but everytime people think that "i can't be serious." The bottom line is that this user is offering to help us and blocking his TUvp is not a punitive action since we are gladly accepting his help. NYB also referred to name changing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What block is being evaded? It was a username block. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with a user creating a new account after a username block. In fact, I think that's what we suggest they do... --Onorem♠Dil 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

indeed. The thing is that we don't want to get back to this issue again. There is no consensus among admins that the username is problematic or not. I personally do not see any harm in his username but for the sake of avoiding problems in the future i highly suggest he does change it. We want to move on and it is clear that some admins who argued against his username would still see vp as "vandal police" and not "violet pineapple". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My true purpose in posting here was to correct the wrongful assumptions made by SwatJester, claiming I was "abusing" the unblock template as some sort of game and then locking my user page to stop me from responding. As for my username, I have made my position on the rapid discussion/blocking quite clear, and "vp" carries no weight in the minds of any user foreign to this discussion (this was the main argument on the username debate), it could stand for "violet pineapple" as far as anyone is concerned (edit conflict, Onorem just stated this) TUvp 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TUvp. Do you want to participate here w/o any potential future problems? I believe you agree to that so what's the problem w/ ending this username story for once and start fresh. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking this new username would be ridiculous since it does not "interfere with harmonious editing" and is definitely not disruptive. The user chose a new name (as the {{UsernameBlocked}} template recommends), let bygones be bygones and let him edit in peace, I'd say. Melsaran (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You got to convience SWATJester and others and not me since i have had no problems w/ the username since the first day. My aim was to find a consensus and sort this out for once. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TUVP, while you are busy blaming everyone for not giving you any warning about the unblock process, the Unblock declined template specifically says in bold letters: Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.. You had TWO chances to see it before continuing to violate it. That means you ignored the template warning THREE TIMES (once when you posted the second unblock request, once on the third, once when you reverted). The unblock template itself states very clearly at Template:Unblock that abuse of this template will result in your talk page being protected. You had every opportunity to know.

Not only that, but you've shown here that you can communicate clearly without playing some sort of game. So why were you continuing to do so, and wasting everybody else's time with talk about badges, and guns, and police officers? I'm personally not against you having the second account; that was the terms of your original block anyway, was to allow you to make a new username. But be aware that if you act on your second account the way you did on your first, you'll be blocked extremely quickly.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Michele.mostarda

This Italian guy is continuously adding non-neutral personal views about Walter Veltroni; I removed his edits twice and left him a message in his talkpage, but he reverted me twice, defining me a fascist censor (in Italian) in his latter edit summary. I am an admin and I might theorically even block the user, however I'd rather first to share some thoughts with you about the issue. --Angelo 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I need someone to make a revert on Walter Veltroni, as I've already made it three times and I don't really want to break WP:3RR. In order to understand this user's behaviour, read on his talkpage why he's doing so. --Angelo 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You should list this at WP:BLPN. Corvus cornix 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by Fram

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

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

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

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

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

Block review requested, if you please!

Today I blocked Sm565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. I do not believe this to be an user capable of making constructive edits. He's a disruptive SPA whose edits all concern the Homeopathy article: he goes in for POV-pushing, persistent edit-warring, filibustering on the talk page, and pointless reverting. See also his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565. Feedback requested. Cheerio! Moreschi ^Talk 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heartily endorse. Neil ☎ 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope to see SPA becoming a tough policy someday. Waiting for that, i support this action. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the block. I do believe however that it won't last. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? We've all had enough of disruptive SPAs, both of the nationalist and pseudoscience types. No point tolerating them, and I think we're starting to realise this. Moreschi ^Talk 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? The problem is that you cannot apply a topic ban on the account. The user cannot edit any other article except Homeopathy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Admin will come and say that it wasn't fair. That there was no community consensus. That other remedies had not been tried. That person will unblock the editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tush, so cynical. Letting obvious SPAs run around wild causing chaos is not what admins are for, I should hope. Moreschi ^Talk 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle but we have too many admins who say that because someone made an occasional constructive edit we should overlook the 99% of their behavior that is destructive. Or even if they haven't made constructive edits, we should given them lots of chances because, who knows, maybe they'll have brain replacement surgery and it would be unfair to ban them in the meantime. Raymond Arritt 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Good block. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 16 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: [37]. 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)

BLP concerns on Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatively:

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

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

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

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

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

Actually Lawrence, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio or no copyvio

Could someone have a look at ICD-10? I deleted it as a copyvio of [38] per listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 September 29/Articles. Without bothering to contact me it was restored by an admin who insists it should go to WP:AFD. (Since when do we decide copyvio's there?). It is a possibility it is not a copyvio, although per other editor's comments at WP:CP, a permission message in conflict with free content on Talk:ICD-10 and Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service I think it is. See also discussion at User talk:Arcadian#ICD-10_2. Garion96 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not a copyvio, and frankly a daft concept (but I appreciate why other editors quite rightly have sought to have this checked as per good practice of ensuring that copyright breaches are rooted out of wikipedia). Yes the WHO maintains right to have itself recognised as producer of the work, but this is for the use of the whole world. Wikipedia, reflecting as it does the majority consensus, thus must make use of these the "international standard diagnostic classification"[39]. Likewise the WHO encourages that the IC10 codes be "used to classify diseases and other health problems recorded on many types of health and vital records including death certificates and hospital records"[40] - yet is anyone suggesting that hospitals or doctors seek copyright permission to use the codes in a patient's record (trust me they don't). As for that copyright notice http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/ - it does state "Reproduction or translation of substantial portions of the web site, or any use other than for educational or other non-commercial purposes, require explicit, prior authorization in writing" - and given wikipedia is both for education and non-commercial, we therefore do not "require explicit, prior authorization in writing". That seems good enough for me and the requirement of "use of information in the web site should be accompanied by an acknowledgment of WHO as the source, citing the uniform resource locator (URL) of the article" is definitely met.
  In addition the codes are used throughout disease articles (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Disease), thus ensuring that readers throughout the world are able to confirm that the same medical consitions are being described, even if lay-terms might vary region to region. David Ruben ^Talk 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Threat by an anon

User:121.7.221.161 (contribs) posted a threat on my talkpage [41] and wrote a rather impolite edit summary [42]. The anon also wikistalked me and reverted my contributions. Keb25 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the one article and blocked the IP for 24 hours for the full-scale edit war. It appears there was edit warring going on both sides though... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The user now edits with the same pattern under anon ip User:121.7.221.4 (contribs) Keb25 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keb25 is CLEARLY an unconstructive editor, reverting edits with no good reason, accusing people of vandalism for no good reason, changing constructive edits without reason. I am merely undoing the damage he is doing.121.7.221.4 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the user now edits under ip address 121.7.221.159 (contribs) Keb25 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not block me. I am dedicating my editing career to undoing all the damage that Keb25 has done. Keb25 NEVER contributes anything to any article. What I mean is creative contribution. All he does is revert, delete, Prod, Afd - pls look at his history. He is one of the most unconstructive editors on Wikipedia. 121.7.221.159 19:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop stalking him. Cleaning up the encyclopedia is an important job. --Haemo 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the history, it is clear the IP is insisting on adding unreferenced material to a BLP article, and Keb and at least one other have been removing it as vandalism. I endorse the lockdown, but wonder if it could have been done as a s-protect, as there is no evidence here of registered users doing anything untoward. I also suggest that the IP provide documentation on the article's talk page substantiating the info he/she keeps trying to add. An edit summary of "it's common knowledge" is not sufficient. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As per below on Keb25, although I dont encourage wikistalking, Keb25 is indeed a disruptive editor who posts warnings and reverts in an unwarranted fashion. Can I suggest he be stopped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricialam (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn and disruptive editing

Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been trying to change reference to Nobel Prize in Economics in the lead of Milton Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for quite some time. On talk page this was discussed and rejected in June [43]. He has been reverted on this issue by 8 different editors ( Beit Or, Jayjg, CloudNine, Edward321, SecretaryNotSure, Lost.goblin, Camptown and me) numerous times. For changing Nobel Prize in Economics to something else in template {{Nobel Prize in Economics Laureates 2001-2025}} he was also recently blocked for breaking 3RR [44]. In his edit summaries he accuses editors who revert him for vandalism, hoaxing, lying and POV pushing. I think that he is trying to wear down his opposition, and game the system in general. -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops, written too quickly -- some editors don't want to comprise... [45] –panda 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

There's a huge backlog over there, mostly on the "next 200". (I don't understand why the page is subdividing the way it is--17 on the "first 200" and 127 on the "next 200"? I add that to less than 200. Why aren't they all on the front page? Is this issue affecting only my browser? I digress.) I've been working on it steadily for over an hour and am out of time. Please, any unoccupied admins, can you take a look? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I bet it's because there's so many images. Or I'm guessing that anyway. :) Either way, the articles are seriously piling up! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are so many images is that a large number of them are military rank insignias from one particular source. I'm not as yet sure that they are valid speedy deletion candidates; if they were I'd be happy to delete them. Can anyone confirm? Sam Blacketer 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like most/all of them simply have no copyright tag; they're all using a deprecated tag. If they're going to be claimed, then they would probably need fair use tags, but even then they will probably be replaceable. --Haemo 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete them. There was a short discussion last week at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2007-10-04. Per my comments there, I'm inclined to delete them as flagrant copyright violations unless anyone knows for a fact that they are not copyrightable as faithful reproductions of a 2-d object. These look like MS Paint drawings based on actual patches or pins and those drawings are copyrightable, even if the patches or pins they are based on are not. --B 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User Keb25 giving unwarranted warnings to other editors

See: User_talk:Bam_toy [46]. All Bam_toy did was add EMO to a band and while EMO does not yet have an article page, it is a genre of music with growing popularity. Adding EMO is not vandalism and user Bam_toy shouldn't have been warned. There are a good dozen or more "warnings" just like this one, all unwarranted. User:Keb25 is being rather abusive and not assuming good faith.IrishLass0128 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Reale

Resolved

Will somebody take a look at this user's contributions to Nick Mackenzie and Phoebe Bone? User:Reale moved these articles from his/her userpage, and his/her userpage and talk page are currently redirecting to Phoebe Bone and Talk:Phoebe Bone. A couple of days ago, another user moved Nick Mackenzie back to the Reale's userpage. Reale undid the move with the reason "Easily searcheable". Then he/she edited some nonsense on his/her userpage and then moved it to Phoebe Bone. Besides, by checking his/her contributions, he/she uploaded Image:Nick Mackenzie mid 2007.jpg which is not currently used in any page. There is one user that left a message on Reale's talk page what is currently Talk:Nick Mackenzie. This user's last edit is October 14. 198.189.198.2 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles deleted (obvious CSD:A7, nonsensical rubbish to boot) and redirects fixed. User (whose only other contribs are vandalism) warned. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cbrown2411

Resolved

 – Vandal blocked

Vandalised Jewish history with anti-semitic remarks. Radical-Dreamer 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And Clue Bot reverted them and warned the editor. Anything else?--Sethacus 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be banned. It's obviously a dummy account used for vandalism since he has no real contributes. Radical-Dreamer 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameHardBlocked}} - vandalism and a username too similar to User:Cbrown1023. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are 26 other "Cbrown####" accounts - [47]. May not be a problem, but... Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm very popular. :-P It's a pretty common name; but they might still be impostors. Thanks for the quick block. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP problem

Vanessa Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly Ank329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see [48] and refer to OTRS ticket 2007091410001587 if you have OTRS access. I removed the day and month of birth, as I don't think they are really appropriate in the case of young female subjects due to harassment concerns. I have left a message for Ank329. Cruftbane 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Stopme

Stopme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly vandalized Jaslene Gonzalez. I warned him about it, and since then he has reverted some of my edits (accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary), has changed the words in the comments I wrote on his talk page to suggest that I admitted to vandalism, and has given me vandalism warnings on my user talk page as well. Eatcacti 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking now ... user looks rather disruptive on first glance ... trying to sort through all of the diffs. --B 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for now ... there's a lot of mess in here that I think needs to be cleaned up. --B 23:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Eatcacti 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So you...stopped him, then? Betcha he never saw that coming...HalfShadow 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat you to it [49] ;) --B 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He could at least get a barnstar which he awarded to himself 2 days ago before leaving. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [50] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [51] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [52] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [53] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [54] [55] [56] [57] Removes tags [58] and has ignored requests to discuss [59] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well I followed Iridescents advice and placed in a caption and an improved rationale behind it. Iridescent than fixed the sizing. BigGabrial simply deleted it once again. He doesn't even reply to why he is removing the photo. He has done this with multiple other edits. [60] UnclePaco 04:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again after repeated warnings as well as asking him why he's removing the photo. I have followed all advice given to me. [61] UnclePaco 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) UPDATE Alright I've reinserted the past issues that occured with BigGabrial555. [62] Apparently he's up to his old tricks again. He's deleted multiple cited insertions [63] and [64] on numerous pages [65]. I've given him many warnings. Please assist. UnclePaco 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Another reversion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=165092457&oldid=165065749 UnclePaco 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I did the first one a while ago; the second one I added today. You haven't taken a look at [66] and [67] at all. That is removing sourced material! UnclePaco 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

199.82.243.71

Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has decided to block 199.82.243.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "Edits to Great Global Warming Swindle". Now there have been 2 edits from this IP to the page, [68] and [69] - I wouldn't personally class these as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. The IP was not warned about any of their edits, and after the block, they receieved no notification. Raul's justification for the block was the the first revert served an adequate warning[70]. To me, this smacks of blocking an IP because they don't agree with their edits. I'd like to get a consensus together to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endorse unblock, the IP hadn't been warned at all and this isn't really vandalism (although the edits were questionable). Blocking immediately for a week was excessive. To Fvasconcellos: I don't think he has blocked because the IP had vandalised before (his last edit was a month ago), since Raul has recently blocked multiple IP editors for a week when they edited his favourite articles in a manner he disagreed with without warning [71][72]. Melsaran (talk) 09:56, 17 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[73]. 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 [74] 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)

User:Suicide note123454321

Resolved

 – blocked -- John Reaves 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Suicide note123454321 (talk · contribs) and deleted User:Suicide note123454321. I don't take such things seriously but I know some do. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I created that account. I was just depressed because my girlfriend dumped me. Changed my mind entirely. Don't take me seriously. Mr. Aero 00:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm depressed these days. School's really rough for me. Mr. Aero 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's unfortunate. Glad you're not suicidal. Now go do some encyclopedia writing please. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. What do I do? Mr. Aero 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on your talk page. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And welcome to Wikipedia!! –Crazytales talk/desk 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked user/IP: wknight94 (talk · contribs)
• Contacted police:
• Contacted Wikimedia office: Mercury 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted edits:

This is the new template I came across on VPP. I've signed what I've done. We really need to be dealing with this in a centralized format. Perhaps a checkuser could verify that Mr Aero is same as Suicide note, or provide someone with ip information so authorities may be contacted. Mercury 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to contact the police. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take his retraction of the note just as seriously as we seem to take the actual note. -- John Reaves 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to determine whether or not the editor means to retract or not. A threat is a medical emergency until the doctor says otherwise. Just a thought. Mercury 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Soxrock (talk · contribs) got out of a crazy-sock indefblock by claiming his brother was out to get him. Since the Suicide account's only remaining contrib is vandalizing Soxrock's user page, I figure it's his brother again. The second account knew to come here and knew how to sign. It also knew how to get around the autoblock on the first account. I don't think we're dealing with a newb crying out for help. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, however... I don't have the permissions to get the IP information to verify this... or to know which authorities to contact. A CU's assistance is requested here. Mercury 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you qualified to determine if he means to commit suicide? -- John Reaves 01:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am qualified to recognize this as a medical emergency, as is anyone else qualified to recognize an arterial bleed is an emergency. I am not qualified to rule it out however. Mercury 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am w/ dealing w/ this one as long as we still lack a policy or at least a guideline dealing w/ these matters BUT i am really against turning Wikipedia into an incidents reporting organism instead of remaining an encyclopedia. Imagine dealing w/ such cases at least once a day or a bunch of kids playing around here every single day! Look at it. Mr. Aero (talk · contribs)'s first edit is the suicide note and he even created an account for announcing it. I would welcome them to Wikipedia but using wikipedia as a media tool is unacceptable. Saving lives is one thing but turning wikipedia into a call center would damage the project. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright seriously, stop it. There's nothing for us to do here until the checkuser verifies or denies who wrote the note. Until then, us speculating on who is qualified to say what doesn't really help anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is no emergency here. Please, it was a joke, OK? Just let me be, alright? I was in a really awful mood. I'm an IP editor.

Alright, before you even run the Checkuser, I'm Connell66. I was just depressed after I got really grouchy after waking up from a nightmare, and I had a bad day. Just block this account, please. Mr. Aero 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock or not. You are out because we don't do jokes over here, especially the odd ones. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These suicide notes and terrorist threats are really starting to be very annoying and disrupting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Insults on userpage

HyperSonicBoom (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:HyperSonicBoom continues to add insults and attacks to his userpage despite numerous warnings. This user started a request for adminship a few days ago, and after failing it, preceded to attack the editors who oppose his RFA on his userpage, calling them "idiots". The user has continually added the attacks back with his username and with this IP address despite warnings. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the insults, protected the userpage. Thoughts from people on adding {{Retired}} and protecting? Would stop further trolling while leaving the gist of the recent additions - ie that they have left. Viridae^Talk 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Just totally clearing the userpage. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:03, 17 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)

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)

Possible spam or sockpuppet account creations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring by Good friend100 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Why no admin action on sockpuppet suspects of banned user?

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

Undoing links

Resolved

Orangenyrealty (talk · contribs) has added 40-odd links to New York state pages to their property-related forum. Even with Twinkle, it's going to take a while to remove them. [75] Any way someone with super-buttons can revert? I'm leaving a message for them now. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Another impostor of me

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

GridiotinSanFranciski (talk · contribs)

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Abusive language in edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I ask an outside admin to review the behavior of Mista-X (talk · contribs)? He's been engaged in a slow revert war on Ramon Mercader (and, earlier, on Joseph Stalin). He's made the same highly questionable revert 11 times in the past week or so ([76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]) - see the article history. He's been reverted by 3 or 4 editors, including myself. I initially tried to open up conversation on Talk:Joseph Stalin and Talk:Ramón Mercader, which he's ignored. I finally asked him directly on his talk page to discuss the issue, but he ignored that and continued reverting (now marking his reverts as minor edits to boot). He has been blocked 3 previous times for 3RR violations.

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

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

Copyright violation

Text writen in article Pagania is clear copyright violation. I have tried to delete text in question but there are users which are returning text again and again. For evidence of statement I will use [87] version of article. After reading that text which is taken with copy/paste from wiki source book De Administrando Imperio I have clicked wiki source. Imagine my surpise after looking that book has been in wiki source deleted because there is the gross violation of the copyright law. Because of that reason everything in article which is from this book must be deleted. Last editor of article has today only hidden fact that text is copyright violation because he has deleted link for wiki source and change it with link for article De Administrando Imperio. -- Rjecina 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

User:Madchester

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

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

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

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

Unless, I am mistaken, Madchester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin, which makes it mildly shocking that he would be so unfamiliar with the WP:USER guideline, especially since he also gave [90] the user in question a {{uw-tpv1}} warning. I know that the "while frowned upon, policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" is a relatively new addition to WP:USER, but that was how many months ago? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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 [91] (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: [92] (final paragraph), [93] (last paragraph), [94] (self-promotion in external links), to name a few. Additionally, a link to a text called 'Fundamentals of Compressible Flow' ([95]) 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([96], [97]). He could also be editing as another user with an IP address of 82.19.74.161 ([98]) or perhaps as 68.107.62.119 ([99]) or 128.173.190.56 ([100]). 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

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)

Re: Nathan.tang (talk · contribs)

There is this user, Nathan.tang (talk · contribs), who uses a similar username to my old username User:Nat.tang and I am not sure how to move forward with this: Should I report him to WP:UAA or should I leave it alone? I am unsure because this could be his name. The problem with this is that this user has done several shady things (history of his talk page) and already someone already has suspected that he might be me ([101]). I fear that using this name might harm my good, at least I think it's good, reputation. I need another sysop could like to deal with this situation, as I cannot due to the fact I will be most likely in a conflict of interest if I push any buttons to deal with this user. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Turkey, Turkish-American relations et al.

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

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

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

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

User:Angelocasio accuses another editor of committing criminal acts

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

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

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

WP:SSP massive backup...

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

Speedy deletes on all Satanic articles by User:Craigtalbert

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

Repeated insertion of links to copyright violation on YouTube

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 [102], [103], [104]). 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 ([105]). 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 [106], 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)

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)

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)

Graeme Frost

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

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

Dumb question

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

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

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

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

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

User:Wrongpageamundson

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

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

Endorse indef block. User has a grand total of 3 mainspace edits, 2 of which are vandalism: [107] [108]. android79 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR Violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:RBLakes

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