Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ev (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 19 October 2007 (→Edit-war at Shatt al-Arab: (r -> rr) curently -> currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab. Some extra eyes on that article would be most appreciated.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

Moved to /PR. Mercury

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Incivilry by User:Tarc

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

Four times now, on two articles Tarc has engaged in editing disputes, and has refered to my edits as "vandalism" in his editing summaries without explaining his concerns. 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" 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." 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 Misplaced Pages" 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" and refusing to explain why. Instead he continue with stream of insults about other people level of understanding: , , and focusing on edit partice of others instead of meangifull discussion about the actual subject .

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

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. Misplaced Pages works on cooperation not on constant rejections of other people work. Tarc should be mindfull how to combine his view, his work , his POV with the views and contributions by others. Zeq 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 or b) user talk page owners are responsible for reverting them, but should not restore them . 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 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. I don't think that Everyking takes seriously the concept that banned editors are not allowed to participate in Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages and anti-Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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-Misplaced Pages websites could salivate over the vicious stuff that Misplaced Pages 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? 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policies grows more ludicrous by the day. — Brian (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Two evils

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

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

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

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

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 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Contacting the school would be sufficient. The phone number can be found at their website. -- FayssalF - 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages employees need to make these sorts of calls anonymously per notifications. Wikidudeman 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 (talk) (review) 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not a problem confined to the USA, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 wikimediaorg 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 (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 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 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: . If an admin could delete this, that would be great. ~Eliz81 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 Misplaced Pages will not see it. ~Eliz81 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 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 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)

Policy issues

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

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

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

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

I posed this question, over on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy issues redux

I am restoring the original title of this section.

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

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

Copyvio or no copyvio

Could someone have a look at ICD-10? I deleted it as a copyvio of per listing at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review the interwiki links at ICD-10, and note how many Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. Misplaced Pages, reflecting as it does the majority consensus, thus must make use of these the "international standard diagnostic classification". 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" - 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 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages is used for commercial purposes. A lot of our mirrors run ads, and people try to make money off selling DVDs of Misplaced Pages, 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 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)

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 . 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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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_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... –panda 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

In last two days Lifran reverted 21 times. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Even if he is defending "the truth", that doesn't excuse massive revert war. -- Vision Thing -- 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User Keb25 giving unwarranted warnings to other editors

See: User_talk:Bam_toy . 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 - 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)

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 and refer to OTRS ticket 2007091410001587 if you have OTRS access. I removed the day and month of birth, as I don't think they are really appropriate in the case of young female subjects due to harassment concerns. I have left a message for Ank329. Cruftbane 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Turkey-history. And before you say that they might not be the same person 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 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll do it again in a few hours as i don't have access to my email account right now. -- FayssalF - 11:24, 18 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 - 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why no admin action on sockpuppet suspects of banned user?

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

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

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

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 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 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 • 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 (, , , , , , , , , , ) - 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 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 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)

MONGO blocked for disruptive personal attacks and incivility

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Alright folks, MONGO was unblocked...no need to pile on the rebuked blocker or get in a shouting match over Misplaced Pages cliques (real or perceived). — Scientizzle 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret that it had to come to this, but I have blocked MONGO (talk · contribs) for 72 hours to prevent his disruptive pattern of personal attacks and incivility in various discussion pages; behavior that he has exhibited for a long time, and most recently in discussions like the SevenOfDiamonds RfAR and the discussion at WT:NPA. I left him a polite note (with diffs of recent examples of incivility) earlier this morning, asking him to please cease his incivil behavior, however he simply blanked and started making more accusations. It disappoints me having to block a prolific contributor like MONGO, but the long-term disruption he has caused over many months has been harmful to the community, and he really needs to understand that no personal attacks applies to all editors, himself included. --krimpet⟲ 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this block is unnecessary, its duration excessive, and its timing poor. The alleged personal attacks arise primarily in the context of a contentious policy discussion, as well as in the context of an arbitration case to which MONGO is a party (I am always reluctant to see a good-faith contributor blocked for participation on arbitration pages). MONGO's writing style on talkpages is very different from mine, and I often find myself wishing he used different words, but that is not the stuff of blockable personal attacks. If an unblock request is posted, my input is to reverse. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I agree with every word NYB writes. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with NYBrad. Please unblock, Krimpet, this block is in violation of WP:NPA. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Krimpet, can you please supply some context for this block? The links on MONGO's user page don't show any crime greater than sarcasm - I certainly hope you didn't block someone for something as trivial as that (the fact that MONGO is a valuable contributor to the project is beside the point - I don't see anything that warrants blocking at all). Guettarda 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(massive edit conflict, of course, I see I type slowly) Oh dear. Any chance you might be overreacting just a bit? Most of the diffs you displayed are clearly not civil, but two of the six are questionable: this one is basically restating the claim that opened the case it's made in, surely he's allowed to do that without being blocked for it; and this one is just removing a comment from his talk page, he's also allowed to do that. His description of your warning as "vile" was not nice, of course. All that said, 72 hours is a lot, we generally escalate before we get that far. He does not have a history of sustained blocks, he does have a history of blocks, but they have generally been reverted, completely. I'd hate to add another one to that list... but ... reduce the time to the standard 24 hours, perhaps? --AnonEMouse 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, as I see NYB suggests, even a complete reversal would not be out of the question. --AnonEMouse 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there seems to be little reason for this block. I would suggest a complete reversal; blatant personal attacks are one thing, but I don't see anything that goes beyond testy in your examples. Shell 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with NYB too - MONGO's style is more blunt and coarse than I'd like, but I don't think it rises to the level of necessitating a block like this. --FolicAcid 19:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked, please see MONGO's block log for my rationale. No disrespect to Krimpet, but I do not think blocking will work here. Moreschi 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Guettarda 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto.--Mantanmoreland 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose block, endorse unblock, per NYB. I think that Krimpet may be grinding an axe over reacting here, having had his/her "final warning" to MONGO removed from MONGO's talk page. - Crockspot 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A very bad precedent to block this extremely productive editor for sarcasm???--Filll 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. dave souza, talk 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, hard to believe an admin would think this was a good idea. RxS 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's not my place but I did have this page on watchlist after an incident I was involved with soon after arriving. I endorse the unblock aswell but I also suggest that MONGO enters into more of a dialogue with those who come into conflict with him to avoid this situation in the future. --Danny 17 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input Danny but have you dealt w/ MONGO before? -- FayssalF - 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

- ::And thankyou for the thanks.. LOL. No I have never heard of him. I had a brief dealing with Prester John which brought me to this page and since then I've taken something of an interest in reading the cases brought here. Sorry if I overstepped the mark --Danny 17 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not an overstep, to the contrary, despite the word 'administrator' appearing in the title of this page, this board is for the wiki-community. R. Baley 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Any user of Misplaced Pages may post here." It was just a question. -- FayssalF - 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I have come across MONGO before, and I deprecate the block and support the unblock. --Anthony.bradbury 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock; this block served no useful purpose. Moreover, I think it tended to encourage those who would disrupt Misplaced Pages with WP:POINT and WP:TROLL edits, as opposed to MONGO, a stalwart contributor to articles, in my experience. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Did Krimpet just block a user he was in a dispute with? Semiprivatemusings 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Krimpet didn't block MONGO for incivility, but for failing to acknowledge her authority.Proabivouac 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• This seems like another case of the usual double standard that is in effect here... somebody with high status among the dominant clique, as MONGO is, has everybody bending over backwards to excuse his uncivil behavior and prevent him from bearing any consequences whatsoever for it, but if somebody of lower status so much as looks at an admin the wrong way, he's likely to be indef-banned and have an amen chorus of others supporting retaining the ban. *Dan T.* 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'm considered part of "the dominant clique", but I feel there is something to be said for four featured articles, yes. --AnonEMouse 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Dan T begs the question of whether the supposed offense ought to be dealt with by the treatment accorded MONGO, or the treatment which would be accorded a non-admin. Argyriou (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you both read krimpet's block summary before you start stirring up conspiracy cabalism. The summary says that MONGO was blocked for failing to acknowledge krimpet's warning. I don't care who you are, failure to acknowledge a warning is not a blockable offence. - Crockspot 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please....dominant clique? You know, because an editor in good standing who consistently contributes good content to this encyclopedia gets a break doesn't mean there's a conspiracy theory lurking around somewhere. I'm sick to death of pot shots like this...what a...erm...crock. RxS 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • While there's truth to Dan's comment (try editing as an anon, and you'll see what it's like to be treated like crap), I don't think it applies in this case. The block was inappropriate. And while it did get more attention than an inappropriate block of a user in lower standing, that is a separate problem. Guettarda 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Moreschi (talk · contribs) that this particular block is not an effective way to deal with this particular editor. You either accept MONGO (talk · contribs), warts and all, or block him indefinitely. I think at this point it is pretty well established that MONGO's behavior is not going to change due to a short term block.--Isotope23 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose not, given that the previous five blocks haven't led to a change of behavior. I am inclined to agree with Dan T, here. I am an established editor, and had I made those comments/edits, I haven't a doubt that I would be blocked. Jeffpw 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, only 1 of those was a valid block (2 if we count the 15-minute block for "forest fire on User talk:Gmaxwell", and I have no clue what that means). I personally haven't sees any personal attacks in any of the edits cited (though it's possible I missed something). Jeff, I hope that your assumption isn't true (I know that I would firmly oppose a block against you for similar edit), but who knows anymore. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isotope23 this is not the effective way to deal with this user. Though I can understand krimpet's frustration with the usual moderate disruption that is caused by MONGO's aggresive wiki and talk space participation. --Rocksanddirt 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• While I generally don't endorse blocking people for expressing personal opinons, however distasteful, NPA has actually been somewhat calmer since MONGO has been absent, though this may have more to do with someone protecting the page than with MONGO's particular contributions there (though they lead to the protection in the first place!).—AL 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• If we start blocking people for sarcasm, a lot of us are in trouble. Please unblock per User:Newyorkbrad. Raymond Arritt 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, when vandals remove test warnings, it makes more work for an admin to go through the entire edit history to see if a warning or block is warranted. There's supposedly a RFC regarding this change and I'm just going to further the discussion there instead. It's unfortunate that this change has allowed editors to doctor their talk page with a "clean slate" whenever they please. --Madchester 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It has also been a part of the official policy on WP:VAN for at least 649 days . --Kralizec! (talk) 02:17, 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 (last two paragraphs) that promote his own work which I believe is against Misplaced Pages 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: (final paragraph), (last paragraph), (self-promotion in external links), to name a few. Additionally, a link to a text called 'Fundamentals of Compressible Flow' () 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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(, ). He could also be editing as another user with an IP address of 82.19.74.161 () or perhaps as 68.107.62.119 () or 128.173.190.56 (). I think more IP addresses could be found.

To sum things up, I think this user(s) is causing a lot of damage on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and don't know all of the regulations, but it certainly seems to me like this person should be at least warned if not banned completely.EMBaero 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero

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

Symposium to Symposia

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

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

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

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

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 (). 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 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Turkey, Turkish-American relations et al.

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

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

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

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

User:Angelocasio accuses another editor of committing criminal acts

At http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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 , , ). 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 (). 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 , which we could certainly use as a RS. However, if the linked clip is a copyvio then considerations of reliability are irrelevant - we can't link to it, whether it's reliable or not. -- ChrisO 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Regarding Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Where Do I Begin?

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

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

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

This belongs at WP:COI/N

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

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

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

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 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: . 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (Misplaced Pages talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Mikkalai name removals). I am surprised that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) insists on ignore it. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:RBLakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Butseriouslyfolks reverting license tags in spite of wide consensus on wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mostargue blocked, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User_talk:Wtimrock

Evidence that I have attempted to resolve the issue , , , , , , .

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

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

• deletion discussion

• Another re-created article Now a redirect instead.

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

David ShankBone Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anon IP removing notability tags and other templates

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Felton

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

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

Hitler trolling

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know, but someone blocked him already, apparently. Titoxd 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Hitler can't be trolling. Hitler is dead. Titoxd 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He is? I thought he was hanging with Elvis someplace?  :) OrangeMarlin 06:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

And declined too... Titoxd 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree w/ both Viridae and Raymond Arritt. -- FayssalF - 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

My sense-o-matic is turning bright red on this user, but, reluctantly, I agree he must be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to display actual hate before we can assume it. Ronnotel 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you need to be warned about your continued abuse of the warning templates. Also, go back and read my statement above and my statement on Natalie's talk page....you will see your answer about the page moves. - NeutralHomer 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undo links

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

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

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

Possible copyright violation

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

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

Dr. Seaweed (again)

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

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

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

Dangerous questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Angie Y.

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

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

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

User:EmperorVelocicaptor

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

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

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

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

User:Jcg716

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

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

User:195.252.61.164

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

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

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

Outside eyes: abuse of userspace?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You guys sound tired

That's all. Thanks for rasslin' the varmints. --Milkbreath 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a shared computer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please advise

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

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

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

User:ForeignerFromTheEast

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

Let me see:

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

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

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

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks

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

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

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

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

Constant violations of WP:NPA

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

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

Petty personal attacks

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

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

Another Dereks1x sock

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

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

Edit-war at Shatt al-Arab

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

Disputants deletong each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

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

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

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

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

Muramasa itachi

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards