Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive82

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

Noticeboard archives


Challenges of upholding WP:BLP policy[edit]

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)

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)

  • 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 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 (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. is a primary source of information. Wrestling matches are covered not only by the tv shows and 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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Have I ever suggested 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 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. - . For far to long people don't use the features available to them. Not to mention, you can email 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 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 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 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[edit]

Potential topic/page community ban for User:CyclePat[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


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 02:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Scanned maps[edit]

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. HighInBC(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?![edit]

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)[edit]

It seems wikipedia is being used by this user for self-promotion of his own various ideas, as well as from the IP (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. ViridaeTalk 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[edit]

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. —Centrxtalk • 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. — MalcolmUse 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. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request review of 3RR block of User:Yakuman[edit]

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[edit] (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[edit]

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 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

  • "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. DurovaCharge! 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 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"[edit]

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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Libel suit over blocks? Er, what? >Radiant< 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd AfD[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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


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[edit]

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. 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)
      • 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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? DurovaCharge! 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. ;) DurovaCharge! 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 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[edit]

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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's already being done at university level, as at MacLeod, Donald (March 7, 2007). "Students marked on writing in Wikipedia". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-03-18., 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.↔NMajdantalk 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR Block review for Yaksar[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.↔NMajdantalk 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.↔NMajdantalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 discou