Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive82

Challenges of upholding WP:BLP policy

okay, this guy has blanked loads and loads of pages without consensus, there is loads of damage he has done I have noticed, this guy is upto no good, and is doing more damage probably as we speak. I have looked at the history he has done. Can we get an admin to revert every blanking of documents he has done because I see it as a serious problem. Regards Govvy 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion further up the page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me most is the reaction this is receiving. Take this comment for example from Govvy: "At any time you shouldn't remove large amounts of information from bio's even if it is wrong." After reading WP:BLP, how could someone possibly come to this conclusion? Burntsauce 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You require consensus to remove information, you have blanked over what? 50 wrestlers? information pages in your history, +500 have a look people. He is covering up his tracks by adding a load on the other end by reverts of real vandalism to cover his tracks!! Govvy 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Govvy has reported Burntsauce to WP:AIV over this matter. I turned down the request. - Alison^☺ 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Without Diffs provided it's hard to say which exact edits Govvy is referring to, but looking at Burntsauce's contributions on Wrestling related articles, I see removal of uncited or extremely poorly cited quotations, unsupported opinions the subjects supposedly have, and the like. That's not damaging the article; that's enforcing policy. What I see as a serious problem is letting unsourced material sit in articles and consensus to support unsourced text in biographical articles isn't consensus that in any way furthers the aims of the 'pedia.--Isotope23 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the last week or so going through Category:American professional wrestlers and I'm up to 'H' to date. Well over 90% of the articles are unsourced, poorly sourced, or have a series of "references" that are external links but are not being used as footnotes. The referencing on wrestling related articles is largely non-existent, and the articles are full of original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my sources for his vandalism of blanking pages without consensus., Kenny Benkowski, Shelton Benjamin, Stephanie Bellars, Carlene Begnaud, Christopher Bauman, Bart Batten, Nicole Bass, Jeanne Basone, Doug Basham, Josh Barnett, J.C. Bailey, Buff Bagwell, Bob Backlund, Eric Angle, Gene Anderson, Gary Albright, Mike Awesome, Tony Atlas, Melissa Anderson, Skandor Akbar, David L. Abbott. Those are all the articles in question, you need to view history, see his action and work around what I might be seeing. Thank you. Govvy 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney does BurntSource belong to you? Govvy 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to file a checkuser, and be proved wrong. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that is vandalism. Burntsauce removed content that was not sourced and didn't meet one of our policies. On at least one of those articles an admin came along and protected the version that Burntsauce had edited to. We don't leave unsourced material in an article sitting around and waiting for a source. We find sources, then add material to articles. There is nothing here that requires admin intervention.--Isotope23 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it all looks different to me, to me I see vandalism. Govvy 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:BLP? Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I want to echo Mackensen, Please take some time to read WP:BLP and WP:ATT, they do not support your position that this is vandalism.--Isotope23 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, the sourcing of information in wrestling is from the source itself and can be transferred direct to context of biographies. The information provided is normally truthful and fact based. Removal of large amounts of information even know it may be unsourced without or citing to request source is against consensus. There hasn't been added any period, there for his action as a result are classed as vandalism because he didn't include source request or tag/refer or ask for source information and allow the standard period for which is required to gather the resource links. Govvy 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, the information being added is primarily from TV shows which are not repeated, otherwise known as original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And does "TV shows" include pay-per-views, which when held by either WWE or TNA are released on DVDs and sold through nation-wide stores (i.e. Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy)? Nenog 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest another reading of WP:ATT here... You are absolutely free to gather the resource links to cite the text, which is all in the article history, but we don't leave uncited text in biographies waiting for someone to come along and source it. The onus is on the person adding the text to source their additions.--Isotope23 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hackney. After reading above, yes I agree with some of it, no I feel you shouldn't be able to erase massive amounts of information without cause. As for wrestlers, I can see that you would call it a different reality, but if you're just looking at the sport side, you should understand that these people worked hard to get where they are, they won belts and pushed their body to the limit. You can say unsourced but for WWE wrestlers, all the information has a backup with wwe.com and other top wrestling sites. There are starting to have books about it, but sourcing such information, have links for all the information will be hard to do considering that news agencies don't really source wrestling. I am really starting to see the limitations of wrestling articles on wikipedia. Now I am starting to feel that I should stay away from it altogether!! Govvy 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not impossible to source things. Regarding recent events at least, information gets added to articles on a regular basis after some editors have seen it on TV or a DVD. If the same information was added with a cite from a website which has the necessary information on, problem solved. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the news agencies shouldn't matter a bit. If there are books or portions of wwe.com (other than forums of course), that source info in these articles than you have sources right there. The next step is to cite these sources.--Isotope23 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, BLP says controversial material should be removed. What in the Bryan Danielson article was controversial enough for almost the entire article to be blanked? TJ Spyke 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution policy says: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Have you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-02/Errors and publicity? If we cannot provide a solid reference for the material, we shouldn't be printing it. Burntsauce 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't say you should just blank entire articles, that can (and should be) considered vandalism. Maybe I should consider giving vandalism warnings for these blankings, or I can go to articles on people like Tom Cruise and remove every single statement that isn't sourced. Maybe you should try improving WP rather than hurting it Burntsauce. TJ Spyke 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say removing the vast amount of original research and cruft added by wrestling fans is an improvement personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How can any sane person call blanking everything except for the infobox an IMPROVEMENT? I think I will start handing out vandalism warnings like {{subst:test2a}}. TJ Spyke 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Handing out spurious warnings isn't going to do anybody any good. Removal of unsourced information is an improvement when it comes to real people who may be affected by our actions. If you wish to "save" the material, find a source for it. Frise 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information that isn't verified is of no use to the reader, therefore the removal of it is an improvement. It should also be noted that simply adding a couple of external links to a long article is not referencing, especially when the links in question do not source the majority of the article. Stubbing the articles and them being re-written from sources is improving the articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I stated this above but it's fitting here as well since this discussion seems to really go off kilter with regards to WP:BLP and everything.

"Let me add that the WP:BLP people seem so fond of quoting as an excuse to blank articles state that "contentious" material should be removed if it's unsourced. WP:BLP doesn't just say "Go on blank the whole page if it's not sourced", there is the word "contentious" to remember here, it makes a hell of a difference. Contentious as in "tending to argument or strife" or "characterized by argument or controversy", which in no way could be said to cover what finishing moves a certain wrestler uses, what titles he's won and whatever else seems to be deleted by invoking WP:BLP. It is a policy with a specific content, not a machete someone should indiscriminantly hack and slash with when there are little to no sources. "MPJ-DK 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:A, the burden of evidence is on those wishing to retain the material. I would suggest under the circumstances a more productive use of your time would be sourcing the offending articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah so now it's WP:A and not WP:BLP that's used? Consider this - if it's NOT contentions material, then maybe we're all better off sourcing articles instead of having to recreate it first it after its' been blanked out by someone. But I'm glad to see that you admit that WP:BLP isn't actually an argument for rampant blanking, good that we can agree on that :-)

I would love to find a "detal level" for what needs to be sourced because it seems to be arbitrary how much needs to be sourced MPJ-DK 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition quoting WP:A that is a favorite, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So once again NOT an excute to just blank out articles. quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, so like WP:BLP it's "Contentious" material. MPJ-DK 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I am in TOTALL agrrement that ANY unsourced material in biographies is open to deletion. This project has grown like wild fire in the last 12 months. Maybe its time to clean up, provide sources and improve the quality since the quantity part has exploded. Just my 2 cents, cheers!--Tom 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Something that Jimbo said on the mailing list sums this up nicely. What is needed here is more effort put into finding sources and adding them to the articles and less time trying to justify why we should turn a blind eye to unsourced material because it is difficult to find sources.--Isotope23 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for finding sources, I'm not saying "turn the blind eye" - I'm saying "don't just summarily blank pages for lack of sources" neither WP:A nor WP:BLP support that practices. I could be finding sources instead of trying to stop people vandalizing pages by blanking them without good reason MPJ-DK 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Every single email written by Jimmy Wales that I have ever read supports the practice of aggressively removing material which is not attributed to reliable sources. I'm not sure how many more times it needs to be said. Burntsauce 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay this has got ridiculous - you quote WP:BLP as a reason to blank articles. I point out that's not what it says. Then you quote WP:A as a reason, again I point out that's not what it says - so now flying in the face of OFFICIAL policy you go on about e-mails instead? wikilawyer much you think? it's amazing that BOTH policies you used to as an excuse are now ignored - what happened to you "Defending the standards and policies of Wikipedia"?? I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous, stop wasting people's time so we can actually do so real work and not just bow to your whims. MPJ-DK 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And since you used it as a source here is the words of Jimmy Wales as your excuse to blank out pages "I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies." - as he said "I heard it somewhere" information, not "I saw it on Wrestling show X" information, rumors - not something that's been shown on TV etc. and not ALL information on a page, just the "I think I heard it somewhere" type of stuff. Your own source for blanking Gary Albright doesn't even back up your actions so could you PLEASE stop doing a general blanking of articles? MPJ-DK 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Key words - "been on TV". Not repeated, therefore can't be verified. Perhaps if you stopped adding original research based on your first hand viewing of primary sources it would be best? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when WP:BLP and WP:A and "Jimmy's Mail" was going to be replaced by the "Original research" argument, your fallback position to everything. The point here is about NOT BLANKING PAGES when no policy supports it - by all means tag it as unsourced like you have been doing, by all means prod articles that haven't been sourced after giving people reasonable time to provide sources. But don't just blank out a page and use "No Original Research" as an excuse (or WP:BLP or WP:A or "Jimmy's Mail) because there is no grounds for that. And that's what we're discussing here, not whether Wrestling biographies are considered "original research" but if the practice of blanking uncontroversial, unsourced material is allowed or if it's vandalism. MPJ-DK 08:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And show me the part on "No Original Research" that says recapping events on TV is considered "Original Research", it's a "recap" not "research". MPJ-DK 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, what do you mean not to be repeated? Normally anything that has been on TV is prone to be repeated!! Govvy 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TV episodes are citable sources, show me the policy that says they're not. --Random832 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT, the (current) official policy on reliable sources, says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process". Since once a TV programme has been broadcast, there isn't always a way for someone to see it again, they don't have a reliable publication process (unless the programme has also been generally released on DVD/video etc). Waggers 07:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares about the drive-through opinion of an uninvolved user: BLP and ATT completely support the wholesale blanking of content that has been tagged as unsourced for a significant amount of time. That is not vandalism, as it improves Wikipedia's signal-to-noise ratio. The onus to provide sources is on whoever provides content. Sandstein 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Show you the part that says recapping events on TV is considered original research? With pleasure, WP:A states Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. Unless you're attributing the material to a reliable source (which you aren't at presnent) it's original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA always runs their episodes at least two times. WWE, as well as recapping and showing highlights of shows (i.e. WWE A.M.), shows old episodes of WWE, WCW, ECW, WCCW, AWA, CWF, and NWA on WWE 24/7. Almost all pay-per-views, and shows run by independent promotions (the major ones anyway), are released on DVD and can be viewed at any time. So would that be "original research"?Nenog 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. The requirement isn't that information can be verified three days later when a repeat is shown, the requirement is that the information can always be verified. WWE 24/7 is not relevant, the requirement is that the information can be verified now and in the future, so having to wait x number of years for a particular show to be repeated doesn't meet that requirement. I don't see why it's so difficult for wrestling fans to comply with Wikipedia policies, it has to be said. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that answers the TV shows, but what about the information about what pay-per-views which more than likely has been released on DVD or video and can be seen at any given time?Nenog 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, what constitutes as a "significant" amount of time for a page to be tagged as unreferenced? Taking a look at Gary Albright’s page (the history log), an unreferenced tag was added on March 27. Four days later the page was blanked for not citing sources. Is four days what Wikipedia considers a significant amount of time? Bobo Brazil and Matt Bentley were also blanked within a week of an unreferenced tag being added. Freddie Blassie, Adam Birch, Jerry Blackwell, Bobby Bradley, Paul Bowser, Michael Brendli, and Bob Backlund were all just flat-out blanked (there were no unreferenced tags on the page). Is it the policy of Wikipedia to blank a page as opposed to adding an unreferenced tag? Nenog 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, I still don't understand you, I have read and reread what you have written, I have read the policies and have come to the conclusion that is different to yours. WWE.com is a primary source of information. Wrestling matches are covered not only by the tv shows and wwe.com but covered by other fan sites. The information provided on wrestlers bio's may not have cited sources but they are mostly creditable. But blanking wrestler pages after only citing it 5 days ago is wrong. Neither Burntsauce or you have reported the problem on the wrestling project page, nor did you give anyone a chance working on the wrestling project to fix the problem. There are hundreds of wrestler bio's to deal with. The fact remains, you went overboard and have created more problems by not only failing the bio policy, but you have failed the policy of the wrestling project. If you truely wish to contribute correctly then you should bring up the problems on the wrestling project page instead of trying to erase them. Govvy 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - What the fuck? - I'm not familiar with the change for change sake that some of the WP:RS -> WP:ATT renaming stuff is, but a TV show is a reliable source. There is a {{cite video}} for this case (see Wikipedia:Citation templates also). Television archival services do exist, many stations will archive their footage (especially news), even WWE will archive their shows. Some of the claims above are completely ridiculous, such as the TV show having to be repeated to be classified as a source, because it makes it reliable.

For example, Tetris: From Russia with Love is an amazing resource and a great documentary, detailing the rich legal history which bought Tetris to our shores. That you can't be bothered to hunt down a copy of this, and will only wait until it gets repeated does not nullify the reliability of the source. I really hope the editors above who stress that TV shows are not reliable sources aren't the same ones I trust to shape WP:ATT, because if they are, I'm going to have to shift my resources across that way and make sure they don't fuck up. - hahnchen 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A TV show is not inherently reliable, or not reliable. It really depends on who it making the show for which reasons, just like any other source. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Have I ever suggested wwe.com is not a reliable source? No, but WWE TV shows which are not repeated are not reliable sources. Please read WP:CITE which states To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor, this cannot be done with WWE TV shows. WWE have no archive open to the public, so the information cannot be checked. It should also be noted that I have not removed content from any page, with the exception of Bryan Danielson which was repeatedly stubbed by other editors prior to me re-stubbing it. How do you suggest people "hunt down a copy" of a TV show? YouTube? Torrent site? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that whether a show is repeated or not matters to you, shows a misunderstanding of WP:ATT anyway. Why does it even matter if it's repeated? What if it's repeated next week only? I don't know about BBC's archival procedures (although they do archive), but that doesn't stop BBC News broadcasts from being attributable sources. What do you think of {{cite video}}, are you going to send {{cite episode}} to WP:MFD? I don't know how you're going to "hunt down a copy" of Issue 12 Mega Power either, but that doesn't stop it being a reliable source. - hahnchen 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Video = something that can be purchased in shops. TV show = something that cannot be purchased in shops, unless released on video or DVD. Again, you're missing the whole point. Citing sources is done so an editor can check the information being cited, please suggest how this is done if the shows are not repeated? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to point out here that a valid citation of any media type does not require a live URL. It merely requires, in the case of a television show, the publisher (network, station), the date, and the name of the show. Verifiability does not necessarily mean "easy and instant verifiability". If the cite is accurate as to the information, then it is a valid cite. Someone with enough motivation CAN verify, at the very least by contacting the broadcaster and having them pull tape. This idea that all cites must have an easy and free hyperlink attached seems to be very common on WP, but it is dead wrong. I had a dispute with an editor on Drudge Report because he removed a statement and supporting FULL citation from Editor & Publisher magazine, because the URL took him to an abstract, and he would have had to pay two dollars to read the article. - Crockspot 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never suggested a live URL is needed, I've had many discussions about offline sources myself. However as you say it must be possible that someone with enough motivation CAN verify the information, and in this instance they CAN'T. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, you just said wwe doesn't have an archive open to the public, this is completely wrong. wwe is the one of very few companies in the world which has a complete archive available to the public at a cost. You can download and watch it all from their website. They have the largest online database in the world for that matter, they even have more available video's than youtube! Every PPV can be brought on released rated DVD. They have world wide releases, the wwe.com website is far more reliable than any other wrestling source. The problem I brought forth before was the erasing of data without justification. Now the next problem is you have failed to do your research and failed to know the product wwe has. There is no problem here, the problem is with you. Case closed! Govvy 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're completely wrong. Here is the link in question, now please show me where (for example) on there I could verify what happened on the January 2, 2003 edition of "Smackdown!"? As I stated above, commercial videos and DVDs can be used as sources, not a problem. The only problem is that for far too long wrestling fans have been adding content without citing sources, and now editors have taken you to task for that you aren't happy. Well cite the sources, and the problem goes away. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

SmackDown - Al Wilson & Dawn Marie's Wedding January 2, 2003 | Approx. run time: 11 mins. - http://www.wwe.com/subscriptions/247online/february/?cid=WWE247LOVE07-08 . For far to long people don't use the features available to them. Not to mention, you can email wwe.com for specific information from the archive specialist there. Govvy 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So not the full show then? So as I've said before, you can't claim some magic catch-all that everything that WWE have ever broadcast is automatically sourced and doesn't need citing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It does need citing, but {{cite episode}} is fine. Louis Theroux did a pretty damn good documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church, regardless of whether you'll be able catch a repeat of it, does not deny the fact that it's a reliable citeable source. Someone with enough motivation CAN verify the source. - hahnchen 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite everything know, that's your problem, you feel you need to but as long as there is enough on the main things then that is okay, you go way over the top. You failed in an specifics. WWE does have it and it can be available if requested. The main points are PPVs there is enough places to source from for those. If it has been on TV, then there is sources available to cite from. Obviously you shouldn't request 3rd party because that is technically illegal. I personally think you should start to consider that and for your information, I would cite from tv.com Which gives me results for each and ever SmackDown episode, as for Raw, Velocity, Heat and any other show that has been on tv you cite TV.com so you should consider the validity of your argument. btw click on the link to find out what happen. :p Govvy 19:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, so instead of wasting time here all you need to do is go and source the articles in question, which is what has been requested since the start. I didn't fail at all, as you've finally produced sources and can source the articles in question, rather than arguing that everything that has been on TV ever doesn't need sources citing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No my original argument and only argument was Burntsauce erasing article data before people had a chance to even gather sources. I mean 3 to 5 days for articles that are hardly watched by others right after you requested these articles need citation! Erasing the data in the articles before and never posting on the wrestling project page. That is what I was against. I am against anyone that removes massive amounts of data that isn't spam without first posting on a project page about it. It is not just you that failed, by Burntsauce failed. As for you, you stated above and clearly stated that TV shows that don't have repeats, that you can't cite shows that haven't been repeated. I clearly posted how you can cite tv shows and I have even proven the use of tv.com a perfectly valid source. So as for me I feel I am done chatting with you, I am still clearly annoyed that you went off topic and failed to create a valid argument for citation from tv. As for now if you have any requests regarding citation on articles relation to wrestling, please post them on the project page clearly stating any problems you see. As for anyone else erasing data like that, shall be given a strong word. Govvy 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can give them a "strong word" as you've put it, but the bottom line is unsourced sections of articles can be removed pending sources. It's probably a good idea to contact the appropriate project to request they look for sourcing, but we don't leave the unsourced content out there waiting for someone got get around to sourcing it. When you find a source, feel free to take the removed text out of the history and add it back to the article with the citation.--Isotope23 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ye I get that, the whole point I've been trying to make now is to contact the appropriate project page before you erase massive amounts of data! Which is what I would like and I think that isn't too much to ask! Govvy 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not an unreasonable request. We are not all interested in every single topic and I think it is reasonable to ask that if there is an associated Wikiproject and you are doing a large scale edit to an article per WP:BLP/WP:ATT, it's always the courteous thing to contact the project with a diff of what you removed so they can track down sources as necessary.--Isotope23 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling regarding some of this, and I wanted to make sure administrators were aware as well. Please see this thread where a new user has been using the exact same edit summary as me. I want to make two things clear: 1) I am not this person and 2) if they are removing unsourced material they should not be reverted. Thanks Burntsauce 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just H and Danny's RFA

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

Continued at WP:CN Thatcher131 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Just H (talk · contribs) has used sockpuppets to game the system in Danny's rfa. As of now, he is blocked 2 weeks. I feel a longer, if not indefinite, block is in order. John Reaves (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef block is fine with me. -- Nick ^t 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Those sockpuppet contribs stretch back as early as August 2006. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block against Just H; his sockpuppeting was calculated and part of a pattern of disruption that had gone on for over seven months. I firmly believe that Just H will do nothing to help the encyclopedia, and in sockpuppeting, has clearly tried to hurt it. Ral315 » 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the socks we know of: Georgian Jungle (talk · contribs), Centurion 5 (talk · contribs), and Yankee Rajput (talk · contribs). -- John Reaves (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not lose any sleep if this block is lengthened. – Steel 01:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing good will come of unblocking the puppetmaster. Support a community ban, not just a block. Thatcher131 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indef would be good.--Wizardman 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead, if he/she can convince the community to unblock them than so be it. John Reaves (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm supporting a full community ban. – Steel 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, there. Put down the pitchforks for a second. A Train^talk 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That comment refers to two other accounts. Just H has three confirmed sockpuppets. – Steel 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

True enough, all I'm saying is that we should let the checkusers do the whole job before we start cherry-picking information and zapping accounts. A Train^talk 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of cherry picking with regards to Just H's block, please. – Steel 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iamunknown 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When do we community ban long-time members who until now have done no evidence of wrong? How about offering Just H forgiveness first and ask that he or she clean up his or her act? --Iamunknown 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Essjay, for a start. He didn't even sock. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Essjay is neither banned nor blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Just_H's 3 votes (one neutral, 2 oppose) in RFA/Carnildo 3? [1] [2] [3] Or multiple votes on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zzuuzz? Thatcher131 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... how come this guy is getting treated harsher than Jtkiefer (talk · contribs), who attempted to become bureaucrat and admin at the same time? -- tariqabjotu 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I never understood how he escaped banning myself. Quite possibly Just H's mode of conversation has left people feeling uncharitable. I don't support an indef block myself, but after all the heat Danny's RFA has generated, I'm not surprised that there's so little tolerance here (I mean, three sockpuppets is quite something). Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? did Jtkiefer uses socks or alternate accounts? Anyway, indef isn't necessarily forever. John Reaves (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This was just when I was becoming active so my memory is hazy, but I believe Jtkiefer was found actually running his alternate account for adminship when he was, or until recently had been, already an admin under his main account. The community decision was that he would discard all of his existing accounts but that he could start over with still another account (which for all we know is editing right now). But this is a digression; back to the story at hand. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jtkiefer_3 --pgk 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now Just H is blocked. If he posts an unblock request with an explanation of his actions, it can be addressed then. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that an indef block for Just H is too harsh. Although I supported Danny's RFA, Just H has a lot of good mainspace edit, maybe we should community ban him for a couple months. I feel that an editor with many mainspace edits should be given lenient action when they blundered. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining 3 sockpuppets for a long time with multiple votes in AFDs and RFAs, including some where he might have changed the outcome, is not a "blunder." However, haste makes waste, and I will certainly listen to any explanation that might be forthcoming. Thatcher131 02:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree, sockpuppetry isn't a blunder, it's malicious disruption of the project. -- Nick ^t 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. – Steel 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, who could forget the time when Just H edit warred in unverified information, and responded with a sarcastic tone when told that an unverified Wikipedia article can't be used to source another unverified article. – Steel 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet you post this with a sarcastic tone. Oh, the irony. --Iamunknown 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That doesn't even make sense... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. --Iamunknown 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Indefinite" != "infinite", "indefinite" = unspecified length of time. He has the right to request unblock, like any blocked editor. – Riana ^ऋ 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I would have to support an infinite ban, then. This goes far beyond any sort of innocent mistake. This is a user who was carrying out a deliberate deception for the better part of a year. I cannot ever trust him now, nor would anyone else here. --Cyde Weys 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You speak only for yourself. --Iamunknown 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't trust Just H before this, so at the very least it's Cyde plus one more person. – Steel 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify that I don't assume he or she will automatically have everyone's trust, but likewise I don't assume he or she will have indefinitely lost everyone's trust. --Iamunknown 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Suggest taking this to WP:CN for formal community ban discussion. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AN is a perfectly acceptable forum for this. Let's not move around lenghthy discussions. – Steel 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to expend further community or admin energy on this unless and until the user posts an unblock request, coupled with some explanation for what he did. If JustH never requests an unblock, then debating what precisely the length of the block should be, or whether it should be a community ban instead of a block, is kind of pointless. If he does request an unblock, then the discussion would, at a minimum, be more reasonably informed by whatever he might have to say. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, although I think it's incredibly unlikely that there is anything he could say that would make me support unblocking him. There's always that chance. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a procedural suggestion since some people were talking about a ban. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Only a permanent ban would be suitable for this user. This kind of socking strikes at the heart of the trust in one another's good faith that we need as a community. --Tony Sidaway 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but no need for formalities when they're already blocked indefinitely. John Reaves (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a formality, but I have had one checkuser refuse to perform a checkuser on a permanently blocked editor, because he was not technically declared to be banned. I've no reason to believe that this is typical of checkusers, but it has made me aware that statements of opinion like this are important for the record. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of people who, for one reason or another, will dispute that an indefinite block is not a ban unless it is spelled out somewhere. I think after a couple of days to digest this, a further discussion on CN would help to put this kind of nitpicking to rest. Thatcher131 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems sensible. If nobody is moved to unblock after a couple of days, it may help us to make our minds up as a community whether this is a de facto ban, and for how long. --Tony Sidaway 10:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

To start with, here are some examples of where these accounts have participated in the same RfAs. --bainer (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Page	Just H	Centurion 5	Georgian Jungle	Yankee Rajput
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zzuuzz	Support	Support
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RandyWang	Support		Oppose	Support
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3	Oppose		Neutral	Oppose
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pascal.Tesson	Oppose			Oppose
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose

Threat to return

Per [4] - just keep an eye out for further socks coming out of the woodwork, also looks like there might also be more history to this guy than we first thought. -- Nick ^t 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, that has a sort of Zordrac flavor to it. But really it could be anybody with a grudge. --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Thatcher131 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Potential topic/page community ban for User:CyclePat

Please see WP:CN. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If we could get somebody with the mop and bucket to look at this, probably need to give Pat a short timeout, for great WP:POINT justice. SirFozzie 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in two projects formed to help users get along with each other and the community being engaged in warfare? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Grr, I know. But this isn't the community in warfare, this is one user going batshit. The community is actually fairly united. Bit harsh to blame us all. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! Wikipedia goes Patshit :o) Guy (Help!) 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lol! Current consensus is to endorse the suggested ban, BTW. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp

calls other people edits vandalism . [5] But I am not aware of any policy that would justify that removing text without discussion is vandalism. Secondly I am not aware of any text being removed. So his talking is pure attack. He should respect WP:VANDAL and WP:NPA. And the one who removed text without discussing is indeed he himself! tz-zone info was deleted. But that does not make him a vandal. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikipedia" not the Wikipedia complaints department. Have you even asked Nichalp about his edit summary? --Iamunknown 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No I have not. Thanks for pointing this out. I thought it is now common to put everything here. See above his attack on me, backed with wrong claims. And also the attacks by Golbez with wrong claims. Why do their attacks with wrong claims stay here? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not everything goes here. Hopefully disputes can be resolved amicably on talk pages first. About the above, you should consider Nichalp's comments. I don't think Nichalp is intending to be rude or attack your person; he or she seems generally frustrated. In the event that tension between you and Nichalp escalates, I suggest just log out for a while, take a walk and come back to Wikipedia when you feel refreshed and ready to edit again. Feel free to talk with me on my talk page or go to WP:ASSIST if you need any advice or just someone to talk with in addition to replying here. Regards, Iamunknown 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. Maybe best I talk with Nichalp him/herself. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Joeo c8787

Resolved

 – Page protected—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody protect User talk:Joeo c8787? The blocked vandal oriiginally had a call to vandalism on his page, and how has unacceptable comments there. Corvus cornix 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected by Ryulong. --Ezeu 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

School IP

Could our school IP be unblocked? we would like it very much if it could be. I'm sure people at our school can act maturely. This is the IP talk page. Thanks! --Bfissa 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request alreay declined. --Ezeu 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated on the contributions page, unfortunately, the level of vandalism from your school or school system does not permit us to allow unrestricted anonymous editing. However, if a student (or teacher) sets up a registered account at home or elsewhere, as you have, that person should be able to continue editing from the school. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone just vandalised my userpage with a sick pedophile message

User:Hera1aphrodite just created my userpage by adding a sick message about beng raped and murdered by serial pedophile. I don't know how to deal with weird attacks like this, can an experienced admin please deal with it? Also, can I get my userpage deleted, it was empty before. I have been intending to create my own userpage, but I don't want this horrific message to remain in the edit history. Thanks. Pufnstuf 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted your userpage. Considering Hera1aphrodite's previous edit, this actually appears to be a mistargeted warning message, not vandalism. —Cryptic 00:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan has closed. The Arbitration Committee's decision is as follows.

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to invoke WP:IAR

I've proposed a community ban on an admitted psychiatric patient who's developed a sexual fixation on me. I'll risk accusations of canvassing because I consider this important, not only for myself but also because other female sysops ought to be aware of this individual. The thread is at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Arkhamite_and_68.84.17.112 This matter hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves. I won't ask anyone what conclusion to reach, but the sysop community ought to have a look at the evidence I've presented in case the individual tries to return on sockpuppets and conduct further harassments. Durova^Charge! 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully dealt with. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt attention. It's also important for sysops to see what this person has tried to do, to minimize the risk of more serious troubles later on. Durova^Charge! 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Classicstruggle

Minor issue, but can people keep an eye on anybody with this in their username? User:Classicstruggle1, User:Classicstruggle2 and User:Classicstruggle3 have all been blocked for penis vandalism (should that have its own policy page?). Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 02:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Scanned maps

User:Mindys12345 has been uploading quite a few maps scanned from a Sydney street directory and adding them to multiple Sydney suburb articles. The maps are from a circa. 1945 street directory, and as copyright extends for 70 years in Australia [6] they are still copyright. Uploader has also marked them as GFDL. I'd just like a second and third opinion before I wade in and revert any hard work? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I can tell you there was no GFDL in 1945, so it is unlikely that is correct. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect he's suggesting his scanned image files are GFDL, not the scanned content represented. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to put, I thought becuase they were so old there wouldn't be a problem. Mindys12345 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't sure, don't just make something up - ask. --pgk 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then I will start removing the images from each article, I thought people might find them interesting. Mindys12345 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No images in warning templates?!

I just issued some {{spam2}} and {{spam3}} and noticed that the annoying images are gone. Not sure how it happned, but let's hope it lasts! El_C 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The pages of Jcwandemberg (talk · contribs)

It seems wikipedia is being used by this user for self-promotion of his own various ideas, as well as from the IP 81.148.99.220 (talk · contribs), based off a geocities page he runs. Could I have a second opinion on this? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What a steaming pile of spam. Viridae^Talk 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh. Cleaned up, others can decide what to do with the editor. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Problematic page-move

I've already moved Fântâna Albă incident to Fântâna Albă massacre (regarding consensus), but I've been reverted. Now a poll ended with an obvious domination of the support votes. I would like to ask an other administrator to move the page as I've already been involved in the case. An objective force would be welcome. Thanks in advance! NCurse _work 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Get with Irpen to work it out since that's the admin that reverted you. There are some issues in regards to the filing of a requested move. Talk it over, you don't need to air it here :) Teke 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Irpen is not an admin. —Centrx→talk • 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd...wouldn't the move make a redirect, and if it was reverted I assumed...huh. I thought Irpen was. <sheepish look> Teke 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Moves can be made over redirects by non-admins. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...unless the auto-created redirect has been edited. After that, an admin needs to delete it before the article can be moved back. --Edokter (Talk) 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request review of 3RR block of User:Yakuman

User:Yakuman clearly made more than 3 reverts on Template:Dominionism within a 24 hour period. He self-reverted only some of these. His most recent edit on this page was a further revert. He invoked WP:BLP but any BLP issues arise when the tmeplate is placed on the article of a person, not in its name, layout , formamting, or content, all of which he reverted multiple times. I just blocked for 24 hours.

See the 3RR report here

Because this is a tricky case, and because of the BLP claims and conflicting claims of sourced vs unsourced content, I request prompt review of this block. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked through this for a little while and I agree the issue is not very clear. We have no real way of sourcing templates such as this (as one editor pointed out on the template talk page [7]) because there is no simple way to tell what claims the template is making. I would reverse the block and warn Yakuman that future BLP reverts should be limited to removing the name of a person only, not changes to other parts of the template. You may want to see if anyone else is looking through the history. CMummert · talk 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The other editors of this template have apparently been providing sources on the template talk page. -Will Beback · † · 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The difficulty is that it's hard to tell which things need to be sourced. In an article, each sentence can be attached to a footnote. In a template, is every name supposed to be related to every link? Are the names supposed to be related to each other, or just to the general topic of the template? This makes it very difficult to use the provided sources to "verify" the template. With templates that list uncontroversial things, like countries of Europe, this isn't an issue. But here, some editors feel that being listed on the template reflects negatively on the person. The best solution might be to TfD the template andlet the article links take care of it. CMummert · talk 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, as per this discussion adn an unblock request from User:Yakuman. I really don't see how beign included in thsi kind of template is the kind of "negative information" that WP:BLP is intended to allow unlimited reverts of, adn not all the reversions were of names of individuals. I hope people here will keep an eye on this template -- i see no reason to expect that things have calmed down yet. DES ^(talk) 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for Yakuman and a message on the template talk page to explain that any edit that goes beyond just removing the names of individuals is not covered by BLP here. CMummert · talk 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Attaching the name of a living person to a template sub-section whose purpose is to categorize people as being adherents of an extremist ideology like Dominionism most certainly falls under BLP. - Merzbow 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no argument with the principle that adding the name of a living person to any list falls under the BLP policy. The complication here is that this template isn't entirely about living people; other parts of it are just navigation aids. CMummert · talk 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There were three editors reverting back and forth; I protected the page for a little while. CMummert · talk 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jiddu Krishnamurti edit war, second opinion needed

203.101.42.172 (talk · contribs) keeps adding some information that other users remove. However, it seems some of his quotes are accepted by some users, while others do not. And even all those who do not agree with 203 questions each other from time to time. I fully protected it for three days to get some discussion done, but both sides were as stubborn, especially 203. The protection expired on April 4, and since then the edit war is back. I am posting this here because the first questionable edits started on December. There are some options: fully protect the article again for a week more, semiprotect to prevent 203 from editing (which I do not think it is fully just, from what I see lately in the talk page where another editor agrees with some of his edits), block the users due 3RR violation and disruption, ask for opinions, remove the article from my watchlist, or fully protect it indefinitely, so that the only edits done are after reaching consensus. -- ReyBrujo 22:59, 11 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 [8]. 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: [9] -- 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 [10], 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)

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)

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 [11], 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 [12]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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". EducationGuardian.co.uk. The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-03-18., 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [13]. 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)

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 [14]and I may add something in a calmer atmosphere. Similar allegations were made by banned user Telephon[15]TropicNord

Interesting,that this recent [16]unsourced entry about Mr. Kinsella was added by Catworthy TropicNord

Please block confirmed banned Arthur Ellis sock Catworthy who has blanked and reverted page Warren Kinsellaafter confirmation by wiki admin Dmcdevit·t declared Catworthy an Arthur Ellis sock.

Thank you, TropicNord14 April 2007

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[17] This editor copy/pasted the same insults insults to Skult of Cairo[18] and to three other users' talk pages.[19][20][21] Also on April 7 the editor edited an implicit suicide threat without deleting it.[22] Per the precedent of how I handled a similar instance of a suicide note from an editor who returned to cause further disruption[23] 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. [24] 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[25][26][27] and these PatPeter threads have not gone unnoticed.[28][29] 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)

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. [30] [31]. 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.[32]

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.[33] Avi followed up with a mild request for AGF.[34] 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.[35]

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.[36]

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.[37]

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[38]

Shortly before that supposition she had posted twice to Asucena's talk page to undercut and impugn the motives for two legitimate block warnings.[39][40]

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.[41][42][43]

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.[44]

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.[45]

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.[46] 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Blocked, and the latest batch deleted. I wish there were a deleted edits log. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 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)

The "right" place to ask for it is WP:SPLICE, but that isn't an easy page to find. There is no opposition to the merge on the talk page; I'm inclined to go ahead and do it in a couple hours if nobody objects. CMummert · talk 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Jakew 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this guy vandalising?

Special:Contributions/68.199.159.225 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.189.95.49 (talk • contribs).

Doesn't look like it, no. Not the best edits in the world, but no evidence of malice.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  15:24, 14 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 [47], but strangely none of them for more than 1 week. The latest was a move from Indian Standard Time to Time in India [48] 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,[49] and calls their concerns attacks. [50] 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. (Caniago 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. (Caniago 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 Caniago wrote "our ethinic group articles" [51]. 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 [52] and I explained to you why I didn't want your statement [53] 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 [54] and [55]) from the relevant article pages, and placing it on "redirect pages" (see [56] and [57]). 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? (Caniago 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 [58] - 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. (Caniago 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. (Caniago 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. (Caniago 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)

Uh yeah Golbez. You may be sure, but it will be only one more time you are not right. ;-) I know you hate me, and now you will go and search half the night. BTW, do you remember your page moves without talking? Especially with abusing your admin rights? Acting against WP written down policies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Caniago, 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)

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)

Why is the talkpage blanked? DXRAW 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)