Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive312

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Incivility by Fram[edit]

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

The irony of starting a section on my supposed incivility without even notifying me of this thread... Furthermore, "As per Wikipedia:Civility, I request admin intervention."... Where does that page suggest admin intervention is needed for incivility? What the page says is that "In extreme cases (of heavy or repeated incivility), a user conduct Request for Comment may help resolve the matter."
As for the actual complaint: "despite warnings" should be read as "despite warnings by White Cat", genre "The tone of this pose is a personal attack". I invite everyone wqith time to spare to read the whole thread, especially of course the posts by White Cat and the posts by me. Fram 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I know you are active on ANB/I so I saw no reason to notify you. People active on ANB/I are often irked when notified. Wikipedia policies are not there simply to occupy hard drive space. Violations on any kind of any policy can lead to an admin intervention which can very well be a simple warning as well as a block. Often people change their tone after a single warning. If your tone (undermining people you are disagreeing with) there is community accepted and recommended behavior, I have nothing to add here. I most certainly feel calling someone "dishonest" isn't exactly civil. I want to conduct discussions in a civil environment and I do not feel I am asking for too much. -- Cat chi? 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[edit]

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

Absolutely unblock. Although clearly pushing an agenda, we don't block without warning for issues like this. ViridaeTalk 00:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Questions: has this IP been used previously to vandalize global warming-related articles or introduce POV? Is there reason to believe it was being used by a blocked/banned user who routinely vandalizes these articles? While those edits basically introduced weasel words, they were, IMHO, in no way blatant enough vandalism to block on sight and without warning. Sorry, but how is a revert (with no edit summary) a warning? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, I find no evidence of this being an edit by a banned user, and I would have thought Raul would have mentioned it when questioned about the block if it had anything to do with sock puppetry or a user that vandalises these kinds of articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hardly think Raul would use his rights "liberally" without good reason. I'd like to hear his take, of course. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Check his talk page. Ryan questioned him before bringing it here. ViridaeTalk 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I just found out about this discussion. To answer Fvasconcellos, contentious articles like this one tend to be subject to hit-and-run vandalism like that. It's very common, and the best way to deal with it is to revert, block, ignore Raul654 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Too bad it wasn't vandalism or maybe your action would be justified. Kyaa the Catlord 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As Raul doesn't seem to want to comment further, I've unblocked the IP as his reasoning so far has been completely invalid. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse unblock. And I must say I'm severely disappointed at Raul's reaction. This is just the same kind of out-of-control block by content-involved admins that cost PMA his adminship (RFC), and the same that recently got Davidcannon in serious trouble (see above on this board). From an arbitrator, this is really not acceptable. Fut.Perf. 08:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse unblock, the IP hadn't been warned at all and this isn't really vandalism (although the edits were questionable). Blocking immediately for a week was excessive. To Fvasconcellos: I don't think he has blocked because the IP had vandalised before (his last edit was a month ago), since Raul has recently blocked multiple IP editors for a week when they edited his favourite articles in a manner he disagreed with without warning [4][5]. Melsaran (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam or sockpuppet account creations[edit]

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

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

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

Suspected Sock Puppets. Miranda 07:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother. The new user log often has 20 or more accounts being created at the exact same time; they're almost always different people, just a coincidental flood. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 07:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read that right, last night. Those are just coincidental due to possibly hundreds or thousands of people reading the encyclopedia at a time. Miranda 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Undoing links[edit]


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

Definitely spam and a WP:COI, I'll remove them. Sam Blacketer 14:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sam Blacketer and Rjd0060 for your help! --Kateshortforbob 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Notta problem! - Rjd0060 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another impostor of me[edit]

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

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

The impostor also attempted to delete this entry. Parsecboy 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift action. Parsecboy 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted page, user blocked. You may wish to file a Wikipedia:Requests for oversight through e-mail to get the personal information completely removed. 1 != 2 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

I was looking through the user's contribs of the last day and they gave an IP a warning for editwarring on Freddie Mercury. And yet the only edit made by this IP in the last two years was fixing a spelling typo on the Freddie Mercury article. This sort of behaviour worries me as they're giving warnings to obvious good faith editors. AngelOfSadness talk 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Right... and that is what needs to be addressed. I don't in any way doubt that Gp75motorsports is trying to help, but I'm concerned that the efforts are being misdirected at IP editors who have done nothing wrong.--Isotope23 talk 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GridiotinSanFranciski (talk · contribs)[edit]


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

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

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


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

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format [[Image:PICTURENAME.jpg|thumb|right|CAPTION SAYING WHAT THE PICTURE'S OF]].iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What a rather lame edit war. The photograph (taken, incidentally, by UnclePaco) is being inserted onto the page without any caption to suggest what it is, and supported only by a single sentence ("New York is one of the places where many Dominican's (sic) emigrate to.") which doesn't really need to be there at all because it's sourced in the previous paragraph. Personally, I'd leave it out. But this is a pointless revert war; neither editor has technically broken 3RR, but repeated edit-warring after warnings is actionable, so I suggest stopping this right now. ELIMINATORJR 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

UnclePaco, you have not followed the advice that I originally gave you on 9/25/07 diff. You have yet to address this matter at Talk:Dominican Republic as I advised. Go there and come to a consensus about the picture. This is a content dispute and does not require admin intervention. Unless BigGabriel violates a consensus between several editors, this is a matter that you should be able to resolve on your own. Caknuck 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I did the first one a while ago; the second one I added today. You haven't taken a look at [23] and [24] at all. That is removing sourced material! UnclePaco 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio or no copyvio[edit]

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

Why not post it at AfD? The community can decide whether it is a copyvio there. ScienceApologist 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) is of interest here. While unlikely the WHO would sue Wikipedia (the copyright is merely to protect abuse of it's data), the crux is that the licence of the WHO site is incompatible with the GFDL. EdokterTalk 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
To ScienceApologist: how would the community decide at Afd whether it's a copyvio. Will legal arguments be presented and then the admin plays judge & jury? No, it ought to be blanked and sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Which is where I'm putting it. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a copyvio. It's clearly copied. The source claims: "© Copyright WHO/DIMDI 1994/2006". The asserted permission is insufficient. Even assuming that (a) the person is legit, and (b) he has the permission to release proprietary WHO copyrighted material, the permission granted is insufficient. WP cannot take permission subject to "no one can change this". All of WP (except for some protected pages) is editable. A permission with those conditions is not a release under GFDL or into the public domain and therefore is insufficient. Unless WHO releases it under GFDL or public domain, I say no permission because the first editor who changes it will be in violation of the copyright restrictions and that's not an acceptable situation. Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer Carlossuarez46 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Within the law, perhaps, but one article consisting of solely non free content goes against Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please review the interwiki links at ICD-10, and note how many Wikipedia communities have come to a different conclusion. --Arcadian 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
As stated before, it might not be a copyvio. The fact that other Wikipedia communities have it, does not alter my opinion much, I've cleaned up some extensive interwiki copyvio's before. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ICD-10 is extensively used in medical textbooks and journals. I've never heard of anyone asking WHO for permission. It fulfils fair use rationale i.e. scholarly and irreplaceable.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a copyvio, and frankly a daft concept (but I appreciate why other editors quite rightly have sought to have this checked as per good practice of ensuring that copyright breaches are rooted out of wikipedia). Yes the WHO maintains right to have itself recognised as producer of the work, but this is for the use of the whole world. Wikipedia, reflecting as it does the majority consensus, thus must make use of these the "international standard diagnostic classification"[26]. Likewise the WHO encourages that the IC10 codes be "used to classify diseases and other health problems recorded on many types of health and vital records including death certificates and hospital records"[27] - yet is anyone suggesting that hospitals or doctors seek copyright permission to use the codes in a patient's record (trust me they don't). As for that copyright notice - it does state "Reproduction or translation of substantial portions of the web site, or any use other than for educational or other non-commercial purposes, require explicit, prior authorization in writing" - and given wikipedia is both for education and non-commercial, we therefore do not "require explicit, prior authorization in writing". That seems good enough for me and the requirement of "use of information in the web site should be accompanied by an acknowledgment of WHO as the source, citing the uniform resource locator (URL) of the article" is definitely met.
    In addition the codes are used throughout disease articles (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Disease), thus ensuring that readers throughout the world are able to confirm that the same medical consitions are being described, even if lay-terms might vary region to region. David Ruben Talk 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia is used for commercial purposes. A lot of our mirrors run ads, and people try to make money off selling DVDs of Wikipedia, I think. It might seem like a technicality, but it's really important to a lot of people that any content here be usable for commercial purposes. --W.marsh 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I do understand your point, but my daily work as a doctor makes me feel that the WHO material is fair use by wikpedia. To try and get a firmer opinion, I've just made use of the WHO's "request permission to reproduce or reprint WHO copyrighted material" contact form, to seek their views on wikipedia's use of the ICD-10 codes. I'll let you know if I get any feedback from them in the next few days and suggest, IMHO, that for now this discussion pauses until then :-) David Ruben Talk 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If it is indeed a statement from the WHO, there already is permission on Talk:ICD-10. Whether that permission is enough for the list to be on wikipedia is something else. It would be great if they would license it free content. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User Keb25 giving unwarranted warnings to other editors[edit]

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

Maybe you could talk to him about that? Because this isn't really an admin issue. --Haemo 20:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How is issuing false warnings to people, incivility, not showing good faith with accusations of vandalism NOT an admin issue? It should be noted I counted over 20 incidents of the same type of warning for no good reason. IrishLass0128 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, emo music has its own article, just not at that title. –Crazytales talk/desk 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Because unless you want him blocked, and admin's warning doesn't hold anymore weight than any other user's. --Haemo 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have also been a victim of Keb25's unwarranted warnings. Maybe I suggest a short block so he can be more responsible Aricialam 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Aricialam for speaking up. I just, still, do not see how this is not an admin issue since his warnings and false accusations of vandalism (something I got in trouble for a blocked for a day way back when I first started out ~ accusing someone falsely) border on incivility. If he did what he did to just one person the amount of times he's done it in total, wouldn't he be blocked. If he warned one person 20 times over verifiable legitimate edits that he called vandalism, would he not be blocked? ~ IrishLass0128 12:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well how about this page Katrina_Kaif where he's clearly violated 3RR? Is that cause for blocking or a warning??~ IrishLass0128 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 3RR violation along w/ User:Katrina4u and User:Abhayonline. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am so glad keb25 is finally blocked. He should be blocked indefinitely. He makes unwarranted reverts, notices, AfDs, Prods etc all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by Good friend100 (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

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

I've just informed Kirill as he is both an arbitrator and the lead coordinator of WPMILHIST. Kirill had rejected it as a content dispute but he still accepted a topic ban as a remedy in case of troubles. I personally would go for a topic ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
In general for limited purpose accounts (maybe not true spa's but you know) I like topic/article bans. For some it becomes a full wikipedia ban, as they are not able to do anything else and for some it leads to broadening of input and maybe a touch of balance when they come back to the problem areas. just my $.02, I've not looked into this one at all. --Rocksanddirt 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What topic, specifically? Korea-related articles in general, or something more specific? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like there's yet a broad level of support in the community for a sanction, so perhaps we should wait it out for now. Given the user's history, though, I strongly suspect we'll end up here again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Abusive language in edit summary[edit]

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

I'd go for a warning. EdokterTalk 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. --OnoremDil 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
He could be referring to his ethnicity rather than a wikipedia username...--Isotope23 talk 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I will add that Khan1982 (talk · contribs) & Shshshsh (talk · contribs) would do well to stop playing games with sock tags...--Isotope23 talk 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
While I don't encourage incivility, we should note that editors can't change edit summaries like they can their own edits (so they can't change it even if they wanted to). For example, I just put an edit summary a minute ago and it's a stupid joke that I would change if I could....too late now. Archtransit 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not playing games, this user is a sure sock puppet of Raja-Hindoostani. I'd noticed that on Shahrukh Khan's page, and placed a SP template on his page. Apart from that, this user has vandalized my user page several times, using both these accounts (one more proof that he is a sock-puppeter). If you have a look what other accounts he accused me of using, you will see how rediculous it is. User:Riana blocked Raja Hindoostani, so I think this user must be blocked too. ShahidTalk2me 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Copyright violation[edit]

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

It's a quote. Quotes are not copyright violations in general. --Haemo 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What Haemo said: quotation from copyrighted materials may be acceptable fair-use. This particular quotation runs to 150 words while the translation by Jenkins runs to a similar number of pages. The quantity of quoted text doesn't seem grossly excessive (although we might wonder if it was really necessary to quote it, rather than to paraphrase, and what was in the omitted parts). This is really an editorial issue rather than a copyright one and best discussed at Talk:Pagania. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO blocked for disruptive personal attacks and incivility[edit]


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

I have left a note on Madchester's talk page. No need for a ban, civil discourse is nice :) —bbatsell ¿? 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
When you violate WP:3RR, that is no longer civil discourse. He knew I had read his notice, I am permitted to delete it, yet he continued to harass me. I want this to stop. Relaxing 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:TPG refers to article talk pages, which preserve the community discourse on the topic. User-Talk pages are much more free to be cleared, as we just saw some discussion here recently (see WP:CAIN). But yes, a ban seems excessive, imho, especially if the use in question may have just mis-interpreted TPG. Arakunem 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless, I am mistaken, Madchester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin, which makes it mildly shocking that he would be so unfamiliar with the WP:USER guideline, especially since he also gave [43] the user in question a {{uw-tpv1}} warning. I know that the "while frowned upon, policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" is a relatively new addition to WP:USER, but that was how many months ago? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's simple: do not remove other editors' comments, unless A) you have their permission or B) it's spam or vandalism. Otherwise you can archive those comments. It's one of the first things I learned as Wiki-newb: never delete other editors' comments, even those on your talk page. I remember being informed by another editor and it's something I've followed closely ever since.
You don't have to agree with everything left on your talk page, but it's a record of your communication, and thus, you shouldn't be removing comments as it reflects poorly on your reputation. --Madchester 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not "simple", because that's not Wikipedia's policy. As I noted on your talk page, and has since been noted here, WP:TPG does not apply to user talk pages. The applicable guideline is WP:USER, which explicitly allows the removal of comments, warnings, whatever the user wants. Archiving is strongly recommended, but not required. Using admin rollback to revert their removals is very much against policy. —bbatsell ¿? 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a recent change to the policy. The point of the talk page is to keep track of a user's communication history; you know a record of past actions to improve future contributions. With regards to Wikipedia:Vandalism, when vandals remove test warnings, it makes more work for an admin to go through the entire edit history to see if a warning or block is warranted. There's supposedly a RFC regarding this change and I'm just going to further the discussion there instead. It's unfortunate that this change has allowed editors to doctor their talk page with a "clean slate" whenever they please. --Madchester 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm, no, it's been there quite some time; it reflects the consensus view arrived at after MONTHS of discussion in 2006(? maybe it was 05, I can't remember). We have history pages for a reason. —bbatsell ¿? 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If by "recent" you mean 249 days ago [44], then yes, you are correct. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It has also been a part of the official policy on WP:VAN for at least 649 days [45]. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nathan.tang (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

I don't think it would be likely you could force him to change it, since you have changed your own name already, and as you say it could be his actual name. I don't think it should be much of a concern at this point, since the warning he received seemed to be for an action without malice behind it, and the message you received stated they were fairly certain it was not you. As long as it's not you, I don't think there's anything to worry about. CitiCat 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Could just be a coincidence that he has a name similar to your old one. He's not trying to pass himself off as you, is he? --FolicAcid 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey, Turkish-American relations et al.[edit]

Could someone verify if anyone editing there are actually socks at all? VartanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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[edit]

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

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

WP:SSP massive backup...[edit]

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[edit]

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

Graeme Frost[edit]

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[edit]

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

  • Umm... weird. Could be that the user has both usernames registered, and is only using the one...? He should probably just request a rename. android79 00:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, sure looks that way. Both are valid accounts, and the Bogdan account has no edits, so there doesnt seem to be nefarious puppetry afoot. My guess is he would do a Usurpation, but may not be aware such a thing exists. Arakunem 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

I decided to be bold, and deleted a mass of the personal info on her user page, except for the top bit and the userboxes, per WP:NOT#MYSPACE, as well a WP:USER clearly stating such detailed info is not allowed. I also believe, that perhaps an indef block would be the best idea here, since just looking at her talk page, its seems like she doesn't even see any difference between wikipedia and myspace--Jac16888 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse indef block. User has a grand total of 3 mainspace edits, 2 of which are vandalism: [47] [48]. android79 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I freely admit that I may be assuming too much GF, but I went ahead and left a friendly WP:NOT#MYSPACE note on her talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"the only reason i go on wiki is because my parents blocked myspace from my computer so i decided i would just use wiki" pretty much says it all. If she's not here to contribute to the project, there's no reason to allow her to waste bandwidth and disk space with chatty junk. android79 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This user seems to be using this website as a social networking site. Notice her edits. Same applies for User:Footballpassion and probably dozens of other editors. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You are not the only one to tell her that wikipedia is not Myspace, she even has the thought that only she can edit her talk page and those she allows. I am not an admin but I hope my input will be considered. I endorse and indef block. She has been told on numerous occasions and she has continued to ignore all warnings and attempts at help. One of her messages gave me the feeling that she ignores these warnings knowing full well what will happen if she does. Rgoodermote 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Well, if they're being immature, most admins will be willing to unblock them if they admit that, and feel bad about their actions. This user most definitely does not. --Haemo 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't care if he feels bad about it or not, only that he will stop. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what I mean. I assume people feel bad about doing bad things and don't wish to repeat them. --Haemo 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This might be true in some cases, but this guy doesn't appear to comprehend why his behavior got him blocked. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, and if he does decide to show some social maturity, there's nothing stopping an unblocking. android79 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that the user's talk page has been protected as well. My point is that all this happened in a short period of time, and it is reasonable to understand that someone might have such a reaction like this. No one is perfect all the time, and given that this was based on one incident, an indefinite block is too harsh. Why are we are so quick to be authoritative, and so unforgiving? This is not what the blocking policy permits. It's easy to not care because we are so quick to assume that we are not at a loss in these situations, that we already know this user and everything he might be on Wikipedia. I guess it is easier to just assume these things, and try to make him feel as unwanted as possible. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocks for legal threats are usually removed as soon as the user retracts the threat. 'Indefinite' means just that — with no defined end. It ends when the threat is gone. It's not intended to punish the user, it's meant to confine legal proceedings to their proper venue. Now, in this case, the talk page was protected, so it's a lot harder to retract it, but if he wishes to, he can e-mail the protecting administrator or anyone else. —bbatsell ¿? 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If someone goes ballistic, and they later calm down, and reconsider, they can be unblocked. I'm sure any admin would do as much. If their abusive tirade has lead to their talk page being protected, we have email channels for them to use. We're not here to coddle people who are threatening serious real-life consequences against the Foundation, or its volunteers — even if some might think they were made "in the heat of the moment". Is it a little bit bitey? Yes. But it's not even remotely on the same order of threatening legal action. --Haemo 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think it's ever reasonable to expect a reaction like this. I understand your general point, but this incident is a poor example. android79 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for not demanding that our users be perfect. We really need to stop taking these things so personally and so OMG seriously. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a wide gap between "perfection" and "not acting like a spoiled child". android79 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I would feel better about this situation if it was better known to him that he had a chance to retract or apologies or whatever. Perhaps if someone could simply leave a note on his talk page to that effect? -- Ned Scott 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what good it would do, but I'm willing to unprotect the talk page if you'd like to leave a note. android79 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I consider it my random good deed for the day. Maybe it was because I remember how embarrassing it was to once give a reaction like this, that I felt sorry for the guy. You're probably right, that it won't do any good, but I think it might be a good thing to just say "if you've cooled down, and you don't do this again, we'll give you one more chance". -- Ned Scott 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Proceed at your own risk. ;-) android79 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

Greg Felton[edit]

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 ( which states he has written for the National Vanguard. He is suggesting that people contact him to understand the true meaning of his writings rather then allow people to write about his past and work at wikipedia. Please take action as he interferes with the intigrity of wikipedia. Thank you. --Eternalsleeper 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Policy issues[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hello, as seen in the article history, there has been no effort by anyone to restore the list, and I wouldn't get into some silly edit war over it. I made my concerns known on the talk page and the AfD, and thought it best to err on the side of caution. This is the list as it appeared before I commented out the main body of the text. I'm not sure why this is raised here now as well, as it's already gotten a lot of visibility on the BLP talk page, the BLP noticeboard, and also on the AfD. The folks on AfD seem to believe there is BLP concerns, no one on the BLP noticeboard seems to care to reply, and one person on the BLP talk page seems to think it is all quite fine to include the list. My concerns as outlined on the AfD basically boiled down to: one facet of the DOD labeled these living people/groups as terrorists in some documents. Some university researchers compiled this information. We now have a list where these people are listed as terrorists/likely terrorists, with no other assertation of this from other WP:RS--it all literally comes from a sole primary source(s), these random DOD documents. The wording on this version seemed to be saying (to me) that, "Yes, these guys are terrorists," which seemed wrong, so I hid the content per BLP and likely NPOV violations.
My NPOV concern is that we're basically saying, "The DOD said this--it is true!", which is again how I read the list from when it was sent to AfD. But again, I've made no effort to keep it out beyond that, and have just discussed my concerns on the AfD. Geo Swan has also been saying I've violated civility rules by blanking the content, which doesn't make much sense. He also issued a civility warning (politely, though) to another user who wanted to delete the article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually Lawrence, you wrote:
"If someone besides yourself or I restores the list for the purposes of the discussion with sourced information that meet RS standards saying these people are terrorists, I will not object."
Geo Swan 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So, Lawrence, what is the logical corollary of stating that you will not object if third parties, who can come up with the third party reliable sources that say they are terrorists? Geo Swan 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm basically saying that I wanted to get more eyes on it, and half of Wikipedia has been linked to it now, and no one has undone my editing out of the list. I vow to not edit war over this (I wasn't planning on it anyway, but going on the record here). • Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you. User:Evb-wiki just made an interesting point on the AfD as well: "this article, by contrast, is either a list with only one source (part of my blp concern) or an article about a non-notable list (a list without multiple 3-party coverage)."Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am going to need you to explain this to me more fully. Are you saing that there is a black hole, where we can't report on any official allegations, until and unless the individual is tried, and convicted, or acquitted? Forgive me, but I am extremely skeptical that this is how the policy is meant to be interpreted. Are you really sure that reporting on an allegation, while making clear it is an allegation, violates policy? Geo Swan 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the article with the list, before I redacted it, for everyone to review. Did it make clear that there were allegations, and that these people were not terrorists? My point has been that there is no encyclopediac need to include the name of all those possibly innocent people in an article with such an inflammatory "List of terrorists..." type title. An article on the list itself? Fine, fine. I don't see a need to risk possible harm to possibly innocent people by including their names like this. We're basically re-posting a compiled list of possibly unfounded DOD allegations against various living people, in a manner that comes off as a research synthesis, that makes them all look guilty of terrorism. We have not one single RS that says these people are terrorists--I've asked repeatedly for such a thing. Without that, I don't think we should be putting names on a List of Terrorists type article. • Lawrence Cohen 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
An allegation isn't a statement of fact, until it becomes a fact, i.e. no longer an allegation, 3rd party reports are just repeating what the person/entity is alleging. I suppose a citation linked to an independent and reliable source such as a well known newspaper is acceptable per WP:RS, but citing the involved party making the allegations can't be considered to be independent and therefore not a RS. ---- WebHamster 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the material in question. The source is very simple- these are poeple accused by the DoD. This is verifiable and relevant. Whether we need to have such a duplication of their list is a matter for AfD. But there is no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I object. The article is a violation of WP:SYN as I've stated in the AfD and thus a BLP violation. The US government alleges these people are terrorists in random and various documents. Seton Hall university then compiled the documents, and listed these people in an appendix as a list. We, by republishing all these allegations under a List of terrorists article are saying, "These guys are terrorists." • Lawrence Cohen 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
A relevant comparison is the US Government's "no-fly" list as well. The list itself is clearly notable, but would it be a BLP violation to republish the list here, including all names, and the allegations of the government of "why" these people are on the list? • Lawrence Cohen 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

What Lawrence calls random documents are the Summary of Evidence memos that OARDEC prepared for the captives Combatant Status Review Tribunals or annual Administrative Review Board hearings. Geo Swan 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The list as it stands that JoshuaZ restored was made up by us. The "List" we made an article out of, THIS list in this PDF, does not include these allegations. We added them all as original research and a BLP violation. Check the PDF, pages 11-12. It's a raw flat list of names. Everything else in our list on this article is our own OR, and a BLP violation. • Lawrence Cohen 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
All DoD documents in this case are primary sources. You cannot have an article based entirely on primary sources, especially not when it deals with living people. EconomicsGuy 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on this, and the now demonstrated OR and synthesis we've done, would it be appropriate to again remove the list on the article before we do more harm to living people? • Lawrence Cohen 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I read it the article does not seem to be based on a primary source. The source referenced above is a secondary source which draws on data from primary sources. That is perfectly acceptable under our sourcing rules. -- ChrisO 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So its fine to take a raw list of names from a non-notable appendix (pages 11-12) of a non-notable publication, spin off an article on that appendix title, and then populate in all the names in a list with every accusation that the DoD has accused these people of...? That isn't original research and WP:SYN? • Lawrence Cohen 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect please reread WP:RS. Secondary sources are not sufficient when dealing with BLP's. Further, a secondary source that simply reprints what was gathered from primary sources with no evidence of independent verification of those sources is not reliable, it merely whitewashes the primary sources. EconomicsGuy 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

And if any of them are released with "no evidence found" we become guilty of libel. Inclusion of that list may actually be libel as there is no proof, only allegations, that they are terrorists. Just because the US Government locks people up with no proof, trial and legal judgement doesn't mean we can. ---- WebHamster 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is locking people up? Is there a dungeon somewhere under the Wikimedia Foundation's HQ? -- ChrisO 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And I thought it was just us Aspies that thought so literally! By including any living persons name on that list we are judging them based on someone else's allegations. The US may find it acceptable to punish unsentenced people but there's no reason why Wikipedia should follow suit. The US may have let the Bush genie out of the bottle, I don't recommend that WP does the same thing. ---- WebHamster 22:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone on the list is detained at Gitmo currently, and even if they are, there is no guarantee they will be forever. We'll have an article listing them as accused of terrorism, when they may or may not be, and haven't been convicted of in any case. It also lists groups that aren't, either, convicted of anything. Add in NPOV, and it's a problem. • Lawrence Cohen 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And how is this different from a newspaper reporting the names of people who are arrested on suspicion of various crimes? The situation you describe happens in the media on a daily basis. When public authorities detain and charge or accuse individuals, that event is a matter of public record and historical fact. There's nothing that can change that. The information is publicly available and de facto retrievable forever via media archives. A responsible publication will, however, note the outcome of the detention - i.e. if the individual is released without charge that should be noted.
If a newspaper calls somebody a terrorist, they can come back at a later time and issue a retraction. Wikipedia has no methods of retracting libelous edits other than to remove them from the article. Corvus cornix 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If Bob Jones gets arrested for allegedly beating his wife, or plotting to blow her up with Taliban operatives, we don't write "Jones tried to jihad his wife[1]" were [1] as the source is the actual police report. That is exactly what this list is doing. We have no reliable secondary non-DOD sources for these terrorism allegations against living people, only the DOD's own reports and theories. BLP violation for that. Add in that the list that the article is made from as the chief source doesn't even include the allegations, and Wikipedia editors went and tracked them down from the primary sources themselves that the raw list secondary source was made from, we have only primary sources and not one real secondary source. The list is funtionally and literally a reposting of DOD allegations, and nothing else. If this was Bob Jones, we'd basically have an article about his crimes sourced entirely to the police arrest reports, notes from the district attorney, and then a footnote from a single research paper saying that the D.A. arrested Bob for trying to kill his wife with Taliban assistance. • Lawrence Cohen 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with ChrisO here. Citing this source simply means that the DoD believes that they are terrorists. For better or worse, government agencies are considered reliable sources unless proven otherwise; we don't question their reliability over census returns or unemployment statistics. If (or when) these people are shown to be falsely accused, the point then becomes not that they are terrorists, but that the DoD accused them of being terrorists. And that explains why some of them are languishing in Gitmo. -- llywrch 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In this instance the DoD does not meet WP:RS as they aren't independent and they aren't a 3rd party. ---- WebHamster 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we write articles on living persons that get arrested, that are sourced exclusively to their arrest records and criminal court filings? • Lawrence Cohen 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If a newspaper calls someone a terrorist, sure. But if a newspaper merely reports that a state authority has accused an individual of terrorism, that's a different situation. It's a straightforward report of fact - either the state has made such an accusation or it hasn't. If it has, the report is completely accurate. It makes no judgment of the veracity of the accusation. Don't forget that Osama bin Laden is likewise accused of terrorism, when he hasn't been convicted (or even detained) for any such offence. But that rightly doesn't stop us from saying in Osama bin Laden that "U.S. government officials named bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects" for 9/11. We aren't endorsing such statements, merely reporting them, which is as it should be. -- ChrisO 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And in Osama's notable case, we have no shortage of reliable sources to report this. I've asked for almost two days on the AfD and list talk page for a single reliable source that even says one of these people is accused of terrorism, and have gotten nothing. Why are we implying that DoD terrorism accusations have some sort of exemption for proper sourcing...? If I write an article on the next person I see on Google News that is arrested for murder, and source it exclusively to online police records, would that be appropriate? It's the same thing. • Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The DoD is a bit larger than a random police accusation and Wikipedia is not a newspaper but from a BLP perspective there's no problem with it that requires speedy deletion. Keep in mind that this is well-sourced verifiable information. In the same vein, the information about the person arrested for murder would go to AfD and would not need to be speedy deletable under BLP. JoshuaZ 22:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but that is getting into semantics. What if the arrest was from the FBI? Interpol? Either way, writing an article on allegations of crimes against someone using only the sources written by the group arresting them is a gross BLP violation as I see it. We can't republish accusations of crimes based on only a lone primary source, like an arrest record, by any agency. If CNN reported that one of these were arrested, they can go in a list called List of people that allegedly committed terrorism according to the US DOD or something like that. But add in the name of the article here, and it's a train wreck that amounts to us saying, "Look, terrorist!" • Lawrence Cohen 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article is badly named, but the issues of its concept and content are separate matters. Like it or not, the state has to be treated as a reliable source when it comes to its own actions. If the Las Vegas PD states that it's arrested O. J. Simpson on suspicion of robbery and kidnapping, we're entitled to report that fact and cite the LVPD as a source (assuming that it's released some sort of documentation). Likewise, if the DoD states that it's arrested whoever on suspicion of terrorist activity, we're entitled to report that fact. We're not "writing an article on allegations of crimes", we're writing an article stating that a state authority has accused an individual of crimes. That's entirely a matter of undisputed historical fact and public record. We're not passing judgment on whether the individual is guilty or otherwise. -- ChrisO 23:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The State/DoD has to be treated as reliable source? You've got to be shitting me? These are the guys who said Saddam could launch in 45 minutes. You must have a different definition to Websters for "reliable". ---- WebHamster 23:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The reliability of a source, as far as we're concerned, is a separate issue from its reputation for truthfulness. From WP:RS: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Being a reliable source is essentially a function of verifiability, not accuracy. We make no claims for the accuracy of any of our sources, and we certainly don't exclude official sources because we have a personal (partisan?) disagreement with what they say. -- ChrisO 08:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point. Let me put it another way. If Bob Smith, a notable person, is accused by the IRS of tax evasion but no other sources but the IRS reports on it, would it be appropriate to add that Smith is accused of that tax evasion in his article, using only the IRS as a source? • Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that is where considerations of undue weight would come into play. If it was a major episode in Smith's life and relevant to his biography, then yes, that would be worth reporting. (For a counter-example, we almost certainly wouldn't report a traffic ticket since that would be a trivial episode.) In this particular case, I don't think you could reasonably argue that being sent to Guantanamo and accused of terrorism isn't a major episode in someone's life. -- ChrisO 08:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If the person is indeed notable enough, there is no reason not to accept what is in front of our eyes. This list is in the same cateogry. As Chris says, the existence of it is notable enough that the list of what is on it is also notable, and any RS would do. Wikilawering about just what counts as primary in instances like this does not contribute to an unbiased encyclopedia. RS is a guideline, to be used with common sense. If Al Queda published such a list, I'd include that also. 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the wikilawyering argument was aimed at my arguments above but if so I'll disengage despite the fact that I do believe I'm entitled to present my point of view, especially when I don't violate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But anyways, the point of the above comment was to ask that the revert warring ends + that this is turning into a fork of the AfD. EconomicsGuy 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy issues redux[edit]

I am restoring the original title of this section.

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

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

Liftarn and disruptive editing[edit]

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

Are you proposing a topic ban for Nobel Prize in Economics? Is there any problem with other articles, or is this the only one? - Jehochman Talk 06:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This has already made it to WP:LAME and is dealt with in another thread here on AN/I. Quite frankly the complaining from both parties is getting more disruptive than the actual edit war. This is a very lame content dispute and their repeated attempts to get each other topic banned or blocked is the real disruption here. I suggest a ban on complaining here and a serious warning that these things must be sorted out through consensus on the talk page of the article. EconomicsGuy 06:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is quite lame, but some editors are very persistent in inserting false information in Wikipedia, while other editors are just as persistent in correcting the information. That's why we have this situation. // Liftarn
Yes, that might be useful. He started to edit war on a greater number of articles showing the same kind of disruptive behavior as on Milton Friedman (Clive Granger, George Stigler, Simon Kuznets‎, Roger Myerson, Eric Maskin, Leonid Hurwicz, Edmund Phelps, Edward C. Prescott, Finn E. Kydland, Robert F. Engle – this was all today). Also, he continues to accuse other editors for "persistent vandalism" in his edit summaries. If this is not disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, I don't know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not only Friedman, he's repetedly making this changes on most other winner's pages as well. AdamSmithee 12:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as per WP:NCON that says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." so the full name (or official short form) should be used in articles (and templates) instead of slang versions. // Liftarn

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

How do you come to that conclusion? Anyway, fixing articles so they conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines can hardly be called "disruptive editing". // Liftarn
WP:NCON also says it should be read in conjunction with WP:UCN which says, When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?
That aside... This content dispute needs resolving through discussion & consensus. It's a shame that, having admitted its lameness, User:Liftarn is apparently unwilling to consider changing their behviour. This debate should be carried out in one central location (requested moves?), and efforts should be made to direct editors there, not spread it further. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, this is being discussed again in Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Name again, for the Nth time. There may even finally be consensus as 3 editors here (Liftarn, AdamSmithee, and I) have agreed on a way to use both the official name and the common name in the content of articles! :) –panda 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, written too quickly -- some editors don't want to comprise... [58] –panda 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Possible BLP problem[edit]

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

Although the beautiful Ms. Angel may not quite qualify as "young", if there's an OTRS ticket, then we should remove the dates. Corvus cornix 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oi! She's younger than me! Cruftbane 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, me, too. :) Corvus cornix 03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being dense here, but why is it exactly that her birthdate shouldn't be shown? MookieZ 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
We have generally followed the practice of not having a full birthdate in articles of living persons if the subject requests it and they are of minor notability. Some biography subjects are worried about issues like identity theft; this may or may not be a reasonable fear, but especially when the birthdate cannot be reliably sourced I believe it is acceptable to remove it. Here, the source is IMDB, which as a site relying on user contributions for much data, especially in its early years, cannot be relied upon for accuracy. Someone of greater notability will most likely have a much better source for this fact. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no admin action on sockpuppet suspects of banned user?[edit]

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 In short, I do not understand admin behavior here and would like prompt explanation, as well as a swift and just ban on the sockpuppets. Thanks! John J. Bulten 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it simply got dropped by mistake. People confirmed it but nobody did the block. I checkusered and found a bunch more as well, which I am going through and blocking. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thaaank yoooouu!! (Sighs of relief.) John J. Bulten 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation[edit]

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

Is it my imagination, or does that page say "Editors are free to remove their name from this list, and to add their names to this one. When they do, do not revert" at the top? If that really is the case, I do not understand why ^demon (talk · contribs) is having this issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 01:21, October 18, 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "^demon (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation) (Unblock)
^demon did willingly break 3RR, I endorse the block. Mr.Z-man 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What the hell? If people don't want to be on that page why should we harass them about it? I'm considering just dropping the page on MFD if this is how people's privacy wishes are handled.. the page seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Cowman109Talk 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. Cowman109Talk 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? Cowman109Talk 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the "editors are free to remove their name from this list" prefix on the page was added over a month ago as per consensus (Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Mikkalai name removals). I am surprised that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) insists on ignore it. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

David ShankBone Harassment[edit]

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

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

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

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

Try the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee if necessary. They could handle it better there, but perhaps an admin could "shock" this guy into stopping.
--FastLizard4 (TalkLinksSign) 04:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have several pages you post to on my watchlist, ATren, among them David's, so I have read a lot of what you are posting about here before. I don't see David engaging in personal attacks, and further, see him exhibiting a hell of a lot of patience in the face of your constant messaging. I noticed yesterday your wikilawering ways have expanded to include other editors who have disagreed with you in the Arbcom you're involved in. Perhaps it's for the best that you posted here, as with administrative eyes on you, David might at last be able to return to making his truly valuable contributions. Jeffpw 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Those are his friends who have piled on, as are you. And I did not say "personal attacks", I said "harassment" - those are two different things. ATren 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ATren is far from innocent here, and frankly he is harassing me in the ArbCom. He's not even a party to it, but a "concerned Wikipedian" - but if you look at every edit from the last two months, if you look at his User page, you will see he has become obsessed with this case between myself and User:THF. He's called it a kangaroo court. He is taking issues in ArbCom (where he has also taken on the arbitrators) and trying to spread them around Wikipedia. He has been very uncivil and his behavior is a little out of control on there. He's lodging accusations of bias against arbitrators; everyone has a motive, blah, blah, blah. He was asked to remove a harassing message by an admin, and he did so. It was his harassment of another editor; now that it's problem. That poor editor is now gone also, thoug