Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

PatPeter

It seems he is back editing. Last edit: 18:46, 8 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:PatPeter/Index/Wikipages.

As a note to this situation...as it seems that he did not kill himself, regardless if anyone thought he was serious, matters like this, regardless of who they are and what they have done, should always be taken seriously and treated with the upmost respect. This may have been a way to gain attention or popularity, but one day, if this ever happens again, whether with this user or someone else, it will be for real...Regardless we do need some kind of way to deal with matters like this in the future. This got a lot of attention and this could end up being "the next big/popular thing," to announce suicide on Wikipedia, or any Wiki project for that matter. DragonFire1024 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S...there should be a requirement of a mandatory checkuser for future incidents of this kind. Why? Well it will definitely give us a lot of information like location, name and age possibly and other stuff as well. Point: if this were serious, a checkuser could have saved a lot of time: Point 2: since this was not serious, then a checkuser would be nice to make sure that the person threatening whatever, is not creating a new account, to trick us or something. DragonFire1024 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not going to give name 99.999999% of the time, and never age. It might not even give location. Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. Prodego ^talk 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Special:Magic pixie dust is a bluelink. I don't have the relevant privileges to use it, but I'd settle for non-special dust if there's any going wanting. Splash - tk 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You forward the IP address to the authorities, who forward it to the ISP in order to get the person's name and whatnot. It won't work for shared connections or ISPs that use proxies, but it's better than nothing. I'm not sure that normal checkusers even have the authority to do this though (right now). It sounds like a foundation/legal/onoes thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You could but ISPs are very protective of their customers, and will want a court order. With such a weak reason I am not sure you could get one. Also that would probably violate the m:Privacy policy. Overall, it seems that to do such a thing would be far more trouble then it is worth for everyone. Prodego ^talk 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikimedia will not sell or share private information... unless you agree to release this information, or it is required by law to release the information." Mmm. And ISPs are not always that protective (some are more than willing to pass on names to the RIAA without subpoena), but it depends. Again, this would just be passed directly to the local authorities; they'd do whatever they'd do. It would get it out of our hair. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to create a policy or guideline about this kind of issue? Other editors have mentioned something similar happening before. The idea of somebody killing themselves over anything that happens here is stupid, but possible all the same. Anynobody 01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried a quick essay on this a couple of days back and had to delete it within 24 hours when there were concerns raised that it would undoubtedly promote the use of suicide threats to disrupt the project. -- Nick ^t 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In practice the checkusers are already in cahoots with the scary people. We know who to talk to; usually they come to us first. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Mackensen is telling us that there is some sort of vast upper level conspiracy. Best to name it. But what to call it... what to call it.... I know, how about:

Prodego ^talk 05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A bold solution

PatPeter was already under a 48 hour block for Personal attacks against Skult of Caro, weird suicide threats, bigotism against gays.[1] This editor copy/pasted the same insults insults to Skult of Cairo[2] and to three other users' talk pages.[3][4][5] Also on April 7 the editor edited an implicit suicide threat without deleting it.[6] Per the precedent of how I handled a similar instance of a suicide note from an editor who returned to cause further disruption[7] I have blocked PatPeter for 1 year. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it is possible that he really is suicidal. I doubt blocking him will help him. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse the block. This user's actions have been completely unnecessary and disruptive. He has clearly stated that he does not desire our help or sympathy, so assuming he is suicidal, whether or not we block him makes no difference. It does make a difference toward encyclopedia building, however, which is normally the primary priority. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, when people get really upset, they say something other than what they mean, or their thoughts change from moment to moment. Human life is more important than encyclopaedias. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I think our prerogative in cases like this is to first try to save the individual. Once that's done, however, we need to look into whether this person should still be editing. I know this seems heartless, and I really don't mean to seem so. alphachimp 06:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this "done"? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 06:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that that is an assumption. He edited yesterday, the police have been notified, and his school has been notified. Beyond that, I don't really know if we'll receive any further updates. alphachimp 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If they lock him in an asylum, we won't hear from him anyway. If they don't, he might still benefit from having people to talk to. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 06:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A suicidal or otherwise emotionally disturbed editor could be accidentally provoked into doing something tremendously stupid. In this case, the liability is just not worth it. On the other hand, many contributors afflicted with psychological disorders display an ability to moderate their behavior and contribute in a productive fashion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PanPeter is not the first suicidal person I have encountered - I can take the liability. Shutting him out is probably more likely to trigger him than a wrong comment. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't assume that you, personally, can't take the liability. The question is, should you? The majority of Wikipedia editors are not licensed mental health professionals, their potential intervention would be unqualified and could have unforeseen repercussions. Those with expertise or experience in dealing with issues of mental health would, in my opinion, be equally vary of assuming the role of therapist in an anonymous online environment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I was speaking of ethical/emotional liability, not of the legal kind. For me, the guilt is greater if I don't try to help, than if I try and the person kills him or her self anyway. A lot of the time, being ignored is one of the last things the person wants, although probably not the very last thing. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. No editor should be made to experience feelings of guilt over the irresponsible actions of a mentally disturbed person. I admire your empathy, but I don't think that Wikipedia is the right place to exercise your commitment to help the deranged. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The police have already been contacted. They're a lot better equipped to handle something like that then we are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Handle it how? Throw him in the psychiatric ward? The suicide rate in psychiatric hospitals is about 5 times greater than outside. [8] The police might be better equipped to physically stop him, but in doing so they may also decrease his will to live. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC), 07:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A classic statistical fallacy. Psychiatric hospitals have a population significantly more prone to commit suicide—that is why many of them are in psychiatric hospitals. Philwelch 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to tell if they simply would have killed themselves anyway, or if it was the psychiatric hospital itself that drove them over the edge? Given the controlled environment, it takes considerably more effort to succeed in a lethal suicide attempt in a hospital. If a person is traumatised by privacy violations, will a 24-hour watch make him or her feel better? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble here, I think, is that we're setting the precedent that throwing up the suicide card will immediately get an unblock. He does need help, but we have to realize that he has already moved on to another of our sites. Also, are we prepared to be that help? I'd suggest a resounding "no". alphachimp 07:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorsed. I was thinking of doing the same thing. alphachimp 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that the guy had an account on uncycl.. you know the one ... where he got blocked for 3 days in Feb. How strange! - Alison^☺ 06:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, he gets some help. If anything, keeping on here is likely to destabilize him further. I support the block, hopefully he can return once his problems are resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Just hope he does. BTW - straight after his block, he moved on over to WikiQuote, so it may be all ready to start up over again. We'll see - Alison^☺ 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse this. Wikipedia is not the social services, we are an encyclopedia, and we've done what we can. The amount of disruption we should put up with is limited. This guy clearly has no interest in actual encyclopedia-building: he merely wants emotive wikidrama and undeserved attention that will completely waste our time. I sincerely doubt this fellow really is suicidal: probably we're just being trolled. He has wasted enough time: if there wasn't this whole palaver re his "suicide" he'd have been indefed days ago. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, spends hours editing his userpage, adds some offensive userboxen, adds the one for depression, one saying he's against suicide prevention - and then announces his suicide! Come on, there's a pre-planned pattern here...Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) If my response appears cold or unfeeling, bear in mind that I became aware of this particular instance after others were already contacting the authorities. I would have done so myself If I'd noticed these threads sooner and I did contact the authorities regarding a previous suicide note. That's the most compassionate response because it's all the genuine help we can supply. Supplementing that with a message to the Foundation was a good idea. I don't endorse sending individual e-mails to a user who threatens suicide.

There are basically two possibilities here: either the individual has serious psychological problems or the individual is (at this point) a very well fed troll. Obviously this was unacceptable behavior. A police report is a very serious matter and I have no intention of fostering the crying-wolf effect. If a person who wants attention gets attention by threatening suicide, that person will threaten it again without regard for the detrimental effect on our collective goodwill. Furthermore, people who genuinely are suicidal are statistically likely to be homicidal. We don't need those worries. This is not the only site where this person has been troublesome[9][10][11] and these PatPeter threads have not gone unnoticed.[12][13] The first of those Wikipedia Review thread pages actually impressed me a bit. The second page demonstrates that copycat breaching experiments are already beginning. It's time to wrap this up and get back to business, so I propose this in the future:

• If an editor threatens suicide, contact the police and the Foundation.
• If the editor returns to cause more disruption, treat it as the biggest WP:POINT violation imaginable and block for one year.
• If the editor returns without causing more disruption, let it pass.

Durova^Charge! 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very important that Wikipedia stay out of such situations. We are not medical personal, we don't have counseling training, we are not friends/family. There is a very real chance that taking some sort of official action will both worsen the situation and open up Wikipedia to potential problems of its own. All we should do is block if it gets to the point of disruption so as to insure we are not involved. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

High has a point, although I can see the headlines already Man commits suicide, Wikipedia knew of threat, and the first line stating that Person X had announced his intent to commit suicide on Wikipedia, yet nothing was done, and how Wikipedia is an accessory to suicide, yada-yada, Yakity-Schmakity. I think, like it has been stated above, if an editor does threaten suicide, contact law enforcement and the Foundation. This way actions were taken to the extent that anyone here could, and that is reporting the issue. Its no different then finding a blog where someone outlines they plan to kill someone and calling the police. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durova's suggestion; I see this as the best course we can take, as we actually do something, and we contact someone who can do better (or should be able to do better...). · AO ^Talk 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of a possible need to talk about our response, wouldn't it be a sensible idea to disconnect that possible discussion from an actual case, an actual person? Whichever way you want to look at this: "this guy needs help" or "the guy has been attention seeking and has had enough attention from us now" - it's been discussed in quite some detail and I think it's time to wrap it up and leave it in the archives. --JoanneB 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm doing. Today was the second time I dealt with this type of situation and my summary applies equally to either instance, or to possible future occasions. It's fair to say that anyone who posts a suicide note at Wikipedia is either psychologically disturbed or trolling. Unless someone disagrees with the solution report to proper authorities...block for 1 year if disruption resumes it's time to close this thread. Durova^Charge! 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Move on time for all (including PatPeter) - Alison^☺ 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this incident but, perhaps coincidently, there is an ongoing discussion on a policy proposal: Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals. Rockpocket 08:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

I have just received an email from PatPeter:

When the hell did I say I wasn't going to kill myself?!? I came back on to tell those users that their perceptions of me were unjust. How could I die with such rumors circling around the internet that I am seeking attention. READ MY POSTS and you will understand what I had to say, they insulted me first. And no, the police never got me, I have received no contact associated with this except for a few emails from a couple users.

I suspect that I am not the only person he has emailed, and in view of the fact that he seems to be positvely seeking out attention now, I ask that people stop trying to engage with him, as whether suicidal or not, he is obviously disturbed. I presume Chicago police are still trying to find him, and his school sure as hell will today, so we don't need to be worrying about him anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Disturbed" and "seeking out attention" are rather loaded words. There is less difference between someone seriously suicidal and someone making a "cry for help" than you might think. Both are caused by the same thing - pain. Often, a person may be ambivalent - caught between the choices of life and death. It isn't necessarily that the person wants to be dead - they want the pain to end, and they see death as an end. However, if they could be convinced that the pain could end in another way, they would most likely choose life. A "cry for help" may mean a person hopes that someone will find another way to end the pain, but still mean to kill themself if a way is not found.

Also note that not all serious suicide attempts are successful. Louis Dublin, a statistician, estimates that one third of suicide attempts are meant to be fatal, but less than half succeed. Dublin goes on to estimate that one third of suicide attempts are suicidal gestures - intended to be non-lethal cries for help that appear to be serious suicide. Unfortunately, many of these do end in death. The other third are basically tossing the dice, not caring whether they live or die so long as the pain stops. In a study done on adolescents, 0.1 % of women's attempts were fatal, and 11% of men's attempts were fatal.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt and bled all over it. Wikipedia is not therapy and we did what we had to to save him if he were actually suicidal, but beyond that I don't see why we need to treat someone who is making attention-seeking posts differently because he is threatening to off himself. You've read his contribs, right?

I got an email from him whining that people were thinking he wasn't actually suicidal. What genuinely suicidal person emails someone to complain about that? Surely they're too busy planning to kill themselves to worry about whether enough people are watching them doing it? I don't care how much pain PatPeter is in if he starts scaring the hell out of my community, he is damn selfish to try to broadcast online his intention to commit suicide. What can people do for him but worry? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have just tried to explain, suicidal people often debate with themselves whether or not they really want to die, or if there is another way to end the pain. By which I mean, it is entirely possible that he is on the edge, and could go either way. We can do more than just worry. Sometimes all that is needed is a good listener. Often not, but it's still a good first step. If he didn't think Wikipedia helped him, why does he want to come back so much? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because for all his angst, he's a Wikipedian? And frankly, suicidal people shouldn't be seeking listening on Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, and there are plenty of places he can go to pour out his pain without frightening the life of of dozens of people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the damage

Well, I'm glad to see that this issue has been resolved, at least temporarily. I was the one who first reported PatPeter on WP:ANI (see here), although I was surprised and disappointed that no action was taken at that time. Can someone (preferably an admin) please explain to me why no action was taken then?

Now that PatPeter has been blocked, how do we go about fixing the damage to Wikipedia caused by his disruptive edits, especially to dozens (maybe 100s?) of userbox pages? Is there some way that a bot can revert all of his edits where they are still the most recent (top) on a given page?

I also think that the two WikiProjects he founded (see Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Category Cleanup) should be deleted, along with all of their subpages. These are completely useless and counterproductive, and thankfully no one else has joined them yet (PatPeter is the only member and editor of those pages). Deleting them will prevent some other well-meaning but inexperienced / misguided user from going along with the useless proposals therein. What is the proper way to get rid of these WikiProjects? Should I post them to MfD? Can some admin just take the initiative under WP:BOLD or WP:IAR or some such thing and just delete them in the best interests of the project? We are here to write an encyclopedia, and these WikiProjects (along with the majority of PatPeter's edits) are clearly counter to furthering that purpose.

I would appreciate a response (hopefully several) this time, instead of the silence which greeted my previously mentioned WP:ANI post. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do get silence again, just list them with a speedy template, and if that doesn't work, MfD. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, those WikiProjects don't fit any of the speedy criteria as far as I can tell, so I have gone ahead and listed them at MfD. Also, Coelacan has taken on the thankless task of cleaning up PatPeter's userbox spree, manually. So I'll thank him, Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick Followup

As others noted, PatPeter moved to Wikiquote, where he started doing strange things to articles' episode numbering. As I edit there regularly, I mentioned on the Village Pump that people might like to keep an eye on him, where PatPeter himself showed up and after a few abusive messages in which he claimed he was still suicidal, he was blocked for a year there too. He's just got an account on the Commons (and has had an account on Wikibooks since December) - it remains to be seen what he will do there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following this and probably will not be able to respond to a message your may leave in response to this, but should we following his edits? --Iamunknown 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PatPeter landed on AN/I for excessive disruption unrelated to his subsequent announcement. I don't see a problem in keeping eye on him. My post to Wikiquote was not intended to get him blocked, just to get a few eyeballs on him to ensure he didn't start moving categories around on a whim or editing other people's userpages like he was doing here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright infringement denied

Advice from fellow admins needed. After it being pointed out that John Barton (director) contained line-for-line lifts from A Dictionary of the Royal Shakespeare Company by Simon Trowbridge, I took it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. However, unlike most instances of this, the article wasn't created by an anon editor, nor a throw-away account, but by a regular editor.

The top lines are from the article, the second from the Dictionary

• ...the son of a senior civil servant, Barton went to Eton...
  • The son of a senior civil servant, Barton went to Eton
• He remained at King's as Fellow
  • he remained at King's (as fellow...
• Hall wanted his friend's expertise as an expert textual scholar
  • Hall wanted his friend's depth of knowledge as a textual scholar
• Peggy Ashcroft and Peter O'Toole in The Taming of the Shrew. Used to undergraduate actors,
  • Peggy Ashcroft and Peter O'Toole in The Taming of the Shrew. Used to undergraduate actors,
• His influence was felt, however, in his adaptation of the three Henry VI plays as The Wars of the Roses ((1963)) and his work on the history cycle of 1964.
  • His influence was felt, however, in his adaptation of the Henry VI plays (The Wars of the Roses) and his work on the history cycle of 1964.
• His anthology, The Hollow Crown, became a RSC favourite
  • His anthology, The Hollow Crown, became a RSC favourite

This seems to me to be very unlikely to be a coincidence. Orbicle (talk · contribs), who has been creating articles and editing since February 8 2006, denies that there is a problem, and is still editing. Orbicle's note to me seemed to indicate that they questioned my assessment, so I am bringing it here for advice before proceeding. My concern is, of course, that this is not an isolated incident. If the user refuses to acknowledge this, however, I am not sure how we determine whether it is a single case or not... Jkelly 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if he is claiming that this is a coincidience, but rather claiming that copying a straight-forward factual narrative, or even a simple list of facts, is not Plagiarism. It is surely true that copyign the facts is perfectly permissible. Copying the exact wording, to this degree, IMO is not. But while i would call it copyright infringment, I don't think i would use the word "Plagiarism" as that implies an attempt to pass of someone else's work as one's own, IMO. In anycase i think a simple rewrite is enough to deal with this page. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am significantly more concerned about the rest of this user's contributions than I am about fixing this article. The user does deny that they copied from the source given in the copyvio notice. Jkelly 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So he does, i misread that. It might well be that one net source copied from another -- I see this often. But he doesn't seem to eny that he copied from somewhere, and if he felt this was acceptable, i suppsoe he might feel the same in other cases. DES ^(talk) 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayback machine results show the same text from September 2004, unfortunately. Jkelly 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Or Patricia Medina which has parts copied from [14]. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly from http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800085390/bio Sancho 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same promotional biography. And thanks Jkelly for tagging the article, was just about to do that. Garion96 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another instance: Daniel Taradash vs http://slick.org/deathwatch/mailarchive/msg00985.html

• "In 1952, he convinced Columbia Studios head Harry Cohn that he was the writer to bring James Jones' best-selling novel, From Here to Eternity to the screen." (Wikipedia article, October 2006)
  • "In 1952, he convinced Columbia Studios head Harry Cohn that he was the writer to bring James Jones' controversial bestseller "From Here to Eternity" to the screen." (original source, 2003)
• "He also held numerous leadership and committee posts with the Writers Guild of America, including a three-year stint as president of Writers Guild of America, west from 1977 to 1979." (Wikipedia article, 2006)
  • "He also held numerous leadership and committee posts with the Writers Guild of America, including a three-year stint as president of WGA West from 1977 to 1979." (Original source, 2003)

Sancho 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a problem here. Example: [15] -- I tagged one of this user's "articles" as a copyvio about a year ago--it was a straight-up copy-paste from the Lyric Opera of Chicago website.

Orbicle, if you are reading this--as I'm sure you will soon--will you please be honest with us and tell us how many copy-pastes you have done into Wikipedia? Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Man.. this is perfectly highlighting how we're screwing up because we have almost nothing to ensure consistency except luck. In the Gianna Rolandi case he was caught *twice* but simply reverted and kept on trucking. See User:Gmaxwell/orbicle for a list of articles he started under the Orbicle account. --Gmaxwell 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing this, I have blocked Orbicle for an indefinite period. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Found another one ... Willard White contained a paragraph from [16], just a little too close for comfort. The typography shows it was copy-paste, not even typed-from (e.g. world’s rather than world's). The rest of the article seemed OK, so I trimmed just the one paragraph. There's a lot more to go. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move the further discussion on the clean-up efforts to a sub-page? Sancho 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the list at User:Gmaxwell/orbicle seems to be the best place to keep track of the progress of the clean-up.Sancho 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the indef block. In case this user returns on sockpuppets some recent precedents at WP:CN have implemented community bans for persistent image copyright violations. We could take the matter there if this doesn't settle down. Durova^Charge! 05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been working through clearing these out. Most of the film stubs are clean. The larger articles...well...some have been blatant copies of other works. Others are barely reworded from IMDB film synopsis of that particular film. As the wording is so close and obviously taken from that source, I have removed those instances when I found them. There are many more to go through but this isn't looking too good. IrishGuy ^talk 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...this copyright stuff is nuts. He lifted the plot synopsis for a film from a sparknotes website (the film was based on a book). He also lifted another film synopsis from a user review of the film at amazon.com written a year before. He simply cut and pasted from various sources for a lot of these articles. Some that I haven't found anything on (yet) I am still searching because they just feel wrong even though I haven't found a source. Crazy. IrishGuy ^talk 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually quite bad. I feel uncomfortable keeping any of Orbicle's contributions that include plot summaries; he may have lifted the wording off of the cases of the videos or some other source not in the internet. Sancho 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through them as well. I did eighteen, and didn't find any copyright violations, but I didn't do them in alphabetical order. I deliberately chose the short stubs, disambiguation pages, etc. In the disambiguation pages, it would have been almost impossible to plagiarise. "X can refer to a novel written in 1842 by Y or a film produced in 1974 by Z." With the stubs, I checked for Orbicle's last version, and googled some phrases. An up-to-date version might have had small edits from others (changing "many" to "several", for example) that would prevent it from showing in google, but it would still be a copyvio. In some cases, even though I hadn't found anything on Google, I reworded it slightly, and added more information, with a source. Will have another look tomorrow. ElinorD (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you all for your help here; it's hard and tedious work.

My feeling is that none of the plot synopses are safe to keep. That's where I started finding problems as well (of the same kind as mentioned above). I'm honestly mystified how some people can be so cavalier about plagiarism and copyright violation, but then again I remember catching it again and again when I did classroom teaching, even among scholarship students who had a huge amount to lose by getting caught. Disturbing. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Orbicle has requested unblocking, citing m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Jkelly 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with unblocking based on the linked discussion. Unblocking due an apology, acknowledgment of error, and a promise to act appropriately in the future would be a different matter. Sancho 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion also. DES ^(talk) 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know logicaly you would expect people to use m:Avoid copyright paranoia for things other thab trying to defend blantant copyvios from time to time.Geni 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regards from Opera Project where we have been discussing this case at some length, see Opera Project Talk. One of our group has also left a statement at User talk:Orbicle#To reviewing admins. - Kleinzach 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

I've lost my patience with Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs). The user is very rude, and acts very unilateral with his page moves without giving satisfactory explanations, or proposing the same on talk pages. He has been blocked numerous times [17], but strangely none of them for more than 1 week. The latest was a move from Indian Standard Time to Time in India [18] without discussion, and edits to justify his move, in the process making a hash of a featured article. I strongly recommend a longer block on this user for:

1. History of acting unilaterally, and not willing to work on consensus
2. History of incivility, still not changed

Please see his talk page for more details. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

please provide evidence for your unproven claims

1. History of acting unilaterally, and not willing to work on consensus
2. History of incivility, still not changed

please also read and respect WP:NPATobias Conradi (Talk) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He has a history going back probably a year or more of incivility, unilateral decisions, complete disregard of the concerns and opinions of others... I must have threatened arbitration against him three times, maybe it's about time we actually did it. The problem is, he IS a valid user - He has many thousands of good edits. In this regard - being a good editor, but being incredibly stubborn and disrespectful of others - he is very similar to Wik. Tobias seems to have a severe persecution complex; if you come to him with a concern about an edit, he takes it personally and begins insulting you. Just look at his 'list' on his userpage, and his short-lived jihad against the foundation when he came back from a break. --Golbez 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"complete disregard of the concerns and opinions of others?" You mean my long discussions with other users? "You must have threatened?" Isn't threatening forbidden by WP's owns policies? What is your bad talking about me leading to? "...he has a history of incivility going back a year " .... what DID happen NOW??"Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am against a longer block because he is a very productive user, but an arbcom case might be a right solution. Would he agree on some sort of mentoring? Alex Bakharev 08:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He calls people who question his unilateral moves stalkers,[19] and calls their concerns attacks. [20] There is a severe personality issue here, and it needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. Should we start collecting evidence? --Golbez 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I called his stalking stalking. not him questioning a move. He should respect WP:OWN. He is not the owner of Karo people, which I moved there from Karo (people), a naming scheme not seen elsewhere in Category:Ethnic groups in Indonesia and not listed by WP Ethnic groups. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Productive? By what measure? In my experience he is a disruptive editor who destroys the productivity of other editors and whole Wikipedia projects. We are the ones forced to clean up the trail of mess he creates. Mentoring was suggested after widespread outrage at his some of his actions last year, but nothing came out of it in the end - see User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Interesting. I think Arbcom should look at his disruptive history and take appropriate action. (MichaelJLowe 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

please make a list of _all_ my edits and mark the ones that you _think_ have been disruptive. Any percentage in your mind right now? Maybe also mark the ones you think are _not_ disruptive. Any percentage? Please be so polite to back your words with a nice list. And then maybe look at your own edits. Do you think you ever made a mistake? Who edits more maybe makes more mistakes? Are mistakes allways disruptive in your valuation scheme? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not a matter of individual edits, its your whole approach to editing and to other editors. You could have first approached the Wikiprojects and editors involved in bulk list of articles you are planning to move and discussed the issue first. Instead you went on your usual unannounced and unilateral crusade. You could have fixed all the broken links you have created by moving articles and creating DAB pages in their place. Instead you suggest someone else should do it. You could have been courteous when people complained. Instead you accused them of stalking you. Time for you to change or for you to leave. (MichaelJLowe 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

You're not alone Nichalp. In our project we have recently been troubled with Tobias' acts of moving ethnic groups name into disambiguation pages without explanation first and left hundreds of broken links. We have our discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Naming_conventions_for_ethnic_group_articles. If he has good knowledge about the subject, then it is okay for other members of the project that has been working hard to mantain the articles, but sometimes he assumes to have some knowledge about one ethnic group which does not exist. For instance, in the following AfD discussion of an article he created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bengkulu people, which has somewhat unreliable sources about the subject's notability. — Indon (reply) — 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

please provide evidence for

In our project we have recently been troubled with Tobias' acts of moving ethnic groups name into disambiguation pages without explanation first and left hundreds of broken links.

and cite the policy you think that was violated. Do page move rules ask that the move seeks permission from some kind of owners of a page? In the case of Karo people, who is the owner, WP Indonesia or WP Ethnic groups

please also respect WP:OWN. And please don't bother admins with stuff we are currently discussing, like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Naming_conventions_for_ethnic_group_articles - (yeah and at the same time people like Golbez make the false claim I have absolute disregard of other people opinions. I talk with the WP Indonesia people. Do you notice? But maybe they are not aware of WP:OWN, like MichaelJLowe wrote "our ethinic group articles" [21]. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't talk first. I noticed you have made moves of ethnic groups articles without first mentioning with others. It left a mess in the project. You can see it yourself from your contributions. And when you give notification with other WP Indonesia people before making bulk of moves? Oh, and everybody knows about WP:OWN, but it does not mean you can unilaterally act without communicating with other editors. It is what I call a disruptive edit. And for Michael statement about "our" is because we are mantaining articles within our project. That's what WP:PROJECT is all about. — Indon (reply) — 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can you explain how the move from Karo (people) to Karo people is disruptive? WP:PROJECT says what projects are for, but does not say other editors need permission to edit. BTW I was or still am WP Language member, an I am Project Wikipedia member - so what now? Do people ask me for every edit on Wikipedia? Do WP Indonesia ask at WP Language for every language edit? You could try to be more open to non- WP Indonesia editors. Respect WP:OWN - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Karo (people) to Karo people appear to be a sensible move. OTOH it appears that there was no urgency in this move. If the Karo (people) stayed for a couple of days no harm will be done. On the third hand reverting move require significant efforts in fixing double redirects, deleting redirects with the history, fixing links. Thus, it appear that announcing a proposed move on the talk page of an article and/or relevant projects, waiting for the feedback for say 24h and moving is a sensible thing to. Moving it without announcement is reckless and even stupid thing to do and if dome repeatedly may get you blocked Alex Bakharev 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indon, I repeat, because you did not answer

Indon, please provide evidence for your so far unproven claim

In our project we have recently been troubled with Tobias' acts of moving ethnic groups name into disambiguation pages without explanation first and left hundreds of broken links.

and cite the policy you think that was violated. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE, that's said. Below, you simply said "I do not own the wrong links." Yeah right, that's what I call disruptive edits. Nobody owns anything here, but we give constructive contributions, not making the wrong links. — Indon (reply) — 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also WP Indonesia members should respect WP:OWN. Thank you. And furthermore: I did not make the wrong links. I only made them visible, so that they can be fixed. A lot of AWB users go around and fix them. Me too I fix them. But nobody is obliged to fix them. This is a volontary project. Please respect that. And respect community. thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias has made dozens (or more?) of moves, disambigs, directs, in the last few days - not just of Indonesian articles. we have asked him to consult and explain before (even has a general explanation) but these requests are removed immediately (see his talk page history) and he continues on his way. The scale and number of moves is particularly concerning to us. His standard question "which article in particular?" suggests he sees no need to work with others, and if we do question a particular one, he handle this (in my opinion) firstly evasively and then automically defensively. See Talk:Madurese and we end up with inappropriate moves like at Madura. Unfortunately moves cannot be reverted by non-admins and I believe Tobias is taking advantage of this. When I mentioned that a similar situation had happened last year, Tobias removed it describing it as an 'attack' in the edit summary.

these requests are removed immediately - this is a lie. Your move belief you can forget. Non-admins can revert moves. You come with bulk accusations out of nowhere - that's why I asked which particular edits you where concerned with. You did not reply, but repeated your former statements and I deleted it. At the end it is my talk page, User:Naconkantari already told you [22] and I explained to you why I didn't want your statement [23] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, i think you misunderstood me. I was referring to requests to your talk page to be collaborative are removed. But while we are on it, I have never been able to re-revert a page move without a page move. Anyway, it seems that after all this here, you are making some efforts to at least inform others what you are doing. Thanks. Let's see how we all go from here. regards Merbabu 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu, I think we already were in a good atmosphere on Talk:Merbabu. I told you some of my plans as you requested. And then I was surprised that the good atmosphere went away so fast. We have to exercise more good atmosphere. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, re my post above, i was simply pointing out where it appears we may have misunderstood what the other was talking about - but this is probably getting lost in the thread now and we should move on. There was certainly no 'lie', but possibly lack of clarity.

I'm not sure I share your views about a good atmosphere on my talk page, but i don't think we will reach agreement anyway, thus i suggest not talk about it further. But, recent posts on the indonesia project board suggest we are both happy to discuss future moves on the wikiproject board with other editors in a constructive manner. kind regards Merbabu 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI - moves CAN be undone as long as you are moving it over a redirect to that article, and it has no other edits. That is to say, if [[Foo]] consists of "#REDIRECT [[Bar]]", and has had no other edits, anyone can move [[Bar]] to [[Foo]]. --Golbez 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a request to work together rather than as lone rangers is too much to ask (particularly if at the scale Tobias operates - others can't keep up). (PS, I may not be able to further reply for 12 hours or more - sorry). Merbabu 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I think Tobias references to WP:OWN are particularly ironic given his contribs and "concede nothing" defence style with the word 'attack' peppered in edit summaries, over the last few days. HOwever, there is no reason why his style can't be viewed as 'enthusiastic' and this focused into a more collaborative mode. Merbabu 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest activity: He has been removing the Category:Time by country (see edits [24] and [25]) from the relevant article pages, and placing it on "redirect pages" (see [26] and [27]). Since a "normal" reader of wikipedia never sees these redirect pages, clearly the category serves no purpose there, while removing the category from the article page is a loss. Can someone please look into the conduct of this prolific editor ? I would have left another message on his talk page but he seems to be blithely ignoring the ones already there. Abecedare 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the cat is about time by country in general, it is not about specific time zones. At least the cat was set up like that until some other people without understanding changed it. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the time zones there is Category:Time zones, get it? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, (a) if a time zone applies to a particular country and covers the whole country, as in the case of South Africa Standard Time and Singapore Standard Time, the articles should also be included in the Category:Time by country; (b) placing the category on a redirect page serves no useful purpose since as I said above, a reader never sees it (I could see the justification if we were discussing a book-keeping category, such as the ones in Category:Redirects).

Time in India (as long as not redirected by some ignoring editors) covers more than only Indian Standard Time - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

However the larger point is that your history of uncooperative edits and making unjustified page moves, including those of featured articles (e.g. Indian Standard Time), without any attempt at discussion (let alone building a consensus) creates unnecessary work for other editors who need to clean up after you. Of course, it is perfectly understandable that everyone makes good-faith editing errors once in a while, but I personally would be more inclined to overlook your mistakes if you at least admitted them, expressed regret and changed your editing style so that it involves less confrontational and unilateral conduct. Abecedare 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

where is this history of uncooperative edits? Do you call every edit I do without asking you, Nichalp and the WP Indonesia members uncooperativ? What is wrong with Karo (people) -> Karo people, what is wrong with applying common practice to the WP Indonesia "owned" Madurese article. Also WP Indonesia people should respect WP policies and guidelines. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. But it would be nice if, in recognition of the fact that you work with a community that doesn't always know your intentions and/or rationale, these explanations were to appear in an edit summary, rather than an unsummarised minor-marked edit. Hesperian 02:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I should have done that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And I did it again: I unilaterally moved Sampang to Sampang Regency, turning the former into a dab for the regency and the Sampang language. The language article I just created by myself, without consulting any Wikiproject. IMO the WP Indonesia people should cool down a little and don't think they are the owners or gatekeepers for changes on all Indonesia related articles. Oh yes, I created a bunch of language articles the last days, and I think this was good. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's always everyone else at fault isn't it Tobias? Its really strange that its you who is reported to admins time after time. Its really strange that you are the one blocked time after time. When can you start working cooperatively and showing respect for others? We don't own the articles, but neither do you. Since you are making all these DAB pages in place of articles, why don't you fix up all the broken links for this (Special:Whatlinkshere/Sampang) and the hundreds of other pages you have moved? (MichaelJLowe 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

It's not allways everyone else fault. I know that I make errors. And I was unilateral again, fixing wrong link at a WP Indonesia owned/not owned page [28] - and I think this improved WP. Madura the island != Madurese people. Do you understand this? Furthermore everybody can fix links, I do not own the wrong links. Last but not least instead of being xenophobe to non WP Indonesia editors, you could be happy that outsiders help you to fix wrong links from Indonesia related articles and to fix ambigous article names. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not think you don't have any responsibility to fix the mess of broken links you create when you move hundreds of pages? You are just shifting the work to other people, the same people you refuse to consult with about any of your changes. Its like a child taking his toys out of the cupboard and refusing to put them back and clean up when they are done. (MichaelJLowe 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Respect WP:AGF. This policy is also for WP Indonesia members. Thank you. And again WP:OWN: I do not own the wrong links. Not from the language project nor from WP Indonesia. And yes, I fix links, but some WP Indonesia people reinsert errors just in a run to revert me. They should be more carefull and respecting. Thank you for attributing hundreds of page moves to me - would be happy if true. And yes, maybe in this hundreds some were wrong. I am sorry for these. But then, this improved WP nonetheless. WP Indonesia will see much much more moves, because the regency articles were not set up carefully. BTW I was founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Country subdivisions - and I think every non-member has the same rights to edit subdivision articles as I do. Full respect of WP:OWN. - The Sampang links are all fixed now. What did you today? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What did you today?: tried to get an editor who is being uncooperative and disruptive to work with our project. If you announced your intentions instead of acting as a loner you wouldn't be raising the ire of people and we may even help you in your goals. (MichaelJLowe 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Statistics and proposal: Going through the users edit history I counted over 2000 articles (and talk pages) that he has moved since August 2005, including over a hundred so far in April 2007. Not once in making those >100 page moves in April, did he propose the move on the article talk pages or invite any second opinion before taking the unilateral, and in some cases ill-advised, action. On the other hand, I can see that Tobias Conradi is a prolific editor who perhaps makes many good edits on wikipedia and would hate to see him blocked or banned for his editing style. So I suggest he be put under probation, so that he is allowed to move a page only after he has proposed it on the article's talk page and given interested editors at least 48h to chime in. Is this remedy possible, or are the only options available to us to, (1) allow current behavior to continue unreined or (2) block the user for a substantial period (since previous short blocks for disruptions have not worked) ? Abecedare 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems Tobias Conradi did a lot of good work if he moved so many pages. Probably he is very experienced in doing so. Did you analyse on what subjects he made the moves in general? Out of 2000 moves how many are now in a moved-back status? How many are there, where he moved them to? Maybe the overall effect of his work is positive and it would cause more harm if for every little move he has to ask on the talk pages. Maybe talk pages nobody ever looks at? Of course if concerns are raised he should talk. But this is something he allways(?) did and currently is doing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Regencies It is still not obvious what harm was done by movig Karo (people) to Karo people, since the former really was the only one with brackets in its category. No links were broken!!! At the end: The blocks mentioned by Abecedare are mostly related to him making public the abuses of admin rights. They were not related to page moves. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. I would also suggest that a condition of his probation be that he help fix the links he breaks as part of moving pages and putting DABs in their place, say at least 50 links per move. (MichaelJLowe 05:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Just to point out that someone once complained that Tobias wasn't cleaning up the broken/double redirects, etc. caused by his moves; he stated, simply, that it was not his job to clean up his own mess, and the person complaining should do it. I'm sure I could find a diff if you really want one. --Golbez 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MichaelJLowe, I understand your frustration, but since everyone on wikipedia is a volunteer, I don't think anyone (including Tobias) can/should be compelled to put in labor that they'd rather not. The aim of the probation should not be punitive IMO , but rather directed towards preventing further harm to wikipedia and hopefully, in the process, guiding Tobias Conradi towards a more constructive editing process. But then again ... editors like you and me can only propose, it is upto the admins to enforce :-) Abecedare 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should approach the Arbitration Committee to resolve this dispute as I think an ArbCom enforced probation/page move ban would be better than a community ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AFI 100 Years... series and copyright

In short, do verbatim copies of the AFI "100 Top X" lists, such as those recently found at AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies and AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions constitute copyright infringement? I'm currently of the opinion the lists are copyrighted, and that reposting them may infringe that copyright. Of the users I've briefly discussed this with, one doesn't seem to feel this is a big deal, and the other seems convinced this isn't any risk of a copyvio at all -- so, with that in mind, I'm submitting this here for a reality check. Are copied lists like this a risk of copyvio? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyrights, "All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed". I believe reposting the list does infringe on the copyright. The article is about the list, and doesn't need to be a mirror of the list. Sancho 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• In my understanding yes they are a copyright issue. I believe the standard is along the lines of factual lists wouldn't be, but those which have a creative or subjective element can be copyrighted. see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service - "copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc" in the case of critic selected lists clearly there has been a "creative choice of what data to include or exclude" --pgk 08:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • @Luna... As talked in your page too, I've found the original press release regarding the lists, and by default press releases are in public domain and there is no talk about copyright in the press release. Still, I would like to hear a legal opinion from a Wikipedia lawyer regarding the copyright status of ranking lists. So, if the Academy gives a list of Oscars, do we have the rights to say that this movie got these list of awards? And if that is allowed, what is the problem with this list? And regarding copyvio, I dont think you can do much with the lists anyway. But, it is helpful in crossreferencing information.

    http://www.afi.com/Docs/about/press/2006/100inspiring.pdf Balajiviswanathan 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

    • All documents are copyright unless explicitly released. That document does not waive copyright. I am not aware of any law that says press releases are not copyright, the pictures of celebrities included in their press packs unquestionably are copyright. This list, like all the many similar lists, is to a high degree of probability the copyright of the compiler. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Really? So we are free to use the exact text of press releases without giving credit to the source? Sancho 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No. First, Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor an advertising service. Second, press release text almost invariably does not conform to the Neutral point of view. Uncle G 11:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would dispute that by default all press releases are public domain. By default material is copyrighted, unless there is an explicit release they are still copyrighted. Normally with press releases there is an implicit permission (license if you like) that the material can be used for publicity purposes, that is very different from being public domain.--pgk 08:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If we start removing every such press release then there wont be any list that anybody can use. So, if a newspaper has to write about Nobel Laurates of say USA, do they obtain permission from the Nobel committee to say that these are Nobel Laurates? Same thing with Academy awards or any such public awards. No body needs to take permission to list the awards won by a movie or a person, or any such creative use of the list. I guess copyrights here dont apply as it is a collective poll result of a group of volunteers whose results are intended to be released to the public. Balajiviswanathan 09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Factual information is not copyrighted, if an individual has an award and that is announced in a press release, the fact is not copyrighted (i.e. they got the award). Verbatim copying of the press release is a matter of copyright. Similarly taking a number of such facts from multiple sources and compiling them into a list of awards X has, would not involve copying of the source, it is a collection of facts. Press releases are not public domain. --pgk 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • At the bottom of the list of 2006 press releases from the AFI you will find the text "©2006 American Film Institute. All rights reserved.". Uncle G 11:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) So just to clarify with another concrete example: a list of cities in Manitoba wouldn't be covered under copyright because there is no creative aspect to the list and anyone creating such a list would come up with the same list independently? Sancho 08:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe. Any additional comments etc. added to the list would still be copyright, as could the ordering unless it too is non-creative such as alphabetical etc. Any subjective ordering like in order of my favourite is quite possibly still copyrighted. --pgk 09:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• The AFI lists are based solely on polling a large group of outside experts (note: I haven't checked all of them, but the ones I did look at indicated they were based on polling). Per quirky US rules, poll results are uncopyrightable in the US. Hence the lists are not a copyright infringment. Dragons flight 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm... there seems to be related discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4 -- admittedly, I have a COI, but I seem to read consensus there as suggesting such lists are (or may be) copyvio. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • LoL, if you check the history, I was responsible for creating the discussion you just linked. There is an important, but fairly, technical distinction. A "best of" list can be generated either "mechanically" or "creatively". A mechanical process is something like looking up sales figures, polling outside opinion, or any other method that seeks to establish order based on an objective, external measurement. The assumption is that any other person applying an identical methodology (e.g. polling the same people) would necessarily reach the same result. Hence, by the standard of copyright law, the process is not embued with any creativity. Since it is not a creative process, no copyright attaches. (Note: Copyright law in the US gives no credit for the design of a "creative" mechanical method. In other words, no matter how inventive or unique your process of measurement, the only question considered is whether someone exactly replicating your approach would be expected to get the same result.) By contrast, a "creative" list is one arrived at through the subjective judgment of its authors, without direct reliance on objective standards. Such lists of an author's opinions are subject to copyright. Dragons flight 09:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• And Wikipedia's Fair Use policy clearly allows Press releases, as these are intended for wider public use. If we are all on the same page, regarding this, the we can find the press release for all these lists from AFI and the issue is settled, then and there. FYI, I've attached one of the press releases from AFI in the paragraph above. And the whole intention of these lists is to reach wider public and not to be restricted to a particular medium. Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ Balajiviswanathan 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really that page ends up creating more questions: Under the section "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?" it clearly states "Under very narrow circumstances, copyrighted images can be used without permission under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law (see Wikipedia:Fair use and below). If in doubt, assume you cannot use it." - i.e. is suggesting fair use is applicable for images. I don't believe that is the case, but given our goal is to produce a free encyclopedia there is a broader question of if articles which are primarily or contain a large amount of fair use material are desirable. Similarly the question of the encyclopedic nature of including the list is open to question. --pgk 09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• There has been a recent mailing list debate about this over 'The Cool Wall' which appears on BBC TV's Top Gear. However, this list is different because the AFI deliberately put it out to get publicity (and get more people going to the movies). I think so long as the attribution is given (and it is in the title of the page, so it could not be more prominent), there's no case for a copyright infringement here. Sam Blacketer 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But WP:FU also states, "The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original, but rather, must be scholarly or critical." and "The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely that use is fair..." -- in both cases, copying the complete list verbatim doesn't appear to be covered. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If the article discusses why certain films found their way to a place on the list, and looks at themes within it, then that would be a scholarly and critical way of looking at it. From what I remember of having glanced at the AFI list articles, the articles do just that. Sam Blacketer 09:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Tricky, though, 'cause the "scholarly discussion" I see at AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (for example) appears lifted almost verbatim from something like the press release linked above by Balajiviswanathan. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If the articles were verifiable and free from original research in such a discussion, then there would be secondary sources, other than the list itself, from which the facts about the list would be sourced, and no problem to solve. Uncle G 11:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The copyright policy says this about fair use "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine." My reading of this together with the other material in the policy would suggest that only quotes are appropriate for fair use text, not large quantities of material. --pgk 09:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What is the legal position on other lists like these: List of Nobel laureates? And regarding the previous comment on scholarly aspect of the list, we just included the list (that was from the poll) and not the probably copyrighted opinions on why they were selected. Regarding FUP, the FAQ page states in the fourth criterion - "Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)?" Balajiviswanathan 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hm... I believe it's safe to say that the fair use FAQ is superceded by the fair use policy, which states in WP:FUC that all listed criteria must be met. The FU-FAQ appears to contain a similar provision, shortly after the segment you're quoting. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • To answer your other question, List of Nobel laureates would seem to be a different scenario, compiling a listing of people who have received awards over a span of nearly half a century, rather than copying verbatim a list composed by outside sources. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, although I am not a lawyer and my statements do not constitute legal advice or opinions, I did study writing in graduate school where a course on relevant law was required. A standard example of what copyright law does and doesn't cover is the distinction between recipes and lists of ingredients. My own particular recipe for French toast uses the following: eggs, milk, a slightly stale baguette, butter, maple syrup, nutmeg, and cognac. I can't copyright that list of ingredients even though a couple of the items are unusual. What I could do is copyright the recipe: that is, the instructions for how I actually prepare this dish. So by this logic a mere list of film titles wouldn't be copyrightable. What AFI's copyright covers is their reasons for listing 100 films in some particular order. Double check this with Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems or the Foundation as necessary. Durova^Charge! 14:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Applying the "recipe rule" to this case, then it would almost seem that if we just listed the 100 films in alphabetical order, then we aren't including the creative listing that AFI contributed, and this would be okay. However, we'd still be including the creative distinction that AFI gave to the 100 films that are listed as compared to the (X - 100) films that aren't. I don't know if that's a problem. Sancho 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This particular question is nuanced enough that it would be a good idea to get an opinion from a lawyer who specializes in copyrights. I wouldn't be surprised if some relevant case law were applicable. Yet if my understanding is correct, a list of the film titles themselves would not infringe upon AFI's copyright. Durova^Charge! 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a lawyer but as the recipe rule also plays into a lot of genealogical research topics (my other hobby) I feel fairly confident in saying that all such lists that are derived from opinion (whether by survey, or consulation by experts) contain enough creative input to make them copyrightable. A list of the top grossing films of 2006 would be fact-based, derived from some standard industry reference, and would fall under the recipe rule. Roger Ebert's top ten films of 2006 is a copyrightable list. Likewise, any list of "most significant films", historical films, films most in need of preservation, etc., contain substantial creative input in deciding what is important and why, and therefore is copyrightable. Thatcher131 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter how creative it may be to use nutmeg and cognac in French toast, I can't copyright that list of ingredients. Really I think we're over our heads and should defer to the lawyers when the discussion gets this nuanced. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sancho 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"The lawyers" won't necessarily be able to help either. This is a complicated gray area where opinions differ and there are lots of variables rather than clear answers, as there is a continuum from "lists of pure facts, no creativity involved" to "lists of subjective opinions" rather than a sharp dividing line. (FWIW, I'm a lawyer, but not an intellectual property lawyer.) Newyorkbrad 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Brad. The site usually plays it safe regarding gray areas? Durova^Charge! 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want an IP lawyer, you could ask BD2412... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did someone say my name? Ok, here's the deal. This is probably a copyright violation, and probably not a fair use. There is certainly enough creativity inherent in putting together a subjective list of the best movies of all times, and even in putting together a poll of experts to make such a determination. I'd like to know how AFI picked their experts to poll, that might make a difference but not likely so. Furthermore, reciting the entire list would not be a fair use, as the list can be discussed and described for encyclopedic purposes without actually listing the contents. However, you can certainly mention any controversial placements, and you can mention placement on any such list in the individual film articles, and can categorize them accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey - give us the damn recipe now that you've teased us with the ingredients! :) --ElKevbo 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me. I may want to publish it someday and I don't feel like releasing it under GDFL. ;) Durova^Charge! 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the mail from them. I could forward it to Wikipedia if you want. To confirm, the lists are in public domain and we could use it.

---

Dear Balaji Viswanathan,

Thank you for contacting AFI. The lists are public domain. You can use them as long as you credit us with the correct title of the list , however you are NOT allowed to use the AFI LOGO. You can say "AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills" but can't print the actual logo. If you do want to print the logo we need to license it. Thank you for your interest in AFI.

AFI does offer many exclusive benefits through membership, such as unlimited access to the online AFI Catalog of Feature Films, invitations to AFI events and special screenings, film-related magazine subscriptions.

Please visit AFI.com to learn more about the valuable and exciting benefits of membership with AFI!

Thank you for your interest in AFI.

Best Regards,

AFI Web Team

---

Balajiviswanathan 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please forward (not cut and paste) this email to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. Thanks. Jkelly 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Grace Note (talk · contribs) disruption, sanity check

I've spoken with Grace Note (talk · contribs) about his/her behavior on the talk page for Danny's RfA. It started with the innocuous, and then today started heading towards progressively less civil discourse. I asked him/her to knock it off and find a more polite way of expressing discontent at the users talk page, but they've maintained a pretty combative tone. I'd like to avoid making a controversial disruption block, so I'd like a sanity check here. The full conversation on the user's talk page is available in this edit followed by this, the two edits where he/she deleted the entire conversation, including a warning. I'd appreciate an external review, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would consider this user fully warned about this issue and would have little hesitation to act on future behavior of this nature. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What he said, with the qualification that I feel involved, having been part of the dicussions involving that users. I wouldn't be the one performing the block but I would most certainly aprove of it if (s)he continues in this manner. Viridae^Talk

I've had similar concerns about Grace Note's involvement in the volatile Asucena situation. Grace's response to me was rather aggressive. I didn't consider (her?) behavior blockable at that time, but this editor ought to be made fully aware that by now WP:POINT blocks are a serious possibility. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been quite a few other inflammatory statements closely above Grace Note's. This doesn't excuse his/her comments, but it does put them in context. [29] [30]. Hopefully the warning won't need to turn into a block, anyway. CMummert · talk 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Steady on, now. "One moron one vote" may be inflammatory, but it would be hard to describe "there was not one serious challenge to Danny's trustworthiness" as inflamatory or uncivil, unless we're going to start taking offence at the expression of views contrary to our own. --Tony Sidaway 08:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this on Chairboy's talk page all night, and she has been walking that thin line between civility and total incivility. In my opinion, I think a cool off might help. Just a non-admin opinion for those open to them. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks never cool people off. Frise 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grace Note (aka Dr Zen) has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about administrators. That said he usually goes right up to the edge and no further. --Tony Sidaway 08:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to consider myself a voice for civil and reasonable discourse and for the avoidance of strident rhetoric, conspiracy- mongering, and personal attacks anywhere within Wikipedia. I have been gravely disappointed by the tone of several comments within the past couple of days. Those concerned should tone it down immediately. Nonetheless, I think it clear from prior incidents that blocking an editor for expressing his or her views about a controversial Wiki decision, even in regrettable language that we would very much wish hadn't been used, rarely if ever helps to defuse a situation, and I would prefer to see such a block avoided unless we reach a true emergency situation. Newyorkbrad 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Frise, blocks do cool people off, not in the first hour, but a few hours in. Regardless, this person does not need cooling off, I don't think he/she is mad but having fun. I personally think that people who intentionally dance on the line of a policy such as civility are gaming the system. The very fact that they stay so close to the line demonstrates an understanding of policy, and an unwillingness to follow its spirit. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But would you not agree that claiming he is "having fun" and "intentionally danc[ing] on the line of a policy" is rather speculative? El_C 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance? Well please keep in mind that sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice and is just as damaging. While I think the more likely reason that the insults are so close to the line is that the plan is to do that, the possibility that this incivility is dances on the line by coincidence brings me little comfort and does nothing to reduce the disruption. The fact that the user has been told about civility and has ignored it lends me to believe that ignorance is not the issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've known Grace Note since about my first month on the project, in late 2004. He has genuine, firmly established and well argued views on Wikipedia, the expression of which is welcome and important to the development of the project. He aims his barbed comments at those who are in authority, or whom he perceives to be in authority. As far as I'm aware, although at times he's been stubborn enough to get himself told off by the arbitration committee, he's not a bad editor. Blocking him would not help, unless he became a lot nastier. We can live with him. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said (Tony). El_C 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, guys! I'd appreciate it if y'all could help me keep an eye on this user going forward for the next few days in case the situation changes, I believe (she?) has been injecting quite a bit of poison into a contentious discussion and making attacks against others, but I'm willing to step back and let someone else make the call if that's the consensus. If there's visibility into the problem, then we're covered. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've clashed with GraceNote in the past, in particularly on the Jimmy Swaggart page. Though I'm in deep disagreement with his/her position on that I woulkd say that User:Grace_Note strikes me as a good faith editor with a deep concern for the quality of articles. I would ask that to be taken into consideration. Artw 17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Grace_Note (talk · contribs) or Gracenotes (talk · contribs)? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The former. (Fixed link.)Artw 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Though it is possible I've confused the two in the past. Artw 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grace Note is, without doubt, well meaning. Often very helpful. Usually a fine asset to Wikipedia. Even when wrong, displays fine moral qualities like speak truth to power. WAS 4.250 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any of Grace Note's comments are inflammatory. But then of course, mine have been labeled that as well, apparently. Only supporters of Danny are allowed to comment on the Talk page? Corvus cornix 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just pondering, in light of the fabulous success rate cool-down blocks have, might a cool-down page protection work? I'm thinking short term, 4-8 hrs or so, and with notice at the top explaining the short limit. It'd have the effect of "freezing" the contentious discussion without signaling anyone out with a block. Mind you, I'm unfamiliar with admin tools, and if admins could possibly edit a protected page without noticing the protection, it'd defeat the purpose (as many admins are active on that page, and all). Also, you might all read this and think, "that's a stupid idea," which I'm quite comfortable with. In such case, I'll go quietly about my business. --InkSplotch 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool down page protection does work, since we can set expiratory times now. However, as you pointed out, admins can still edit the protected page but there is a big red "Warning:" notice. The protection policy is (IMO) vague in where the line is regarding an admin editing a protected page. If the protection reason is for edit warring and there is nothing in the edit regarding the conflict, I say sure go ahead and edit the page. In the case of Danny's RfA in this instance, where the b'crats have protected the page until decisions are made, that is an obvious no no. I don't think that's the case here. But it does happen that as with anything you get used to, the bit may be used "inappropriately" on accident. Hell, Emeril Lagasse was deleted by sheer accident, as mentioned above. I've seen admins accidently block themselves.

In other words, people should pay attention to their status and what they are doing. Most do all the time. But sometimes someone gets exited and doesn't pay attetnion, doesn't care for a moment, whatever the reason. We should all keep a sharper eye out. Teke 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief report

I've stated above that Grace Note left a distinctly negative impression in my limited interaction. Here's why:

On 21 March 2007 she joined a ANI thread about Asucena as the most aggressive and provocative participant. Asucena's user page claims that this editor is an official of the Palestinian Authority and a volunteer for Hamas. After a series of highly POV edits a community discussion opened. Grace Note's first contribution was as follows:

I wonder whether you guys would be so keen on blocking her if she stated she was a member of Likud. WP:COI is about the stupidest policy we have, and trying to apply it here is ridiculous, given that your effort is so clearly politically motivated.[31]

At this point I stepped in, offering evidence of my neutrality and asking for a good dose of WP:AGF as I explained the block I had imposed.[32] Avi followed up with a mild request for AGF.[33] Grace Note's response was:

"Assume good faith" does not mean "bend over", Avi. The diff mostly seems to be a long lecture on your part. It's a bit like the thief giving the court his version of the law on robbery so far as I'm concerned, I'm afraid. As I noted, so long as this user edits within the bounds of policy, there is no problem; if she does not, there are the usual remedies. You could though try negotiation instead of antagonism. Anyway, Avi, my money is on this being a clever piece of trolling. The intention is to get your faction to do something intemperate, allowing those who believe that Wikipedia is biased towards a particular point of view more fuel for their fire.[34]

I followed this with:

Grace Note, please refrain from the implication that the editor's political beliefs have any bearing whatsoever on my handling of this matter. The fact that this editor claims to be a representative of a well known organization did have some bearing. I would, however, have handled this the same in response to equivalent actions from someone who said they represented General Motors or the World Bank.[35]

Yet even after two explicit avowals and evidence that demonstrated my neutrality (evidence which no comment of hers suggested she had read), she slurred my character and integrity. I offered no further reply.

I think you are as aware as I am that if the user in question was posing as a member of Likud, you would not have blocked them, fearing a wheel war.[36]

In another section of the thread on 23 March 2007 she supposed that Asucena was an anti-Palestinian troll.

What better way to troll the pro-Likudist faction here than to pose as a representative of Hamas and make contentious edits? Grace Note[37]

Shortly before that supposition she had posted twice to Asucena's talk page to undercut and impugn the motives for two legitimate block warnings.[38][39]

One would think that an experienced editor would abide by DFTT after concluding that someone is a troll, yet Grace Note returned to Asucena's talk page three more times with bizarre and sometimes vulgar posts.[40][41][42]

After two of Grace Note's three followup messages had been posted, a second ANI thread opened on 28 March. I posted the following concern:

Also, Grace Note's persistent and aggressive refusal to WP:AGF has been fanning the flames. I've already asked that editor to tone things down with no success. More eyes and more opinions would be helpful here.[43]

Under the circumstances I consider that summary an understatement, yet she came to my user talk page the next day to demand a retraction, calling my statement both personal attack and defamation.[44]

Experienced editor or no, I believe Grace Note's conduct during that episode had escalated to the point where I was rather lenient by not issuing any formal warning for WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, or WP:CIVIL. Instead I merely stated my reasons for not retracting my opinion.[45] Durova^Charge! 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Grace Note (formerly Dr Zen (talk · contribs)) was probably right on the money in his diagnosis of the Asucena affair, but it doesn't excuse his conduct in that affair. His use of inflammatory language and very tendentious comparisons ("like the thief giving the court his version of the law on robbery", for instance) did not help things. We should keep an eye on him. History has shown that only the arbitration committee has the power to control him (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dr_Zen), and if his problematic behavior is longstanding and unrepentant then it's to arbitration that he should be taken. --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Grace Note was very much off the money in assertions about my conduct and motivations. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly to Durova for the perceived slight. I am sorry that it rankled sufficiently for her to waste so much of her time here. Next time, feel free to email me and I'll be glad to discuss this kind of problem with you. I don't feel any remorse at all about my comments about other editors in that area. Frankly, they would do better to leave cases like this to neutral editors, particularly if they are simply unable to be trolled by someone so hilariously transparent. Feel free to take me to arbitration though, Tony. I'm sure that they won't censure me for standing up to bullying from Chairboy because I offered an opinion he didn't like. They might note that Chairboy wrote snotty notes to several editors, which could not be seen as adding anything to the discussion. This kind of bullying, particularly when backed by threats of punitive blocking, are surely far more of a detraction from a civil, collegiate atmosphere here than a bit of harmless goading of the powerful. And I'm never going to allow thoroughly uncivil behaviour like Chairboy's to pass. Someone has to stand up to bullies here, otherwise the already toxic environment will only slide downhill. If I'm hanged for misplaced enthusiasm for the project, particularly for NPOV (the only thing I've ever been censured by the arbcom for, Tony, was a spirited defence of NPOV, as I saw it, which I still maintain was absolutely correct on the face of the policy).Grace Note 10:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of 'bullying', diffs would be great. Your claim that I threatened punitive blocking is just plain silly. You would better serve the project by taking the feedback above and considering how your actions have led multiple editors to characterize you as 'aggressive'. The poisonous atmosphere you've been attempting to create is unhealthy, disruptive, and does not reflect well upon you. Baseless accusations don't help either, so please reconsider the path you're on. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 10:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedies again...

Now at 766 entries. Please help to unblock the toilet. The category tracker currently fails to display meaningful information so we can forget about that. MER-C 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That backlog sucks. I'm working on it, but I'm very inexperienced in CSD so I'm not handling anything but the most clear-cut cases. Some additional help would be nice, though. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But now I must go to bed. At least now the first 200 entries go through "R," whereas when I started they only ran through "L." RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not meant to be a silly question - is there anyway a non-admin can help? For example by looking at some of the list and letting you/another admin know whether they appear to meet the criteria?--VS ^talk 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could go through and warn the article creators, things like that. So many people forget to do that when marking pages for deletion using scripts. – Riana ^ऋ 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you happen to know the CSD rules well, I could imagine something like this: Most admins, when starting to work on the CSD backlog, start with the "A" articles or the "Z" articles. If you could go through say, the "N" articles and and check the reasoning behind their speedy taggings, you could report, either here tor to the talk page of the admin working the backlog and say "All 'N' articles have correct tags," which would significantly speed up the process, especially if the admins working the backlog are not terribly experienced with CSD (like me). RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. – Riana ^ऋ 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently an IP had been tagging heaps of articles with A7 that were really obviously notable and not speediable. I think a helpful non-admin who knows and understands the CSD criteria could browse the category and remove the tags from any articles that are clearly not speediable. I don't know how others would feel about that, but personally, I would have found that incredibly helpful the other day. Sarah 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the images with no source acklog is now gone. That added a few hundred to my deletion log! Viridae^Talk 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Okay - no problems - I'll devote a couple of hours from 6.30pm tonight (3 hours from now for this part of the world) on an area in the middle and report to RyanGerbil10 this evening (whilst you sleep - smile).--VS ^talk 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Found some time - hope this helps per suggestions above (these are all the current M's) and I decided to paste here because these lists change so damn quickly:

1. Matt Devoto Tag is correct – one line (nonsense) non-notable. Suggest Delete
2. Matt McHugh Tag is correct – NN student bio. Suggest Delete
3. Max Falkowitz May need another persons view – Tag may be incorrect but there are problems with apparent/possible slander at the section titled Paternity Rumours – no referencing.
4. Maxwell Neubauer Tag is correct – NN student bio. Suggest Delete
5. Megan hayes Tag is correct – NN personal bio – probably a sandbox entry. Suggest Delete
6. Meoqui Tag is correct – Nonsense page – one line – maybe a sandbox entry. Suggest Delete
7. Metro tennis academy – Tag is correct – maybe a sandbox attempt but at this stage is just a spam link to the academy. Suggest Delete
8. Michael obille One paragraph is not well written. Contested Tag. May not require speedy at this stage.
9. Mick Karch As above - One paragraph is not well written. Contested Tag. May not require speedy at this stage.
10. Micro-philanthropy As for above two – three paragraphs not well written. Contested Tag. I think it could end up being a worthwhile article.
11. Miguel de contreras Again contested – it might also become a worthwhile article by the feel of it
12. Military of Saint Pierre and Miquelon Has a contested tag attached also. Is currently almost nothing in terms of content – title seems to give the feel of more coming and also the way that it is linked to templates.

    Leaving for now, we'll see if they come up with anything. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

13. Miss francine day school Nonsense entry of one line – Tag is correct. Suggest Delete
14. Mohammed Ali Khan, Pir-o-Murshid Reads just like a db:bio or vanity page. Tag is correct. Suggest Delete
15. Moho Despite a contested tag on this page the items seem to breach WP:NPA Tag is correct. Suggest Delete

    Just vandalism, which has since been reverted. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

16. Moshav Matityahu There are problems with a spam link and writing style but does not appear to deserve speedy delete. Also has a contested tag. Actually is a copyvio - on that basis probably should be deleted.

    The author claims he owns the rights to the text on the article talk page, so db-copyvio is no longer applicable. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

    I deleted the page but left the talk page where the author was instruction to email OTRS. Better safe than sorry in copyright violations, the law says. Teke 05:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

17. MulvannyG2 architecture Poorly written. Original author has removed Speed Tag and placed contested Tag. I think this article is redeemable.Tag since removed, message left on talk page.
18. Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project Tag is correct – article is a copyright infringement on web page as detailed. Suggest Delete
19. Museum Dr. Is an article about a single street in North Carolina – no assertion of notability. Tag is correct. Suggest Delete
20. Mustard's Restaurants Spam article to a restaurant. Tag is correct. Suggest Delete

--VS ^talk 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't do much CSD stuff, but since you made it easy, I went through and deleted the uncontested/easy ones. Sorry for not doing them all. Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So, to clarify non-admins can go through the backlog and create a list here that indicates whether a tag is correct, or dubious and requires further examination? What about tags that are just wrong, we just remove them yes, with a rationale in the edit summary? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I say yes. As I just said above to Steve, I think it would be very helpful and cut down the backlog if a helpful, knowledgeable non-admin removed tags from articles that are very clearly not speediable. Sarah 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tentitively yes, but leave anything you are in doubt about, and I'm hoping you have a good knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria, they are very narrow. Viridae^Talk 11:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we all have to learn some time. I was planning on leaving ones I was unsure about and seeing what happens to them. Not sure how much time I can devote to this, but the backlogs could definitely do with some help, and if I can offer it, I will. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's much appreciated, whatever help you can give. Viridae^Talk 11:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, Viridae and others. I have decided that for me the better way to help is as Sarah suggests and so my intention is to go to the backlog and just check and remove tags that clearly should not be Speedy Delete (or to leave the appropriate message of pending speedy delete on the authors page - which doesn't occur about 50% of the time). I am then leaving a message on the talk page of the article and also at the Speedy nominators page to prompt some better use of these tags. From my analysis that is going to cut as much as 20% out of the backlog without the need for actual admin tools. (see for example Talk:Rafael García just completed.--VS ^talk 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For all non-admins: please check the backlogs and feel free to delete anything that is obviously wrong. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, leaving messages on the user talk page of the creator in instances such as personal attacks and copyright violations makes our job infinitely easier. Harryboyles 10:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, as does removing clearly-invalid speedy tags. (You are allowed to do that so long as you didn't create the article.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Review all old-style "community bans"

Here's a thread worthy of attention in light of WP:RFAR#Statement_by_Daniel_Brandt.

I was indefinitely blocked by user Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 for alleged legal threats. I feel that this blocking was unjustified. It was never fully explained, and over the last year some have interpreted this unjustified block as a "community ban." For example, this indefinite block by Gamaliel is defined as "Banned by the Wikipedia community" on Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users.

I am confused by the difference between an indefinite block and a community ban, except that the latter phrase seems defamatory if it is untrue. This difference needs to be clarified in my case. On the page cited above, as well as on the template on my user page, it says that I am "banned." In the block log itself, it says that I am blocked indefinitely. What is my status? Does anyone know?

The WP:CN discussion discusses ways to resolve the potential liability when an editor describes de facto old style community bans as bans rather than as indef blocks. A couple of proposals have been floated that would need community approval. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To the good people who replied at that thread, please have another look. Some kind of really strange interpersonal dynamic blew it monumentally off topic while I was offline. The current proposal as it stands is to holds one discussion where the community mass converts a bunch of old indef block/de facto bans into formal community bans. That means bans under the old process more than half a year ago. The reasons for doing so are to protect Wikipedians from potential libel suits over the semantic distinction between a block and a ban and to prevent troublesome matters such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom. Durova^Charge! 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Libel suit over blocks? Er, what? >Radiant< 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd AfD

This closed AfD has appeared in today's list. From the dates, it appears to have been closed as a delete last September, but the article still exists (it was recreated on 7 April) and an anonymous IP has tried to AfD it today but has brought the old (closed) AfD into play. I'm guessing that the article can probably be deleted under G4 but the AfD needs fixing and I'll probably only screw it up :) EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this has something to do with User:AlexWilkes, who seems to ignore his talk page. He appears to be a former pupil of Dormston School and a glance at what he's done with the school's article is an indication of some POV pushing. Said Mr Francis has a connection with the school. The article's already been created, gone to AfD, been recreated and speedied before this recreation. I suggest salting it. --Dweller 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the article for the third time and left a message on Alex's Talk page about the proper procedure to follow for a deletion review. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And aeropagitica has salted it too. Thank you. --Dweller 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned from this thread and from his talk page that Alex's behaviour is taking a downturn and he does not respond to talk page messages. It's frustrating because he can be a useful and productive editor, but he's very stubborn and will wait months before reposting deleted material etc. Creative admin intervention welcomed. --Dweller 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's some good news

A very bright young person posted an insightful question about his or her class assignment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Can_I_add_this_to_wikipedia_or_will_it_be_viewed_as_biased.3F. A teacher had assigned a class to edit Wikipedia articles in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and the student was insightful enough to query about the appropriate Wikipedia procedures.

Last month I started a proposal for a new WikiProject that would build Wikipedia:School and university projects into an interactive forum where Wikipedians could provide guidance to educators who incorporate Wikipedia editing assignments into their classrooms. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination already has a core of volunteers and welcomes more people. A dedicated WikiProject could reduce misfires such as the little one this student alerted the community about and the big one that caused Zoe's departure. With good coordination we could get a lot less vandalism and more line citations out of the computers in school libraries. Come on over and join if you'd like to make this happen. Durova^Charge! 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely teachers should know that someone's homework is not suitable material for an encyclopedia? Would they add that to Britannica? What is it with these teachers? If it's not nutty professors-who-aren't-quite-professors telling the kids of vandalize, they're telling the kids to add their homework. Perhaps this is more widespread than we think: perhaps this explains all the NFT/school essays that turn up every day at AfD. We expect this from the students, but from the teachers? Adults, get a grip! Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Smart kid, though. Thanks! More brains than her teacher, evidently! Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's have good faith about this: the kid goes back to school next week and I may get a chance to talk to the teacher. Maybe a group of students copied down the assignment incorrectly. Maybe the teacher just isn't as familiar with Wikipedia as we are (the site is confusing to a newcomer). So far there isn't any dedicated location where educators can go to help structure this type of assignment. We can fill that gap. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already being done at university level, as at MacLeod, Donald (March 7, 2007). "Students marked on writing in Wikipedia". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-03-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "E-Learning" ignored (help); Text "EducationGuardian.co.uk" ignored (help), and with care school students can contribute good content at the same time as learning about the disciplines of working here. Good show. ... dave souza, talk 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also developed a template on my userspace to be placed on the talk pages of articles that we know may be the subject of an assignment. The appropriate discussion is here.↔NMajdan•talk 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) We're aware that assignments are happening at the university level. What we don't have is an organized way to counsel the instructors while they're structuring these assignments. That's why a proactive project is a good idea. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're well ahead of me on this, it's interesting though perhaps beyond my skills, .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the assuption that everything that was added here had to be available in readily published sources. If it's simply a matter of looking things up in published sources, I see no reason why a school assignment (homework or otherwise) would not be as valuable as something done by an adult. And since original research is not intended to be included, it seems to me that children would probably better much better at simply reporting the facts, rather than making judgements about them.

I think that this idea has merit and that children should be encouraged to edit here, under these rules. Gretab 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's happened in the particular example at Village Pump was that the students were assigned to write critical essays rather than research papers. So the teacher actually assigned them to publish their own original research on Wikipedia. A dedicated WikiProject would head off that type of mistake and facilitate more instructors to craft Wikipedia assignments the right way. Educators in general are very hardworking people and it makes sense to give them a central place that can help them develop assignment plans rather than expecting each instructor to reinvent the wheel. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent assignment would be to post something to Wikipedia and have it survive, for lack of a better term. A student would have to cite his or her sources, be able to accept reviews and commentary by other editors, and more things that are critical in both academic research and Wikipedia editing. An even better assignment would be to create a Featured article, but that's probably just dreaming... :P Anyways, this is a good idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It might not be too much to ask a WP:GA as a group assignment in an honors class, or to suggest that as an extra credit option. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a great classroom assignment to get a short list (3-5) of 'articles for creation' and asking students to write research papers on the topics, THEN have a group assignment where the essays would be amalgamated into one cohesive article (per topic), then uploaded. Anchoress 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Also relevant: WP:COIN#Department_of_Art_Education_-_Virginia_Commonwealth_University__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D. Durova^Charge! 07:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, I was introduced to Wikipedia by my student friends in university in January 2005 - Wikipedia was seen as a novelty site to them then, a bit like YouTube or MySpace is seen by some nowadays. Then I was re-introduced to it in September 2005 by a now indefinitely-blocked editor, who was blocked for disruptive editing/trolling. Thankfully, I've never had any intention of being like them.... oh well, not all people who edit from schools/colleges/universities are vandal/troll editors. --SunStar Net ^talk 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has gone live as Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. I've received polite messages from the VCU faculty. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin rights abuse - Tobias

Howdy! Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) has taken the time to document what he feels is evidence of large scale admin abuse against him here on his user page. If these truly reflect problematic admins, we'd be remiss in not acting on the information. As a named 'abuser', I put myself at the mercy of the court, and urge deeper investigation into understanding why Tobias has been personally singled out so often by so many dark souls. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: this discussion above Abecedare 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He used to have the list on another page that I brought up for MFD, then he moved it to his userpage. Pure passive-aggressiveness; he never wants to actually make a complaint, he'll just bitch emptily on random pages where nothing can get done but it helps his ego. --Golbez 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my... his talk page is an endless roll of admin-conspiracy theories and warnings for unilateral page-moves, POV editing and incivility, and those complaints are not only coming from admins alone. So, why does he feels singled out? That's simply because he makes bad decisions that frusrates other editors. --Edokter (Talk) 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds familiar --pgk 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's a possible conclusion of the behavior of these admins (even if it's wrong!), and placed in his own namespace, I see no reason he should be punished for it.

On the other hand, I don't think that we need to look at this long list of accusations, most of which are probably wrong.

Od Mishehu 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:NPA, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#USER all spring to mind, if there is dispute then he should be following WP:DR. Really such pages aren't helping us to build an encyclopedia, if anything they are creating/breeding bad feeling and thus disruptive to our goal. --pgk 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to delete this as an attack page (which no doubt would earn me a line on that page, but still). Any objections? >Radiant< 12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000's block of Zeq

• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need a little bit of advice here. Zero0000 has blocked Zeq for "tendentious" editing on 1929 Hebron massacre. This appears to be a reasonable summary of Zeq's recent reverts and edits to the intro section. However, Zero and Zeq have a history together, and Zeq is seeing this recent block as an abuse of admin powers.

Zeq was placed on probation by ArbCom some time ago, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Zeq claims that he is no longer on probation [46], but the ArbCom ruling doesn't give a date for the end of it. Additionally, the article in question was not part of the original ArbCom ruling; Zero0000 himself banned Zeq from it on April 5th [47]. This is in contravention to Probation, which states that uninvolved administrators may ban users from articles. Zero is not uninvoled with this dispute.

Additionally, Zero has been warned before by ArbCom for blocking parties with whom he is disputing, see here and here.

As I see it, the block was almost certainly unjustified, coming from Zero0000. But the fact remains that Zeq is a user on probation with former blocks and an ArbCom case for controversial edits. Should we leave it be, or unblock him? ♠PMC♠ 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing it here, so let's keep it all in one place, please. El_C 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • How did I miss that? Sigh. ♠PMC♠ 07:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR Block review for Yaksar

The blocking admin said he is on wikibreak, so I'll post here too. First off, this user was blocked today for 48 hours for a first time offense, seems too long to me. Secondly, the block was in response to an incident that happened 4 days ago. As blocks are preventative, not punitive, this seems to be an unfair block. John Reaves (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

48 hours for first offense does seem odd. I've taken a quick look, and haven't been able to find anything suggesting there was a particularly egregious abuse, here. The 4-day time lag is especially unusual, unless I'm really missing something, here. The user hasn't apparently been a problem since their violation (indeed, they've been editing helpfully) and they seem to display understanding of the rules they broke, and why doing so was a problem -- we could perhaps be more comfortable with a direct assurance that they'll be more careful in the future, but I don't yet see them posing any particular danger to the project. If nothing else, they've presumably gotten the message. That said, though, is there anything I'm missing, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Without looking into the details of this particular case, AN3 was recently backlogged severely and there was a request somewhere (can't find it now) for admins to come help close the outstanding cases. This may have been one. — coelacan — 07:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit more disturbed that the blocking admin didn't even post his name on the report. Isn't it convention to write "48h ~~~~" instead of just filling in the action taken in the header? hbdragon88 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the block should be shortened to 24h from the time it was issued. Od Mishehu 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tough call, if it weren't for the call for help, I'd say the 4-day delay is too long and the case should have been dropped. I can live with the 48hours if there were several reverts, like 6-7 or more vice the standard 4 or if there were also personal attacks.Rlevse 10:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this can safely be reduced to time served and an admonition against further violations at this point. Any objections? Newyorkbrad 10:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This fellow should be unblocked at once if he wasn't edit warring at the time of the block. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, block reduced to time served, and user unblocked. Newyorkbrad 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As posted on User talk:John Reaves:

Yeah, I guess I went a little crazy here. I was merely trying to clear the {{adminbacklog}}, but I should probably know what the hell I'm doing before jumping in and causing a whole lot of trouble. Anyways, thanks for the message, and I'll take what you said into account if I ever dare venture back to the 3RR page again. By the way, how many reports constitute an adminbacklog template to be added on WP:AN/3RR. Also, how does a report get 4 days old unchecked? If blocks are preventive, then do we take no action on the ones that get missed by admins? Eh, I shouldn't get too upset by this. Sorry about that, and I won't do that again. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess I created, and I hope people will forgive my mistakes. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Despite the recent MFD and complaints about the process being overly bureaucratic and newbie-biting, RFCN hasn't really changed anything. Additional comments would be welcome. There is debate on the talk page about getting rid of the subpages, but at present this is limited to Ryan (who doesn't like that) and I (who does). I should add that people are starting to use the page for behavior issues, e.g. MathIsFun. >Radiant< 08:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The behavior issues for that user were raised in other forums, the entry on User:MathsIsFun dealt strictly with the promotional username concern. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just limited to you two. ;-) --Ali'i 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stale 3RR violations

Recently WP:AN/3 was backloged. I was one of those who tried to helpe out. In two cases i found a clear 3RR violation, but the last revert was more than 4 days ago, and revert warring and edit warring had stopped. Since blocks are supposed to be preventative, i closed these as "No action" but warned the editors who would otherwise have been blocked. However it occurs to me that one thing that is often taken into account in 3RR incidents (and some other kinds of blocks, like disruption) is past 3RR blocks, and a mere warning can easily get buried in the history of a busy talk page. Would it be a good convention to, in future, block for 1 minute or some such for these kinds of cases, jsut to have an entry in the block log? note that I didn't o this, and won't wnless there is some consenus that this is a good idea. DES ^(talk) 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to disagree. The block log is not intended as a permanent record for misdemeanor. I'm also not quite sure why having been blocked before would be relevant to a 3RR block (although of course it would be relevant for an RFC or somesuch). Radiant! 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• While I understand what you mean about creating a record for reference in the event of a later transaction, there has been a strong consensus against "symbolic" blocks plus there is always some collateral damage risk from any block, so I would also say no. Newyorkbrad 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  When does a 3RR violation become stale? (→Netscott) 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  There is no reason to block when there is no ongoing disruption. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen folks blocked for 3RR vios when edit warring has stopped, so I'm still wondering when does a 3RR violation become "stale"? (→Netscott) 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• It becomes stale when it is no longer preventative, and merely punitive (e.g when you block someone for something they did 4 days ago). John Reaves (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocking for the record, as it were, is a big no-no. We don't do that here. We only block to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to keep tabs on somebody's edit warring, perhaps for reference in dispute resolution, make a page in your userspace or raise it on an RFC or their talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Fair enough, that is why I asked. i have seen people referring to the block log to determine if people had a pattern of disruptive editing or not, if deciding how long to block for 3RR, and how to handle other disruptive situations -- an editor with a pattern of such problems seems to be given less slack than an editor without such a pattern. I agree with Tony Sidaway and John Reaves above that a 3RR report is stale when there is no ongoing disruption that a block would prevent. To be fair, although we often say that a block should be preventative, many admins seem to treat it at least partly as punitive, and I suspect that many editors think of it that way. Either we should be stricter about only blocking when it will truly be preventative, or perhaps we should openly say that it serves both purposes. Anyway, i was truly unsure what the feeling about "symbolic" or "for the record" blocks was, which was why I asked here. Having gotten a sense of the community stand on this issue, i will act accordingly. DES ^(talk) 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As posted on User talk:John Reaves:

Yeah, I guess I went a little crazy here. I was merely trying to clear the {{adminbacklog}}, but I should probably know what the hell I'm doing before jumping in and causing a whole lot of trouble. Anyways, thanks for the message, and I'll take what you said into account if I ever dare venture back to the 3RR page again. By the way, how many reports constitute an adminbacklog template to be added on WP:AN/3RR. Also, how does a report get 4 days old unchecked? If blocks are preventive, then do we take no action on the ones that get missed by admins? Eh, I shouldn't get too upset by this. Sorry about that, and I won't do that again. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess I created, and I hope people will forgive my mistakes. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin

The Google front page has a special logo on it commemorating Yuri. Click on it, it goes to search results featuring pages about him, Wikipedia being #1. As a result, there's been a ton of vandalism. -- Zanimum 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is good for the encyclopedia. I suggest that the page be unprotected immediately so that more users try and experiment with the page, even if to vandalise. We can use this opportunity to get more editors. --Zamkudi 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

100 edits (roughly half being reverts) in four hours is not funny. – Steel 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOPRO (same principle, same sense). Vandalism reversion is no big deal. I volunteer to keep guard on this page. Pinkie promise. --Zamkudi 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When an article gets publicity like this, anons seem more inclined to vandalize the page since it is so visible. It would be best to leave this sprotected for as long as Google is advertising the subject.↔NMajdan•talk 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And completely disregard the opportunity to reap benefits from this kind of publicity? Are you aware that the featured articles on display on the main page get the same kind of vandalism? Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia, and we need a constant slew of editors to manage our affairs when this is growing at an unprecedented rate. Nothing a team of dedicated users cannot deal, by chipping in and watchlisting this article. --Zamkudi 13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it protected. If someone else unprotects, though, I won't complain. – Steel 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zamkudi has offered to be the watchdog... why not unprotect at least as long as Zamkudi's "on duty" ? I'll watchlist it too, but can't promise frequent checks. Sancho 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess unprotect if we'll have a couple watchful eyes.↔NMajdan•talk 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected. Move protection remains. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

• The amount of vandalism really is awful, despite multiple good users reverting, but not always keeping up with multiple vandal attacks in a row. IMO if we're unable to actually have an article on an important topic like Yuri Gagarin that the majority of the time is in readable condition rather than full of profanity, insults, and nonsense, we have a problem. I'd support a return to semi-protection. -- Infrogmation 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no objection. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

• Wait till MER-C hears that! Till now, we have been able to keep the article in shape, I don't see what the problem is. Well yes, readability might be a issue. --Zamkudi 16:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Temp re semi-protected. -- Infrogmation 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wrong timezone, unfortunately. MER-C 03:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article has been unlinked from Google. --Zamkudi 06:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFC#Suggestion to give RFCs teeth

Some people might be interested in the above discussion on potential RFC reform. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect

Mikkalai is revert warring on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header, per this edit and the page history. His edit is widely deprecated at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll. Please unprotect; compromise may be possible (Mikkalai has a point, but this wording assumes far too much), if Mikkalai can be drawn to discuss this, instead of treating adminship as a special privilege. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "widely deprecated" is accurate, only a very few editors have discussed the matter, and not all of those have opposed Mikkalai's version. But admin status should not confer special rights, either this should be unprotected (or maybe only s-protected) or else the wording should be discussed on the relevant talk page, not wheel-warred over. DES ^(talk) 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I count five editors who don't care for it. But DES's wording is an improvement; thanks. Please note that unprotection would leave the actual !votes protected, since the sections of the poll are all transcluded separately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexWilkes

Reposted from above: I am concerned from this thread and from his talk page that Alex's behaviour is taking a downturn and he does not respond to talk page messages. It's frustrating because he can be a useful and productive editor, but he's very stubborn and will wait months before reposting deleted material etc. Creative admin intervention welcomed. --Dweller 17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe's 6 Month School Blocks

Netsnipe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just reverted several of my 31 hour blocks of schools and switched them to 6 month blocks. Ordinarily this type of change wouldn't be a problem, but I just took the time to check Netsnipe's block log. Over the past few weeks, he has blocked many school IPs, many with only 3 or 4 edits, for 6 months. These are IPs with little or no prior block history. Check out the following examples:

• 204.129.152.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 3 edits total, blocked 6 months
• 206.110.32.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including vandalism reversion, 2 31 hour blocks, blocked 6 months

* 66.194.72.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), >50 edits including fixing grammar errors, no prior blocks, blocked 6 months _{My mistake, linked the wrong IP alphachimp 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)}

You can find many, many more such examples in Netsnipe's blocking log. This matter was discussed in some brevity on my talk page, where I decided to bring it here.

I realize that no consensus exists involving blocking schools. Some administrators believe in only blocking for 15 minutes until the vandalism abates, while others (myself included) increment blocks in a similar fashion as non-shared IPs. This length of block though, seems like a completely unreasonable assumption of bad faith.

That said, I'm willing to start blocking schools for 6 months if the community wants it. Do you? alphachimp 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there has been little or no vandalism at an IP, then 6 months blocks on them are absolutely not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, before I start blocking schools for a month or longer, I like to see a history of vandalism from the IP. Chances are these are just kids in the library or classroom who had some spare time and decided to vandalize Wikipedia. Its the ones that come back time and again and continue to vandalize that are a problem. I think blocking a school IP (or any IP) for 6 months after only 3 contribs (2 obvious vandalism and 1 could be interpreted as a "test" edit) is a bit much.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx and Nmajdan, and with Alphachimp, who is hardly a soft touch with respect to vandals. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that duration should be made on a case by case basis and that 6 months for a school IP would be rarely appropriate. I also agree that Netsnipe needs to stop issuing 6 month blocks until we can resolve this. Rklawton 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested that Netsnipe stop until this can be discussed in detail. alphachimp 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Netsnipe would revert your blocks is pretty disturbing. John Reaves (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If Netsnipe "reverted" the blocks in the sense that he replaced the initial block with a longer block, there is nothing per se wrong with that, and it would be the right thing to do if in fact the longer blocks were appropriate for these IPs, which I believe is the sole issue here. It is not uncommon that someone will do a quick vandalism block and then someone else might later find that a longer one is warranted. —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a major issue with other admins undoing my blocks and placing their own, particularly when they leave a message on my talk page (like Netsnipe did). I freely admit that I block a lot of users every day. There definitely are times when I miss some redeeming or damning characteristic of an IP. In this case, like Centrx said, I'm frustrated by the underlying assumption of bad faith. Rather than wheel warring, I'm bringing the issue here. alphachimp 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

66.194.72.243 (resnetplp1.seattleu.edu) isn't blocked at all. Are you sure you have the right example there? Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to? The vast, vast majority of our vandalism comes from primary and secondary school students. We assume good faith and allow anonymous edit from ISP proxies and DHCP pools because we know that there will always be a mature person somewhere amongst the vandals wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to schools, sometimes the vandalism is pooled together into single proxy address which will have a long and extensive edit/block logs and other times spread across a pool of IPs allocated to a school. -- but the aim is the same, to stop kids from workstation-hopping by sending the message that we have zero tolerance for vandalism on Wikipedia. The 24 hour autoblocker just isn't enough when they will return week after week because they know that they can get away with it. With regards to the "wheel warring", what do short blocks stating "Repeated vandalism" and "vandalism" do for WP:AGF if an innocent student happens to come across MediaWiki:Blockedtext? They will not assume good faith at our end and I've seen many an occasion where they post a confused and often angry unblock request on their talk page or email unblock-en-l -- even worse is that in these cases, admins will automatically decline their request to unblock their IP address and tell them to create an account which only wastes their time and/or cause confusion. We can be more helpful in the long run if we politely inform them from the outset that they should get an account in order to differentiate them from the more immature of their classmate. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on that IP. I've striken it from my original post. alphachimp 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are educational institutions and do have useful, mature contributors. While your reasoning applies to an IP that is a long-term source of problems, there is no reason to block an IP for six months when it has one day of vandalism. What you are advocating is a blanket policy of ending anonymous editing from all schools; we have no such policy and we ought not have such a policy. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like we're actively seeking out school IPs to premptively block. They need to be reported to WP:AIV in the first place. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You do claim above that you make sure it is a school IP before you do such a block. While not true hunting, it is hunting within the set of WP:AIV. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe has criticised long-term blocks of mine on IP addresses. Anyway, my opinion is that six-month blocks on school IP addresses, provided they are anon-only, are appropriate in cases of repeat vandalism. I believe, for example, that if this is the fifth time that IP address has been blocked, it is appropriate to give it a six month block. Do I believe it appropriate for the very first block on that address? No, probably not. In the end, a great deal of our vandalism comes from school IP addresses and I believe it is reasonable that these people need to create an account in order to edit. Or to do so from outside of their schools. The unblock-en-l mailing list regularly creates accounts for people who don't have access to other IP addresses. --Yamla 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not heard from one person agreeing with the 6 month block on the first IP with only 3 contribs, I was bold and went ahead and lessened the block to 12 hours, which is more inline with the blocking policy regarding new IP vandals. If anybody disagrees, feel free to change the block again as it will not offend me.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Students can create an account elsewhere and use it at school. The fact is that these are static IPs that are accessible to a wide range of people. If very little good, and a lot of harm comes from such an IP, I see only benefit from a long anon only block. That being said I think this should only be done after several shorter blocks have failed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) Some school IPs bring nothing but pain, over a long period of time, and sooner or later a 6-month block saves a lot more resources for us than repeatedly noticing, reverting, reporting, and blocking it for 31 hours, a week, or what have you. In those cases, for static IPs that have long histories of egregious abuse, extensive block logs, and very few or no helpful contributions to compensate, I do support long blocks (provided the blocks are anon-only, and we're willing to help those who do need accounts to get them, which AFAIK has generally been the case). In less clear cases, however, I'm not so sure about it -- when I block, I base the duration off the IP's history. Some school IPs have a significant number, or even a majority of helpful edits. Other school IPs are dynamic (universities tend to have ranges, I guess for their labs and dorms). Open to discussion, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and if you look at my blocking log you'll see that I'm not hesitant about blocking school IPs with a long term history of vandalism and blocks. Here, however, we're talking about issuing a single 6 month block to IPs with no prior history of blocks (or a tiny history), some of which have legitimate contributions. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of school vandalism, I just think that we should be careful that we aren't pushing out any legitimate contributors (such as the next Nishkid64). That's what assuming good faith is all about. alphachimp 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with this 100%. Long blocks on repeat IP vandals is completely appropriate for repeat offenders or especially destructive offenders (such as a high risk template). But the IP in question has not established itself as a repeat vandal. Two vandal edits and one test edit in a 30 minute span is not deserving of a 6 month block.↔NMajdan•talk 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that long, anon only, blocks that stop school vandalism, once shorter blocks have failed, and if there is a history of at least, oh, 2 dozen or so vandal edits, tend to make sense. I support these long blocks if account creation is possible. That said I think a nuanced approach is appropriate, going with a long block as the first thing to do (on this wiki... elsewhere is elsewhere) may not be the best first step. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I need to ask is: do we want to keep on playing whack-a-mole for months on end while we wait for vandals to slowly get each workstation in their labs blocked one by one because there will be cases where workstations at certain schools have individually allocated IP addresses for each computer. It's rather unfortunate that currently we have no tool to view how many IPs in an netblock have warnings or current blocks in order to see the bigger picture. I guess I might have to whip something up once I graduate from uni and have some spare time. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If a school has a different IP for each computer, then a school block would not make sense. However, I have never heard of a school that does not share 1 or 2 ips. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one example where I recognised a pattern in the IPs after getting fed up playing whack a mole with individual IPs, I emailed the school and they consented to a blanket range block: Southern Hills Middle School: 161.97.219.0/24 --  Netsnipe  ►  19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried a different approach last fall and got positive responses: when I encountered a school IP that had 11 blocks over 12 months I e-mailed the district's IT department. They got back to me promptly and a polite phone conversation followed. They hadn't been aware that a problem existed, took the situation seriously, and liked my suggestion to assign student vandals to improve a Wikipedia article under teacher supervision. I could understand a 6 month block if a school is hostile or unresponsive, but why not be proactive about turning these long term problems into assets? After all, the computers are usually only a few yards away from the bookshelves. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The converse is also true. unblock-en-l has been contacted on numberous occasions by school IT administrators after a schoolblock has notified them of the situation. But when you're blocking 2 vandals every minute on WP:AIV, you just don't have time to fire off an email for every case. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do schools still have bookshelves? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on something netsnipe wrote: "Anyway, before I issue any schoolblocks, the IP address has to be clearly marked as belonging to a K-12 education institution or district in their WHOIS record or Reverse DNS lookups. Now that we can clearly identify school IPs, apply anon-only blocks and provide a useful blocking reason (i.e. Template:schoolblock) which they see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, why should we continue accomodate immature kids who continue to conduct drive-by vandalism only because their anonymity and lack of accountability emboldens them to?"

This action seems to cater just for USA educational institutions, since there is no indication that other countries' educational institutions would crop up in the checks being made here. of course, speaking for the UK, I have seen many instances of vandalism from UK schools, but the policy as indicated by the quoted material seems quite USA-centric.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil edit comments from User:Misou

I have cautioned Misou about two instances uncivil comments here User_talk:Misou#Uncivil_comments_from_you I have no previous experience with this user and Misou's comments are false and unjustified.--Fahrenheit451 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou has dealt another round of uncivil comments here: User_talk:Misou#Uncivil_comments_from_you as well as not assuming good faith. I think he needs an administrator warning.--Fahrenheit451 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A request of the leaving user

Hello! I have just placed the proper templates at my former user page and my talk page. I would like to ask you if you could protect my user page and my discussion page from being edited by removing the edit this page section as I have left the project forever. I do not intend to come back here and I want no Wikipedia members contact me in the future. In case you want to say something, I ask you to place your statement under this request message at your ANB talk page, please. I will appreciate it. Have a nice evening! --Riva72 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Kingboyk, an administrator, advised me to place my request here (and these are his words as I paste them here with the replies of mine):

Hi. For the sake of threading, I've replied at User_talk:AnonEMouse#A_request_to_the_Wikipedia_administrator_2. Basically, you have a right to vanish, and that includes deletion of your userpage. I don't understand what protecting your page would achieve, however, if you're not around to see it and are adamantly leaving forever. --kingboyk 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I ask you, the administrator, to protect my user page and my talk page i.e. to prevent them from being edited by anybody by blocking people's access to the edit this page sections of the pages mentioned earlier. I do not understand why you all are not willing to accept this final decision of mine. I see it as the attack on my personal (which may also be read as human) rights. I will appreciate your understanding and acceptance of my decision. --Riva72 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the administrator, I'm an administrator. Please ask at WP:AN where the whole admin community can discuss your request. Thanks. --kingboyk 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Placed and signed by: --Riva72 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommended that he have his user and talk page red, which might discourage posting and would certainly wipe out some of his existence here, but the user evidently wants to be remembered as a "departed Wikipedian" as he restored the "departed" template. Beyond that, I personally don't see any need for protection, and am mindful of the fact that user pages are not the property of an individual but merely a service provided by the Foundation. All that said, it's no big deal to me personally, and am happy to be overruled if appropriate (hence my recommendation he post here). --kingboyk 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange words by Kingboyk! Again the reason for hating the Wikipedia project.. The red pages ENCOURAGE editing as far as I know! The User EX-WP template is the minimal protection when the user leaves the project forever. Under these circumstances I even stronger ask you to remove the 'edit sections' of my user page and my talk page and LEAVE the templates 'USER EX-WP' untouched. DO NOT remove these templates, please. --Riva72 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to grant the request for protection of pages with just the departed template, assuming the user really is leaving. Newyorkbrad 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouuldn't authomatically protect such pages, but i see no harm in doing so on request. I don't understand the reasons for the request, but I don't need to. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I too don't see any harm, whilst also not understanding what it would achieve :) I'll protect as requested citing this thread in my summary. --kingboyk 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do it. This is a reasonable request, one which I have fulfilled for other users in the past. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Now, I see this thread as closed. --Riva72 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

165.234.104.4 (talk · contribs)

Chances are this is R9tgokunks (talk · contribs) evading his block. See here: [48]. RCS 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

request review of Block of User:Shac1

I blocked User:Shac1 for 24 hours for 3RR violations on Capella University. Please see the report here. Please also see mentions on ANI here. i have posted warnings on the article talk page and on one other editor/s talk page. User:Shac1 has requested an unblock on his talk page. I request review of this situation, and assistance in dealing with this content dispute. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As the "other editor" involved in this dispute, I would also welcome advice and intervention from other editors. --ElKevbo 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Challenges of upholding WP:BLP continued

Everyone, please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Blanking of unsourced material. This entire WikiProject is under the impression that it is acceptable to leave unsourced material in tact pending sources, while the general consensus from the leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation says otherwise. I am now being harassed by this WikiProject with personal attacks ("happy BLANKING, bitch") amongst other intimidation tactics. I feel as if we're going in circles here. Burntsauce 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Burntsauce is on the verge of being blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user JB196. Jonathan Barber (banned user JB196 taking credit for vandalizing wrestling articles on WP. Burntsauce has had a sockpuppet already show up over on ANI trying to report folks for being mean to Burntsauce (and was immediately blocked as an obvious sockpuppet). Burntsauce is one of over 40 Sockpuppets in the process of being blocked. SirFozzie 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry aside, WP:PW is out of line. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not on the verge of being blocked. You are now disrupting my talk page in an effort to make a lot of noise, but that's about all. Burntsauce 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because they have one user with over 200 sock puppets in total blanking EVERYTHING in articles due to BLP (which states that UNSOURCED, NEGATIVE information should be immediately removed.. Nothing about uncontroversial material), and that same user who blanks articles, then immediately CSD's them? And then brags about how many articles they have deleted? And then when called on it, blanks the section and replaces it with images of male genitalia? You think that gets a little FRUSTRATING for folks, hmm? (and JB, the "But I'm not JB" defense hasn't worked for your last 150 or so sockpuppets, or when you got caught joe jobbing wrestling sites on Meta, and eventually banned from there as well.... SirFozzie 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, can you link to where this conversation about blocking Burntsauce is taking place? You've linked to some external forum. I'm concerned that something has gone wrong if there is any real discussion about blocking someone working this hard to improve Wikipedia. Jkelly 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're frustrated that your WikiProject has hundreds, possibly thousands of articles that violate WP:BLP, go fix them. The content remains in the history. I'm sorry that someone else is tagging articles for deletion, but that person is not me. Make a note, I do not appreciate your continued personal attacks here. Burntsauce 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that a request is up on WP:RPP to have Burntsauce's talk page fully protected due to their removal of sock suspect tags. Significant, perhaps, but I'm declining as it's too extreme a measure and blocks communication - Alison^☺ 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is all getting a bit silly. I understand it is frustrating for an project to see it's hard work being dismantled, but the solution is find sources and add the material back. It's in the history. We shouldn't be leave unsourced material sitting around waiting for someone to find a source. Remove, find a source, add back. Regarding JB socks, some are obvious and should be blocked (the TNA'ers particularly). The others should be sorted out by Checkuser.--Isotope23 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

JKelly.. Here's the checkuser with all the sockpuppets found from Barber's spree. Please note that the first half or so of them are from the Meta Checkuser that found that Jonathan Barber has been spamming wrestling sites across several foreign-language wikipedias in an attempt to [joe job] them onto the SPAM Blacklist after the site obsessedwithwrestling was thrown onto the blacklist due to constant spamming of Jonathan Barber (the site later removed the columns from the site, and was removed from the spam blacklist. Per User Talk:JzG, WP:RBI applies to ALL sockpuppets of JB196 (you may want to look at his Long Term Abuse report, his list of Confirmed Sock Puppets and this list as well Please note in the offsite linnk, Jonathan Barber is taking credit for [User:Burntsauce]'s action, bragging that he had blanked several articles (and got into edit wars that locked them). SirFozzie 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like Nick and JzG got all of the obvious socks already.--Isotope23 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't consider 30 or so new users coming in and only making two edits each, to wrestling pages, blanking info, obvious? SirFozzie 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Please note that Burntsauce continues to remove the Suspected SockPuppet template from his page after being warned (by someone else, not me) SirFozzie 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (added: he's removed it again, and added a link to this page. I've probably already violated 3RR by putting it back, despite the fact you are not supposed to remove a sock tag from your own page unless resolved) SirFozzie 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce blocked, talkpage blanked and protected

Per WP:DUCK I have indef blocked Burntsauce as a sockpuppet of JB196. He's getting rather clever at gaming our system so editors who want to know why I identified this as one of our most prolific sockpuppeteers and long term vandals can discuss this with me by e-mail. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do please email me, because I think blocking this account, blanking and protecting the talkpage on the basis that someone cleaning up BLP problems is secretly a spammer is very questionable. Jkelly 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you need more evidence. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection being made still isn't obvious to me. Perhaps some of the other admins who have dealt with JB196 before should take a look. Jkelly 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is well acquainted with JB196 I can say it's highly likely that Burntsauce is a sockpuppet. JB196's self promotion campaign came to an abrupt halt when Tommy Dreamer, Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Rob Zicari, Janet Romano and Extreme Associates were fully protected, to see the extent of the problem check the histories of those pages for the last few months. His attempts at Joe jobs have now been recognised on sight, so he's falling back on his last method of disruption, removing vast amounts of content from articles. Do the wrestling articles need improving? Without a doubt, but not by a community banned user. That said, I would recommend waiting for the results of the (still outstanding) checkuser to see if Burntsauce is linked to the other socks, or editing from an open proxy, and urge unblocking if proved not to be. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about tagging those. Thank you for bringing them back up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• You had already looked at Burntsauce (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) a fortnight ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive80#Does WP:BLP apply to professional wrestlers? Uncle G 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The users in question, register, blank material (although still leave some unsourced material), then stop editing. The Project is aware that there are a number of articles lacking sources, but an editor blanking 150 articles in six hours is not helpful, and the edits are not good faith, they are vandalism masquerading as Wikipedia Policy. Some pages get caught up in long discussions, and others are just in the queue for sources. If a new user was tagging the articles then this would bring them to the Project attention but blanking helps no one. Darrenhusted 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please allow image

Could an administrator please allow the image Mamintb.PNG to be used on Non-penetrative sex. The page is being set up to merge 3 very similar pages (see Talk:Frottage)? I don't know if we'll need the image in the end but one of the pages, outercourse, uses it. The use can hardly be considered vandalism. --Simon Speed 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done The MediaWiki:Bad image list has been updated. Cbrown1023 talk 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

There appears to be a bit of autobiography happening on the Warren Kinsella entry. Sourced material is being removed and the entry is being re-crafted, probably by Kinsella himself. Catworthy 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent material added is all sourced and presents a balanced NPOV.I see that Catworthy would prefer that I add material on the Ontario Lottery matter, subject which is taken up with much vigor by Mark Bourrie on his blog [49]and I may add something in a calmer atmosphere. Similar allegations were made by banned user Telephon[50]TropicNord

Interesting,that this recent [51]unsourced entry about Mr. Kinsella was added by Catworthy TropicNord

Unblock of Burntsauce

I have unblocked Burntsauce because new evidence has come to light that this account might not be a JB196 sockpuppet after all. I still believe this is someone's sockpuppet and that this is a situation worth monitoring. Because this board is being watched I prefer to discuss the reasons for this decision off-Wiki. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, he was put through an awful lot of BS over this. It seems like there are a few people that owe him an apology and should probably rethink how they handle these types of situations in the future. Frise 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not think it was JB196 in the first place. But he was jerking us around and being unnecessarily aggressive, taking no account of the long-standing problem we have with JB196. Not to say that right was done, but he didn't exactly help himself here. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked again. (Which personally I think is good) Davnel03 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've indef blocked again. People who are curious why I've acted can contact me off-wiki. I prefer not to post here because this is an incredibly persistent sockpuppeteer and I fully expect him to glean any public explanation for hints he could use to conceal his next sockpuppets. Durova^Charge! 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock reviews

If someone's unblock review was declined and they add more unblock templates, are they declined or reverted? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

A bit more detailed answer might be, it depends. If they come up with a different (and much better) line of reasoning in their second template, then it's sometimes less likely to stoke tempers to simply decline. Unusual circumstances (it was the original blocking admin who declined the first unblock request, for example) may also make declining rather than reverting a superior option. (In the example, it demonstrates that – the blockee's protests notwithstanding – the block is endorsed by more than one admin.)

On the other hand, if a blockee is just posting spurious unblock templates to be a nuisance, it's probably best to revert (and possibly warn), and if necessary to protect the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant someone whose unblock is declined, then he posts another with a reason PLZ UNBLOCK PLZZZZZZ or something. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If new information is presented that makes the previous decision moot, or if the original decline was based on some sort of an error it can be re reviewed. But generally people are just trying to "ask the other parent" to see if they can get a different answer. I often speedy decline saying "This request has already been responded to." ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

New information is required for a serious reconsideration of a block. I routinely turn down the request if it is just "I want someone else to review", "the previous person didn't listen", "awww, go on, you fuckwits" or similar. Three of those in a row and I also protect the page. Less than that if the user descends into abuse earlier, obviously. A reasonable, calm request providing rational new information and not spreading blame around the shop will invariably actually get reviewed.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and I'd also point out that it's poor form to reverse another admin's action without talking with that admin, unless we're getting into clear rogue admin/wheel-warring territory. A Train^talk 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the flag of Spain? Input requested

Over on Talk:Gibraltar, a Gibraltarian user is objecting to the inclusion of the template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain on the grounds that it's a "foreign project" and that it includes an unacceptable "nationalist symbol" (i.e. the Spanish flag). In conjunction with this, he is attempting to remove either the template or the flag from the template. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored to meet particular points of view, I'd be grateful if previously uninvolved admins could take a look and provide advice at Talk:Gibraltar#Flag. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an image of the map of Spain on the Commons, so maybe if the Spanish Wikiproject doesn't mind, they could change it from the flag to the map (which can easily be edited to have the flag pattern). As for the "foreigness" of a Wikiproject, Spain is still trying to assert its claim over Gibraltar, so it is relevant to keep the banner there. Since it would be useless to project the page, block the user when needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The only real purpose of these wikiproject templates is to save typing. If the flag is a problem, subst the template and remove the flag from the result. This won't affect the usefulness of the boilerplate text significantly. Anybody who wants to know what's up on the wikiproject can find out by visiting it. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Re your suggestion, Tony, the flag appears to be a problem specifically in relation to a Gibraltarian nationalist POV (in the same sort of way, I suppose, that Greek nationalists object to the term "Republic of Macedonia" or Chinese nationalists reject the existence of the Republic of Taiwan). I don't think we should be encouraging local POVs to dictate content in this way... -- ChrisO 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies 2007 Conference and Expo's agenda creeping me out

Please see the relevant part of the agenda here. I first searched for Wikipedia in Google News here trying to find out what the press was lately saying about Wikipedia. I found two articles relating to SEO strategies on Wikipedia. I then found more scary articles with this search. If I had known about the conference beforehand, I would have suggested that we send some moles to New York City pronto so we could learn about the tactics SEO types used so we could defeat them. However, the relevant portion of the conference is over. I think that it would be a good idea for other administrators and other people with time to fight link spam to try to dig up what went on in the conference on April 12, 2007.

I posted a similar message at WT:WPSPAM. There is now discussion of possible moles in WikiProject Spam that joined it to try to get our trust by removing other spam so that their spam slips through the cracks and a possible need for a mole hunt.

I am afraid that the conference may result in more spam in the coming months. Jesse Viviano 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"The growth of Wikipedia and its almost ubiquitous presence on search results pages means that search marketers can't ignore this important guide. This session looks at appropriate ways to interact with the service. It also examines if there's more that can be done to make Wikipedia editors more accepting of marketers and to make marketers more understanding of the Wikipedia community goals." -- Oh. Dear. Bubba hotep 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What? And you don't think that's a good thing? Maybe you're just too stressed, how about some nice Lipton ice tea. Don't forget, green brings the good in.  ;-) Dragons flight 16:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Making marketers "more understanding of the Wikipedia community goals" is a good thing, at least. Corvus cornix 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

oh wow. Check out the summary alphachimp 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

no new tactics there.Geni 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that a lot of marketing types are advising clients to violate site policies, without even explaining that those policies exist or the history of media backlash against such attempts. User:Durova/The dark side is one attempt to counteract that. I strongly urge more Wikipedians to populate the conflict of interest noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 16:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW here's what Brad Patrick had to say on this subject last September.[52] Durova^Charge! 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, are you sure it's not a white hat SEO conference? --Kim Bruning 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All points of view are represented at the conference, just like Wikipedia. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all. I was one of the speakers at this session, and am also an admin coaching student of Durova. Rather than reading the mangled, second-hand accounts of this conference, I would urge you to look at a copy of my presentation (1 Meg PPT), which is essentially a summary of Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. There were three other speakers, and I had no right to control what they said, but I did my best to explain things accurately to them beforehand. For the most part this conference session was a good thing for Wikipedia, in my opinion. There were about 400 people in the room. We may have video available later. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and Canadian Heritage Alliance

I deleted this article as making false and defamatory claims about living individuals. Following a deletion review it was undeleted with the offending text intact. "Keep and clean up" is not an appropriate response to WP:BLP issues, especially when the subject of the defamation is already sending emails to OTRS. I have no problem with the group being considered notable, but a very substantial problem with undeleting an article history full of subtle POV-pushing, and an even bigger problem with undeleting an article stated to contain defamatory material and leaving the disputed material in the undeleted article. Please, folks, be a bit more careful. No disrespect to Xolox, who is a fine and upstanding citizen, this is for all of us when closing deletion reviews - restore the article does not mean restore it leaving serious problems intact, I think. In this case we appear to have endorsed "I think this group is notable, therefore we can include osme blogger's claim that one of its leaders is a white supremacist even though she specifically refutes the basis for the claim". And yes I know damn well that's not what Xolox or anyone intended, but that's in effect what we did, and it's not good. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Keep and cleanup is fine, as long as the cleanup is done immediately. Sauntering off to maybe do the cleanup in a week is certainly unacceptable, but things with BLP violations should not automatically be deleted, unless that's all it contains. -Amarkov moo! 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, about 3/4 of it was uncited, poorly sourced, or guilt-by-association. I still think we'd have done a better job with WP:FORGET - all that survives is I think the first sentence of the lead, the second being false according to its subject. It remains devoid of substantive sources, something it never did have even with the disputed blog linked. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I think deletion was appropriate. Get rid of the history and rebuild with attention to careful sourcing this time. Some articles are just too bad to be saved and need to be started over. Frise 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• JzG could instead have simply reverted back to this earlier version of the article and started afresh with a stub. Uncle G 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

The backlog on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is now almost an entire month old. Just asking for some help here. :) Part Deux 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion of any sort (slow, speedy, disputed, undisputed) automatically unleashes a shitstorm on any admin who touches it. The community won't support an admin caught in that shitstorm. Even admins won't support other admins caught in that shitstorm. In fact, admins are frequently to be found ringleading the shitstorm. It may have escaped peoples' attention that image deletes are undoable now... but deleting is still subject to threats, accusations of WP:BITE, complaints elsewhere, RfCs etc.

Until the community cuts people some slack over the issue of images, nobody's lining up to volunteer to do the job. All of the crap, none of the glory.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there's some pretty unambiguous ones on there. It would be nice if someone would at least tackle the obvious ones. Sorry, I've been on here a while, and I haven't seen this witchhunt you're talking about. They can take it to deletion review if they want. Part Deux 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sakura-Con

There appears to be a wheel war going on over the inclusion of an image. --PatrickD 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected for a couple of days (unestablished editors only). WP:RFPP is also your friend with this type of thing.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson

DPeterson (talk · contribs) has been harrassing Grace E. D. Sample: [53] and two harrassing threads on AN/I: [54] and [55].

Grace E. D was a valuable contributor [56][57] who voted on CfDs and a Tfd. This would be defending each other. --Mihai cartoaje 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FlagSteward

I've asked this user if he would consider a name change as I'm concerned that the name is a violation of WP:USERNAME, specifically, names which "Imply the user is an admin or other official figure on Wikipedia, or of the Wikimedia Foundation". --kingboyk 21:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not common coin (as much as "sysop", "bot" or "admin") but still has a potential for abuse if the human at the other end is so inclined. Endorse this course of action in hope user agrees.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As the user in question, I understand the problem, I'd prefer not to change if possible but of course will do so if something can't be worked out - perhaps a disclaimer on my User page? To answer Redvers' point, I'm not 'so inclined' - of course you don't know that, but I am one of the good guys, honest :-/ I honestly had no idea that Steward even 'meant' anything on Wikipedia, I used it because it's a name I use on a couple of other sites. In fact it's a reference to a scene in Some Like it Hot :

SUGAR    I quite agree.  Tell me, who runs up that flag - your wife?
JOE      No, my flag steward.

SUGAR	 And who mixes the cocktails - your wife?
JOE      No, my cocktail steward.

My Wikimedia username is CocktailSteward..... (which you could semi-verify I guess from timing eg edits made by FlagSteward to Penfolds Grange wrt the time that CocktailSteward uploaded Image:PenfoldsGrange.jpg ) Why that scene of that film? Well it's a long story, let's just say that it made sense at the time :-)

So no, the name wasn't chosen with malicious intent, quite the opposite in fact, and the fact that this is the first time anyone's commented on it in two months and a couple of hundred of edits must surely count for something. And I'm quite happy to put a disclaimer on my user page if that helps, I'm just kinda attached to this name ;-/ FlagSteward 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, don't worry, I have no doubt that you chose your name in good faith nor that you're a good user. Thanks for joining the discussion. --kingboyk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Just a comment - You said on his talk page "Together these words almost lead me to believe that you were an official here" - I rather doubt that. You didn't come anywhere near believing anything of the sort. "Admin" is one thing, but I cannot for one minute believe there is any intersection between users who know what a "Steward" or, say, "Developer" is in a wikipedia context, and users who think that something appearing in someone's username mean they have an official position. Otherwise we might as well do something like SELECT * FROM USERS WHERE UPPER(NAME) LIKE 'OFFICE%' USERNAMEBLOCK --Random832 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're calling me a liar? I had to do a double take: "flag steward?!", "ah, no, we don't have such official names on Wikipedia".

The problem with this name AFAIC is that it juxtaposes *2* official sounding words. If it were (as below) "Steward of Gondor" that would be one thing, but this name sounds like a steward who hands out flags (permission bits). --kingboyk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical for those adopting a strict interpretation of the username policy: if I were to register, for example, the username "Linux Developer", should that be disallowed? If I were to register "Steward of Gondor", should that be disallowed? --bainer (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to be constructive about this, is there scope perhaps for doing something at the username creation stage? So if UPPER(NAME) LIKE 'OFFICE%' then it is explained that this is a Wiki title, and that they can either change it immediately or accept that they will have to wait for an admin to OK it? FlagSteward 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything's possible but I doubt the devs would think that a worthwhile use of their time. No harm in asking I suppose! --kingboyk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

Hi,

On the English Wikipedia, the template MediaWiki:Welcomecreation (which new Wikipedians see right after they create an account) looks like this:

---

Welcome, $1!

Your account has been created. Don't forget to change your Wikipedia preferences.

---

On the Spanish Wikipedia, the template looks like this:

---

Tu cuenta de usuario ha sido creada.
¡Bienvenido a Wikipedia, $1!

	Wikipedia es un gran proyecto en el que es fácil perderse. No obstante, cada página del sitio posee en la parte superior izquierda un enlace hacia la Ayuda de Wikipedia. Si lo deseas, puedes probar Wikipedia en la Zona de pruebas, especialmente destinada a acoger vuestros ensayos.
	En una página de discusión, no olvides nunca firmar tus mensajes, tecleando ~~~~. Sin embargo, los artículos enciclopédicos no se firman. Puedes comenzar un pequeño paseo por las políticas a seguir (política de neutralidad, política de citar las fuentes, convenciones de estilo, etc.) y las páginas de Wikiproyectos, donde hay sin duda algún tema que os interesará.
	Eres bienvenido, si deseas, a insertar una imagen, pero se deben respetar las políticas sobre su utilización y los derechos de autor.
	Por último, puedes consultar las preguntas frecuentes, pero sobre todo, sé valiente.

Efectua tus primeros pasos en Wikipedia >>

---

It has lots of nifty things, including that link to the WP:INTRO at the bottom. Do any admins here speak both Spanish and fluent English? Could someone translate the text and paste it into MediaWiki:Welcomecreation?

Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I could provide a decent translation, but is it really necessary to copy what they have? I would just write a new one, especially since this message sounds... odd in English. "Wikipedia is a great project in which it is easy to lose oneself". -Amarkov moo! 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We could just use the standard welcome template. It sure would beat subst'ing welcome all over the place. hbdragon88 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps it could be based off one of the existing welcome templates, there is a good list at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. Template:W-graphical is nice, though not quite as "eye-catching" as the Spanish one. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think whatever we put, there should be a strong encouragement to confirm a e-mail address. John Reaves (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also recommend that we do not put too much emphasis on starting a new page as your first edits. IMO there is nothing more discouraging to a new editor than to get a "A tag has been placed on article, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia." message as your first real contact with other users. Emphasis should be on editing pages and core policy (WP:ATT, WP:NPOV) and important guidelines (WP:N) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot less articles on Spanish Wikipedia, so they probably feel they need to emphasis article creation more. I must say, I think leaving a welcome template is much more personal - I know I've been thanked by people I welcomed because they felt like it had a personal touch. Natalie 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

English translation

Your user account has been created.
Welcome to Wikipedia, $1!

	Wikipedia is a great project in which it is easy to lose oneself. However, at the top-left of every page there is a link to Wikipedia's help pages. If you want, you can experiment in the Sandbox, specially designed for your tests.
	On a talk page, don't forget to sign your messages by typing ~~~~. However, encyclopedia articles should not be signed. You can start by reading our policies and guidelines (neutrality, verifiability, style guidelines, etc.) and Wikiproject pages, where there will probably be some subject that will interest you.
	You can insert a image if you'd like, but make sure to follow our policy regarding images.
	Finally, you can consult some frequently asked questions, but mainly be bold.

Start contributing to Wikipedia >>

GAH! We really ought to avoid such flashy HTML-ery at all costs. What's wrong with {{welcome}}? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

New users (really) only see {{welcome}} and other templates if someone places one on their talk page. With the above, all new users see it, so even if they don't get welcomed by someone else, they do get welcomed by Wikipedia as a whole. Harryboyles 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

stumbled across it by coincidence, must be the friendly pastel colors that are not rare in Wikipedia. I like the idea. It also is friendly and encouraging. I am an internet marketer myself, although not an Ad designer, but it worked on me who ignores Ads and not even click AdSense and AdWords ads. It is the right stuff to get people that are new motivated and gives them a warm welcome. I remember that I felt pretty lost and on my own when I started. I recommend to add a section that reminds the editor that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and also aboutWP:NOT. I used the Shortcut on purpose, because it should also be added to the template a reference to WP:SHORT. Shortcuts are used constantly and for a new editor who enters a discussion gets slammed with them without understanding much about what is going on. It's like code talk. This the "code" language is used, show newbies right from the start where the code book is :) My 2cents. Sorry for the intrusion. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnny the Boring Vandal

Can someone do a quick review for me?

Following on from this discussion, I fell into the very trap I was warning others about (and thus proving the uselessness of the category in question). I've just indeffed the account - George Johanns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - as an obvious sock but invite review. WP:DUCK applies, see contribs and name.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. WP:RBI. /thread Naconkantari 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblock advice sought

I'd like some feedback off-wiki to determine the proper range a rangeblock I plan to apply. Durova^Charge! 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few rangeblocks in my time, send me an email if you want to discuss it. Naconkantari 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Need Backup

I need an admin (preferably one good at dealing with new users) to keep tabs on the article Toonami glossary and politely explain to the realatively new User:Random16229 why his or her pictures keep ending up with image deletion warning tags, and that readding the images to the article namespace (Toonami glossary) without the nessicary information is only making the situation worse. I am requesting an admin for this becuase you'll have more stars on your shoulders, so to speak, and thus he or she may be more open to seeking advice from someone with admin status, and because the images in question currently meet the standard for speedy deletion (you can verify this by checking the article page, if you wish). Anything you can do to help would be apreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's done: I've full protected the article for two weeks and left a polite note for the editor. That should give the bots enough time to take down the current copyvio images and discourage repetition of these problems. Durova^Charge! 08:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I would have handled it myself, but this was just slightly outside of my ability to handle. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dhwani1989 Again

• Dhwani1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been uploading copyvio images with fraudulent licenses and source information for over a year and has no intent of stoppping. Can we get some formal action going? Second request... /Blaxthos 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Temp rewrite page - history merge needed

Circumcision worldwide should be replaced with a rewrite at Talk:Circumcision worldwide/Temp, merging the histories. This will doubtless become more of a headache as time goes by, so although the rewrite is incomplete I think it best to request this now rather than later.

I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask, but it doesn't quite seem to fit elsewhere. Jakew 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Not MySpace template?

User:Phaedriel hasn't made an encyclopedic edit since November, however she only has to breathe and her talk page gets a dozen "greetz" messages. I was wondering if there is a "Wikipedia is not MySpace" template I could affix to discourage this? --kingboyk 11:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Much though I sympathize with this, I rather think this would be doing a Canute, without the irony. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 11:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, maybe. My request has a serious purpose though. 1) I had this page on my watchlist, originally because Sharon was a great editor and wiki colleague, later on because the page was vandalised very nastily when she was away. I've now removed it because I'm sick and tired of all the off topic postings. 2) If Sharon really is going to return, it's surely better to leave her to get on with some work than to have to spend her time reading and replying to umpteem messages which aren't relevant to our goals here. --kingboyk 12:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then she can deal with that herself, can't she? This seems like a rather odd request. --Golbez 12:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. So it's odd than an admin would seek to remind other users that this is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site?! --kingboyk 12:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to let the kids have their fun. I would stake both the house and my kid sister's virginity on this: you can stick whatever template you like, wherever you like, and in this case it won't make a scrap of difference. The major monster when it comes to social networking on-wiki is dead, at any rate. There are some battles that cannot be won. This is one of them. It sucks, but it's all fnord anyway. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken, I concede :) --kingboyk 12:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New template at the Polish Wikipedia

Ten Wikipedysta porzucił Wikipedię i nie identyfikuje się z projektami Fundacji Wikimedia oraz z jej działalnością.

One of the users created this template at the Polish Wikipedia. The user created also the proper category called: Category:User EX.

Immediately, the template and the category were permanently removed by the user known as Roo72. Roo72 did it with no explanation. He even did not nominate the template to be discussed by other Wikipedians! I think the action by Roo72 is a shame for the respectable Wikipedia project.

The creator of the template managed to place two messages ([58] and [59] at the Roo72's discussion page before the creator of the template was blocked. For sure, you should read the latter words as: before the creator's mouth was closed because this user has got all the rights to create this necessary template and place it at his user page if he/she thinks it is proper and necessary for him/her. The blockade was commented with Roo72 with the following words: omijanie blokady ??? [60] and this "respectable" user Roo72 placed the following words at the discussion page of the blocked user: [61].

The actions of Roo72 are another reason to hate Wikimedia projects and are another proof the created template is necessary both there and internationally!

Opinions are appreciated. --Annrex 12:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my English is not so good. I would like someone of the English Wikipedians to translate the template info and the Polish words which were used in the discussions linked. Thank you! --Annrex 12:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If this was at the Polish Wikipedia we have no jurisdiction there. You should take your complaint to the admin board at that wiki. If you meant Polish WikiProject on this wiki, the template should be in English so we can all understand it. --kingboyk 12:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• In what way is this relevant to the English Wikipedia? administrators Guy (Help!) 12:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My mouth was also closed at the Polish Wikipedia because my ideas differ and are dangerous for the Polish and the international projects. I would love to present this thread at the Polish ANB page to be discussed - unfortunately, I am not able to do it.. I have placed this thread here e.g. to raise the consciousness of the Wikipedians all around the world. Bye! --Annrex 12:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The template reads: This Wikipedian permanently left the wikipedia project and he/she informs that they have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself. --Annrex 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not only the Polish wiki situation - I do not ask you to intervene - it is a dangerous thread, isn't it? :) --Annrex 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with the English wiki! If you feel there is an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation, contact the office directly or try meta or Wikimedia wiki. This noticeboard discusses administrative issues on the English-language Wikipedia, no more no less. --kingboyk 12:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A request to the English Wikipedia administrators

I ask you to create such a template (listed above in the New template at the Polish Wikipedia chapter) available in the language of English. I would love to use it myself. --Annrex 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I gotta know what it says... :) —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It translates into something like "This Wikipedian permanently left the wikipedia project and he/she informs that they have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself.", or something like that. — Moe 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• To Pilotguy and Moe: I've noticed you have problems with reading comprehension and with translating (to Moe, exclusively). :) Well, it may be typical for some Wikipedians (even administrators?). It is another reason I must have the template listed above at my discussion page.

As a reminder: I have placed the following words a few lines above the "statement" of these fellow users a long time before they started to speak: :) --Annrex 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

*The template reads: This Wikipedian permanently left the wikipedia project and he/she informs that they have had nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation projects and with the Foundation itself since the time of their leaving. --Annrex 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for the translation corrections - but now the translation is perfect) --Annrex 13:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Excuse the many (broken) languages I speak, which all of them are broken except English :) — Moe 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse granted. :) --Annrex 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK. Discussion FOR or AGAINST the template can be placed here:
• Template:Keep which is create, polish and keep. - --Annrex 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion Perhaps having a link to the meatball goodbye would be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I want to use the English version of the template at my English Wikipedia user page and, then, leave the same style with the very information. --Annrex 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But the attention seeking nature of this template begs for the clarification this link provides. Is there a polish equivalent? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to say goodbye on the English Wikipedia when as far as I can tell you've never actually contributed here? --kingboyk 14:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

Fortunately I did not start to make greater contributions. I have changed my mind after looking closer at your discussions and ways here. Admins are like big trolls themselves. They are misleading, too. They cannot be trusted. --Annrex 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already a template called {{User EX-WP}}. If you add {{subst:User EX-WP}} to your userpage, you can customize it to say anything you want. There is no need to vote on the creation of a template with your particular text. Once you have the template substed, you can copy and paste the code to your Polish page if you would like. --BigDT 13:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated by me above. --Annrex 14:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)