Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Based on some of the comments made about other people, I'm deleting the userpages as attack pages. ] 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:Based on some of the comments made about other people, I'm deleting the userpages as attack pages. ] 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Whoops, I never even looked at the pages <small>shirks away, embarrassed</small> ] 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Whoops, I never even looked at the pages <small>shirks away, embarrassed</small> ] 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
== Blocked apologetic user seems to be forgotten about by admins ==
Administrator Jkelly ] on 9 April and asked my help in cleaning up a copyright mess. He directed me to a section of this noticeboard ]. {{Userlinks|Orbicle}} had committed numerous copyright violations. Gmaxwell created a list of articles Orbicle had created ], and several of us went through those articles, googling sentences, looking for statstically unlikely phrases, etc. A lot of violations were found, but many of the articles/stubs/disambiguation pages were clean. While we were looking through them, Zscout370 blocked Orbicle indefinitely.
In some cases, when I was checking articles, even when I couldn't find any plagiarism by googling, I felt it was better to reword them a little, and sometimes I removed unsourced statements. This led to one of my edits being challenged, on a page about some opera, so, since several of the articles I was checking were about operas, I ] at the Opera WikiProject talk page. There was some discussion there, and people felt that it would be over harsh to leave Orbicle blocked forever if he agreed to respect our copyright policy in future. Some of those people posted at his talk page, and at the admin noticeboard. Orbicle put an unblock template on his talk page; the request was reviewed and declined by Irishguy, who wrote, "We are still working on cleaning it all out."
When the cleanup was finished, I hoped that Orbicle would be unblocked. However, I think that administrators simply forgot about him. He had not attempted to to replace the unblock template. He did in fact post an apology and request without reusing the template. I suggested to him that linking to ] was not the best way of requesting an unblock, and he removed the link.
Antandrus had said (at the Opera WikiProject talk page) that he'd unblock Orbicle himself if Orbicle promised not to do any more copyvios, and helped us to find the violations. (By the time Orbicle's request for unblocking had been made an rejected, the cleanup was almost finished.) Although Antandrus had said that, I felt that it would be courteous to make the request directly to Zscout370, as it was he who had placed the block. I made a request on Zscout's talk page on 17 April. I kept the page on my watchlist, but there was no reply. On 20 April, I posted that I didn't want to nag, but was there any chance he'd consider it. Again, there was nothing — not even a refusal.
Today, Orbicle posted on his talk page again, apologising once more, promising to be more careful, and saying that he would gladly have helped clean up the mess if he hadn't been blocked. See ].
I don't think there's a danger that he'll do the same thing again, so I really think ''someone'' should be willing to give him another chance. I fully uphold the Foundation's copyright policy, and applaud the administrators who work so hard to enforce it. But I think that once there's no longer any danger to the project, it seems rather merciless to keep him blocked forever. When going through his edits, I saw quite a lot of good work, and I am sure he was motivated by a wish to improve the encyclopaedia, and didn't fully realise that copying and pasting a synopsis of a book from Amazon's website, or a list of facts but with identical wording is not acceptable. ] ] 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
A query with some images tagged for deletion "no source"
I started to have a go at images in Category:Images with unknown source as of 8 April 2007 "Images in this category are potential candidates for speedy deletion under criterion I4 once this category is seven days old.". I soon found in there a succession of images that were declared by their uploaders as "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. ..." that User:Aksi great tagged for deletion {{no source}}. On looking in his user-talk page I found a discussion about images in User talk:Aksi great#Images uploaded by you, which seems to be becoming acrimonious. Anthony Appleyard15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems in order to me. Aksi feels s/he has reason to not trust the licences, has asked for further clarification and has been met by User:ParthianShot not answering the question, rather squirming out of it. The question is simple enough: " add proper image descriptions?", but the answer is a long diatribe about why the question is improper, rather than providing the information or asking for clarification. If you don't want to delete the images based on the conversation, then leave it for somebody else or ask Aksi for clarification.
Finally I understand the strange message you left me on my talk page. There are 2 issues here. The images I tagged on 8 April, and the images uploaded by ParthianShot. As Redvers has said I have a reason to doubt the images uploaded which I tagged on the 8th. Those images look like really professional images to me. They are of a very respected politician of India and it is difficult to get such good images of a person like that. Hence I asked for a source for the images. No source has been provided by the uploader even though it is now 12 days since I tagged the images which leads me to suspect that the images were taken from some other source and are not free images. Hence we should err on the side of caution and delete those images. They can always be retrieved later if the uploader comes with proof of source. About ParthianShot, it is a different issue. The website from which he has taken the images has commited copyvios and hence all images taken from that website should be removed from wikipedia. I haven't tagged any of those images yet. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. My problem with Aksi is not the deletion of the images, but his misuse of his admin privileges. I believe that he has blocked me on basis of a private request by another user (FullStop). The matter was originally raised by another contributor (, ), , , , ). However, I would greatly appreciate if someone look into this matter. Regards ← ← Parthian Shot(Talk) 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Images must have a source. Images without source information may be deleted 7 days after being tagged. That's policy. Regarding images uploaded by ParthianShot, the dituation should be discussed at Possibly unfree images to determine whether they are reliable. Regarding ParthianShot's images, he uploads images sourced to a web site that has a prominent GFDL license posted. However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios, therefore the accuracy of the GFDL release for the photos is also in question. Thatcher13118:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Thatcher131: ...However, that web site has been proven to post textual copyvios..! May I ask how and when it was proven? Can I see the evidence for this claim? Thanks. ← ← Parthian Shot(Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This user was blocked July 2006 for various things. I have deleted the talk page several times as they seem to want to use it for a blog and linking to their myspace. Today though they asked for a block review. I declined to unblock based on the fact they said it's a role account and the implied legal threat. Of course I could be reading too much into what they said so others might want to review it as well. I'll advise the blocking admin, Tony Sidaway, about this. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Shared account ("giving passwords away" is shared in my book), edit summaries like "I'm just here to piss on stuff. Particularly, on Jimbo Wales", implied legal threats, regardless of their excuse just now ... I think it should stay declined. - Alison11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the talk page - given the rant and the links to myspace and email, and I have protected the page. Feel free to revert me, no hard feelings, I just think that this block was very much justified and Misplaced Pages does not have a need for users like these, especially as they state they don't intent to edit ever again. There's always the unblock list if they truly want to have their block reviewed, so that's not a reason to let them edit that talk page in this case. --JoanneB16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - I don't remember all the details of the original blocking - but I do recall this user was bad news.--Doc16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse too. Just for background, this was previously a good account (under a different name) until about a year or so ago, when the user suddenly either freaked out or really gave up his access to somebody else. Ever since then it's been only trolling. If the original user ever wished to return to actual editing, he'd have silently created a new account by now. Fut.Perf.☼16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Cambridge Bay Weather and Doc Glasgow encountered the user months after the user was already blocked, when the user was claiming to be multiple users and using the talk page for sundry purposes. However, all this came after the block. The user was never suspected of being "multiple users" till it claimed to be so after being blocked. The user was blocked for two offensive edit summaries, quite simply. I can go back and discuss the details. All this talk of "multiple users" and this morning's "legal threat" (Mark Geragos posting on the talk page) are after the fact. 68.126.248.1821:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support an unblock, if the user promises not to troll or use his userspace inappropriately. As Fut.Perf. pointed out, this was a good user, and I think we should give him another chance. Khoikhoi22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm the user :) and I promise not to "Save" any inappropriate edits anywhere in Misplaced Pages if I am unblocked. 98% of the bad edits came after I was blocked. And there was no sockpuppetry (ever) or vandalism of articles (besides my User Page and User Talk Page) since then, and classifying those edits as vandalism is controversial. I have not started a new account since I was blocked on July 26th 2006. I don't need sockpuppet charges. 68.126.248.1822:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The two offensive edit summaries: the one referring to Jimmy and another one which you will find in the initial User talk:Winona Gone Shopping, an edit summary made on July 24th, 25th, or 26th. For no reason, I stated (addressing no one, and there was no talk of anyone banning me for anything, it was out of the blue): "Here is my death threat: permanently ban me and I will kill you. Your move, tough guy." This was not addressed to anyone. It was a "silly" threat, as noted. Those two edit summaries are the reason why i was blocked. If I hadn't made those edit summaries I would not be blocked now unless I did something else later. 68.126.248.1823:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JoanneB, I restored the page for now. I think it's important that others see the odd style that comes from that user or users.
Winona, I knew about you well before your blocking but saw no need to comment at that time. As to what you did in the past that had nothing to do with my declining to unblock you. It was because you said that the password had been passed on to you by Alexander. Who knows how many others he passed that on to. I thought I saw an implied legal threat but I wasn't sure so I brought the matter here.
I understand your concern better now. If I had passed on the password to a friend, then he could have passed it on to who knows who and the account would be unreliable. 68.126.248.1800:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they're all the same person. What happened after the block IMO is not as important as what happened to initiate the block (two edit summaries). And what happened after never exceeded some bizarre edits to (my)Userspace. I apologize for claiming to be more than one person, but I have friends/fans in MySpace who want to believe that I'm Winona Ryder (officially I am not, I assure you) and I know they check up on my activity in Misplaced Pages because they have told me so. It's "funny" that in MySpace they believe I'm Winona claiming to be Alex while in Misplaced Pages most believe I'm Alex, perhaps having shared his password. It's all one user. All the edits in my Userspace are not the issue of my block. Unblocked or not I'll refrain from them. My MySpace was quite busy before, the hugest Winona in MySpace till I had to reduce hundreds and hundreds of "friends" because of time constraints. If you search "Winona Ryder" in MySpace, I am the only one. If you search Angelina Jolie, you get like 50 different pages. I'm so unpoopular after the Saks Fifth Avenue scandal :-) gotta go, thanks for your time 68.126.248.1800:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I find the overreactions, belief in multiple users, protectiveness of Jimbo Wales and general ******** here to be very interesting. However, how am I going to change my Username if I am blocked? 68.126.248.1806:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in being unblocked only so I could change my username, then I can be blocked again for those two earth-shattering edit summaries, for which I have already apologized. I mean, what do you think I'm going to do if I get unblocked? I no longer agree with the GFDL license so I don't want to (but I might) edit; I assure you no one has the password except me. If people beyond my control have the password, why would I request the account to be unblocked? 68.126.248.1806:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you just want a name change and then leave, can you e-mail one of the bureaucrats from your account and request a name change through that channel? We'll take care of the userspace pages afterwards. Fut.Perf.☼12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would settle for that, at least for the forseeable future. Thanks! At first I created the MySpace profile with the same name (in the URl) as my username in Misplaced Pages to show the identity of the two. But now since I no longer use the Misplaced Pages account yet I'm still using the same URL in MySpace I want to begin disconnecting the two. Not because I am worried of any serious troubles: I am not impersonating Winona Ryder. I always say that I'm not her. If they don't always believe me that's not my fault. In fact, I may possibly (I can't verify this because Misplaced Pages is too wide open) be in contact with people who know her, and my page has been up for so long and it is so noticeable (being the only one with that display name) that it is quite likely she knows about it and would have sent an ICBM if she really had an issue with it. I have had another profile deleted under mysterious circumstances which was probably the result of somone taking issue with what I was doing. Anyway, a google search readily shows to people that there probably is a connection between the WGS in MySpace and the WGS in Misplaced Pages (and I am well aware that a google search will also bring up this page). Changing my username in Misplaced Pages will help to tone down the connection. 69.224.231.2319:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Should I just log in and send the emails or should I get confirmation that this suggestion is possible ? Once I log in, my IP will be blocked till it changes again. 69.224.231.2319:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely logging in shouldn't trigger an autoblock. You can log in and go to people's userpages and use the e-mail function. Give them a link to this discussion. I can't guarantee they'll fulfil the request, but I don't really see why they wouldn't. Fut.Perf.☼19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot. You have to log in and attempt to edit a page, then your IP will be blocked. Thanks for the welcome. 69.224.231.2322:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the theory of multiple users may have some truth to it. I just received orders from Operation Necronomique: "WGS" has served her purpose after 9 months. She gave birth to...something in the fourth dimension. That MySpace was discontinued. This edit will probably be reverted, however I think this whole section should be removed now that we have discussed the problem and resolved it? Thanks anyway. 69.224.231.2309:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Tor blocking - soft or hard?
Obviously, open proxies are and should be blocked on a regular basis. There seems to be a strong consensus that anonymous editing from Tor nodes should be blocked. I usually see account creation likewise disabled. From what I've seen, though, there doesn't seem to be consensus on the "anon only" block option -- some admins block all users, others block only IP users, and I frequently see Tor blocks reconfigured one way or the other. As a community, do we have any particular preference, here? Blocking anons and registration seem to be unanimously agreed upon, it's only blocking accounts that seems to be a sticking point. I haven't seen any arguments or upset feelings over this, and don't have a particularly strong opinion, myself, but figured it couldn't hurt to discuss. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that a lot of good wikipedians use Tor. I am thinking about installing it myself, but I am worried about this. I support soft blocks only, because then a vandal would have to register over a regular connection. If they got blocked, their main IP would be autoed, so I support soft blocks. mrholybrain's talk12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser has repeatedly found abusive sockpuppets editing through soft-blocked tor proxies. Anyone smart enough to use tor is smart enough to find an ublocked IP to create a sockfarm and age it, then edit through tor. Hardblocked tor users can edit through the secure server. Thatcher13115:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As previously, soft blocks aren't so soft and have their own implications for use. These are anonymous open proxies by any other name and should be treated as such. --pgk18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think, and have long advocated, that Tor should be anon-only+account creation blocked, but anonymous edits should be permitted. We should also automate this, and for gods-sake we should only block edits from exit nodes, not middle nodes. If you're able to find an unblocked IP to create the sockfarm you'd also be able to find an unblocked IP to use the sock farm. I don't see how we can claim to respect users privacy but we will aggressively block any method a user could use to actually achieve said privacy in a strong way. --Gmaxwell18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I block tor exit nodes as a full block (everything on). So NOT anon only, and account creation disabled. I don't believe we don't guarantee privacy, and these are just open proxies. Prodego20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." As TOR proxies are clearly anonymous, I believe the official Wikimedia policy is to block them with a hard block. Certainly, these proxies are widely abused by bannedsockpuppeteers such as Verdict (talk·contribs) and only a hard block would stop that. --Yamla20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Users in China frequently can only edit through TOR. Thus, hardblocking TOR could increase the systemic bias problem.
TOR can protect good editors from having their IP collected and published offsite when they forget to log in.
In case the Wikimedia Foundation receives a subpoena, TOR can protect good-faith editors who accidentally inserted libel.
I should admit that I have a conflict of interest here - If all (or almost, more likely) TOR exit nodes are blocked, I will have to leave Misplaced Pages.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Problem With TOR is that although in theory it's a fantastically nice idea, in practice it's overwhelmingly a firehose of sewage. I'm not sure how to solve this. But there's good reason TOR nodes are shot on sight possibly more assiduously than other open proxies - David Gerard11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate removal of RfArb request
Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.
Orange "You have new messages bar" not showing up
This issue hasn't been receiving much attention so I thought I would bring it up here. Whenever you receive a new message the orange "You have new messages bar" should show up but it does not under an IP address or it malfunctions and stays stuck. So for all those who revert vandalism, the warnings being posted on IP talk pages may not be received because the messages bar doesn't show up. To confirm this, just test it out yourself. Send a message to your IP address and see if you receive it logged out. This issue only affects IP addresses. -- Hdt8301:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me, and hasn't done so in a while (I've been testing with my uni IP address). What's worse is that I blocked the IP as a test for a few hours, and the orange bar only came up when I looked at the block message. – Riana01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I tested it as well, and it didn't come up. I recall an incident early on in my administrative career where I blocked an IP, and then the IP requested unblocking because he/she didn't know that he/she was getting warned on the IP's talk page. Maybe they had the same problem. // Sean William01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just tonight a similar thing has started happening to me. My issue is that the messages bar shows up in white and not that unattractive, yet highly visable, orange color. So if I wasn't used to the way pages should look (article text starting at a certain point down the page and such), I might just not even notice that it's there. And yes, this is while I'm logged in. Dismas|05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Dismas, I suspect that you have an entirely different problem; try bypassing your cache. --ais523 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Request for two AFDs to be closed by the same admin
Is there any way I can get two AFDs to be closed by the same administrator? One of the noms is on a single article, while the other nom is on multiple articles. Both of these should've been combined into one AFD, but were not. Both of these have been open for four or five days, so merging the two discussions now would be impractical. Many people cross-posted on both of these, and I don't want the points brought up on one to be missed by the one who closes the other. Regards, Tuxide06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently, while on vandal patrol I noticed that someone from an anonymous IP had created the article Trans Thane Creek in the articles talk space rather than the article space. I assume that the article's creation was in good faith as it seems benign, so I moved the article info to the appropriate spot. Only problem is I could not move the edit history (as found in Talk:Trans Thane Creek), I worry that anyone seeking information on that subject may try to contact me for clarification. I didn't write this article, just did a minor fix and moved it; I don't know anything about the subject. - HammerHeadHuman07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The prod tag puts it in the correct category, and an admin will get to it in due time. There is no need to duplicate the request here. CMummert · talk13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't dispute the prod. If this were a music site with less stringent sourcing requirements, it would be a clear keep. Although I found it a useful and interesting article I don't think it belongs here. (Writing this on the assumption that nobody else has disputed the prod since I wrote). --kingboyk13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry :-), I just nommed it for AfD, I think it would be better to get a greater consensus before deleting, maybe someone will find some better sources. Ryan Postlethwaite14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the prod tag? It was tagged for the correct amount of time, nobody took issue with it, now it's supposed to be deleted (I think). I don't get it. I was going to list it at AfD originally but the AfD page says it should be prodded first. This place is confusing... :-O I don't think it's right to give special treatment to this just cuz you like it or something. The Parsnip!14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, I contested the prod, I don't feel this article should be deleted without getting further comments into it, I may be wrong and it may be speedily deleted, but the prod still had 5 hours to go, you can still comment on the AfD. I'm not giving special treatment and I resent that accusation. Ryan Postlethwaite14:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I thought it said the prod was expired. Why do you think it needs more comments? If it's not notable then it's not notable. Anyway, whatever. I voted delete at Afd. The Parsnip!14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
When you prod an article, the reason that the deletion is not done automatically when the tag expires is to give one more chance for a human to review it. If there is doubt that the deletion would be uncontested, it is perfectly appropriate to change to AFD, and there is some element of discretion in the process. Now that the prod is contested, the page shouldn't be speedily deleted. (Note that I have had nothing to do with that page except to comment here). CMummert · talk14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just believe it's best to give people chance to review this with an attempt to find some sources for it, I've found a couple of ones already, but let's take this to the AfD page now, not here. Ryan Postlethwaite14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this the place to tell admins if DYK is backlogged and you need an admin to clear the backlog?
I asked on ANI, but was referred here. Ironically, the backlog was cleared a few minutes after I posted on ANI, but I'd just like to know for future reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaypoh (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps the best way is to contact one or more of the admin participants listed at DYK; several provide the times at which they are likely to be available in order that you might know whom to contact straightaway. Appending {{Adminbacklog}} should also work, although I, for one, don't think there's anything particularly wrong with one's posting at ANI should there be a significant backup and should DYK not have been updated for 8+ hours. Joe19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope I don't have to post to the talk pages of 10 admins to get the DYK backlog cleared. I'd rather make one post on a noticeboard. Besides saving time, it would encourage more admins to get involved in DYK. Will admins read the {{adminbacklog}} tag? --Kaypoh07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Web screenshots
I just went through Category:Screenshots of web pages and deleted over 20 images that were tagged with {{web-screenshot}} but which were actually just pictures someone found on a web page. There are a LOT more that need deleting: I only got through the As. There may be a way to help avert this problem with better wording at the Mediawiki interface or the tag wording, too. Mangojuice14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that as likely to help much, if the redirect remains in place. But it's something. I updated MediaWiki:Licenses to be a little more discouraging about the use of the tag. Mangojuice04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Resolved – Template was prematurely restored, and the Deletion Review decided to keep it restored. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This page was deleted by Thebainer (as far as I know, without consensus), and I believe it to be very useful. I don't think this was the correct action (should have been an MFD, which was never announced on the page and therefore probably was not done), but I'd like to know your opinions. · AndonicO15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As he was requested to do, this user has proven his identity with the OTRS department. Don't know what you want to do with this, but I thought I'll report it... --Mbimmler15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Legality of changing speedy-deletes into prods?
Some speedy-deletes are contested with {{hangon}}, and a long argument develops on its talk page. An example is Clacket Lane, which was speedied {{db-band}} at 06:31, 23 April 2007 and (at date) more than a screenful of closely-typed inconclusive arguing (4109 bytes) has been put in its talk page. When that happens, the delete is no longer de facto speedy. What would be the legality of removing the speedy-delete tag, and any hangon tag, and putting a prod tag in instead? Or turning it into an AfD and cut-and-pasting the arguing into its AfD discussion page? Anthony Appleyard18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Since prod is supposed to be for uncontested deletions, in these casaes there is obviously a contest, so i would say that AfD was the way to go. I see no objection to copying part of the reason from the DB tag into the AfD nom, but the nominator would probably want to exapand on the stock tag text. DES18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I would not advise cutinng and pasting other people's comments into a new AfD, Instead add a pointer to the previous discussion in the AfD, and perhaps one to the AfD on the talk page. DES18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It would really depend on why the speedy is contested. In most situations, an AfD would be appropriate, but if it was contested simply because it did not meet any criteria (they are intentionally specific) a PROD wouldn't necessarily be wrong. For example, if an article about a person asserts notability but no sources are available anywhere to actually prove notability, a PROD may work, in theory. However, it is likely that the user will simply remove the tag. Mr.Z-mantalk¢19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally, if a speedy is contested, and the objection is legitimate, I would take it straight to AFD and link (but not copy) any relevant discussions. I think that's what DES said. YechielMan19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the situation. I have changed speedies into prods before, where no one disputed the speedy tag (and often the article was the original author's only edit and they're never heard from again), but where the article does assert notability but I can't find a thing to support it, or otherwise doesn't meet any speedy criteria. On the other hand, {{hangon}} is not the "this won't be speedied" tag-if it's still unquestionably a speedy, it will be speedied. If it's a borderline case and someone's actively contesting the deletion, probably best to just take it to AfD, if after listening to them you still believe deletion is warranted. And of course, sometimes they'll make a good enough case, or be able to direct you to some sources, so that that's not even necessary! Seraphimblade20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man has a point. If soemone contests the speedy in the saense that it should not be deleted at all, prod is a poor idea. But if soemone says "Yes, this ought to be delted, but it does not fit any of the speedy criteria, then converting a db tag into a prod tag may be a good idea, and I have done this myself on several occasions. But the original poster specified that a hangon tag had been used, so thre was substantive, not merely procedural, objection to the speedy. in that case i wouldn't use prod. DES20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have received an e-mail query from an ArbCom-banned editor about whether this person may submit comments via e-mail to a user conduct RFC. I know proxy editing isn't allowable, but is proxy commentary an exception? Please advise. Durova19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't see the differentiation myself. If they are banned that means they can't participate in the project. --pgk19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That is, to be sure, quite clear under WP:BAN. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that anyone would object profoundly were one to relay constructive (or at least non-disruptive) comments. There are those who construe BAN so strictly as to prevent a banned user's partaking of the project of any way, even a rather propitious one, but I'm not at all sure, the explicit language of BAN notwithstanding, that there is a consensus for such view. If the comments, or, really, any edits a banned user requests to be made by proxy, legitimately advance the goals of the project, I can't see that excluding them would particularly benefit us; seems like one case in which invoking IAR might be appropriate. Joe19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And who decides if the comments are useful in advancing the goal of the project? If there are conflicting views in an RFC then I'm sure one group will see the views of that banned editor as non-constructive. If there aren't conflicting views they add nothing. If you actively invite banned editors to participate in some way, surely that is undermining the purpose of the ban in the first place (and I would hope if it's got to the stage of banning someone there are significant issues with that individual) --pgk20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm not actively inviting anyone. I've received a polite request and want to know whether it's appropriate to fulfill the request. Durova20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As above, I would disagree regardless, but the easiest thing would seem to be to post a request for clarification at WP:RFAr to see if the arbitrators intended the ban to prevent participation in RFCs. I'll also note WP:BAN states the intent is "Misplaced Pages's hope for banned users is that they will leave Misplaced Pages with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban". That certainly seems to preclude any involvement. --pgk20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration routinely involve banned editors emailing admins and administrators to post comments and rebuttals. This overly tight look at WP:BAN is rediculous. If the comments add something, raise the level of debate or bring a new point, then its WP:IAR time. -M22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
RFC is meant to address an editor's behavior to prevent future disruption. A banned user (whether for one year or indef) will not be in conflict with any other editor any time soon, and there can be little productive purpose to adding a banned user's comments to an RFC other than revenge or getting even. Further, there is every likelihood that the subject or outside commenters will reply to the banned user, neccessitating another round of procy contributions. I strongly suggest that the committee intends bans to be bans. Thatcher13102:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I may have worded it badly, but I intended something as below without the 'own them as your own' part. Good ideas are good ideas, and I wont cripple the project by refusing to listen to a good idea just because the persons been an ass. Doesnt mean we accept them into the fold and bans are meaningless, just that we need to be willing to here all voices. -M06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In general, if a banned user asks you to make proxy edits, take a look at the suggested edits. If you agree with them, make them, but own them as your own. If you disagree with them, or don't care about them, don't. A banned user is banned. They have no further rights to participate here. And they were banned for a reason. The time to have engaged in dispute resolution was before they got banned. Don't make edits because you think the banned user should be allowed to do so, but only if they would be deemed helpful by an unbanned user; you take responsibility for them. Dmcdevit·t02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think it appropriate if the RFC was about the user in question. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, and this extends to privileges of engaging in discussion. But if there is an open RFC about a user who is banned, then I do not think it inappropriate for the user to have at least some comments posted; just because someone is banned, they don't become free targets.
This is neither a rant nor a hoax: There is a big media company on the Gnutella network that parsed our list of usernames and now abuses the good names of Misplaced Pages's administrators. It makes it look as if these people commit an illegal activity, which may be particularly objectionable for those who registered under their real names.
If you want a few faked names, timestamps, and the IPs of those search results that say "FreplySpang offers an illegal copy of Petula Clark's Downtown" for example, I can provide them.
Surely that's worth some discussion somewhere? , Okay, where else? I'd ask on SirFozzie's talk page, but it's protected. 84.129.139.3320:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A search for "petula" returned search hits for a variety of Downtown files purportedly offered by:
There's not much really you can do, except forward details to the Foundation and see if they can take action., and perhaps email the users affected by this and let them know someone is pretending to be them online The boards here are focused inward towards WP, not outwards. SirFozzie20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that those aren't the actual administrators? I assure you that the cabal is fond of Petula Clark; we invited her to sing at last month's potluck in London. Ral315»20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I hoped perhaps there was someone here who could push it "further up" to the Foundation. You'd have to e-mail pretty much all of the admins, remember, their business model is flooding the network with fakes. Seems to me like organized libel and identity theft. 84.129.131.8721:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Theres no real need, they'd sue based on IP, not name. And im pretty sure no admins going to care. Id imagine all of them spend time on the networks. Perhaps moved on to bittorrent from gnutella, but still. -M22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's safe to say that none of the admins will get sued. Still, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation can be quite amused when another company takes the rather unique and identifiable name of their Chief Technology Officer (along with all the other admin names), and publishes search results that imply he's commiting some big-style copyright infringement. 84.129.176.2310:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you give more information about what's going on? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if you search on the names of Misplaced Pages administrators a lot of fake file hits on the Gnutella P2P network will show up? --Cyde Weys00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Cyde, from what he's saying apparently that Misplaced Pages Editor Names (whether a nom de plume, or if you registered under your real name, that name) show up on various searches by someone apparently attempting to poison/Entrap P2P networks. Not being into that kinda stuff, I can't tell you if it's true, or if it's not. SirFozzie00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You enter a query for any major artist or title in a Gnutella client such as Shareaza, and you're likely to get results back saying those files are shared by hundreds of people named like Misplaced Pages's administrators. If anyone wants to confirm it, they're currently still active (far as I can tell only on the Gnutella2 network).
It's not just another petty ad-ware porn spammer. It must be organized by one of the BIG "media protection" companies that have servers all over the world. MediaDefender, MediaSentry, Overpeer and their ilk. Only a few could generate such large amounts of traffic.
Hey, could this be some twisted revenge plot? Was an article for one of those companies recently deleted by an administrator? 84.129.176.2310:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think we've found the evil mastermind behind it all: one of those results today was at 12:43 from 89.101.72.66 for "14- Uptown Girl_128_lame_cbr.mp3" - shared by "JimboWales". 84.129.143.22812:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Noah30 keeps removing text (12345) from the Kosovo article (which is on probation) even though the text has two references, one of which Noah rejects as POV (from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) and the other one is a book published in Germany. Could someone please tell him to stop removing referenced text from this fragile article? --GOD OF JUSTICE20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
After *quite* a bit of work, I am proud to announce CSD AutoReason. After installing, it gives you a drop down box of all the CSD criteria when deleting a page. Also, it links to them, so it provides a link for those not sure was csd g1 means. Hope you all enjoy ^demon21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a neat bit of coding, thanks for taking the time to do the work! Will test it out now as it looks to be operating ok from the code in my monobook. (aeropagitica)22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea, but it didn't seem to do anything for me. And yes I ddi bypass my cache and even purge the wiki cache for my monobook.js. I tried several varations as can be seen here. no luck. DES22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why, because this revision you made looks just like mine. I'm using Safari 2.0.4 Did you try quitting and relaunching? - Alison23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It apparently didn't interact well with some other stuff in my monobook file. It is working for me now. DES17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is considering using this for real deletions on English Misplaced Pages, could I persuade you to think twice about it? Isn't it better to take a few seconds writing, in English, your own justification for deletion? --Tony Sidaway17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the reason. If I'm writing out a speedy deletion reason by hand, it's likely to be something like WP:CSD#G1 (and possibly with a word or two like 'nonsense' on the end). The CSD are meant to be clear-cut, and default deletion reasons are going to help improve this (more or less the same reason why there are templates for user warnings). Some things shouldn't have default reasons, though (WP:IAR deletions are an obvious example, and arguably prod deletion should say something more specific than 'expired prod'). I'm not at all convinced writing out reasons for CSD deletion would generate anything better than a default reason (can you think of an example where it would and the article is within the letter of the CSD criteria? I've excluded the case where the application of the criterion is an appropriate stretch and you want to explain it).--ais523 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering the fact that this auto-generates pretty much exactly what I would write otherwise, I don't see what the problem. When I'm clearing out an image backlog (where all of them are going to be the same criteria), I'll still copy/paste my summary, but when just clearing out CAT:CSD where the articles have different codes, this can be very handy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I am now using this for pretty much every deletion i make. I do however, often add details to the reason beyond the standard reson from the script, this just sames me re-typing the basics that are always the same. It also ensures that the reason contaisn a proper link to policy. Look at my recent deletions and see if the tool has improved my delete reasons or harmed them. DES18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The understanding of "abuse" and admin misbehavior
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Original complaint
I apologize for using this forum, but I'm not sure where else to present these concerns for general admin attention. WP:WARN has a tag that is described as being for the purposes of warning a user for a "ong term pattern of abuse." This comment relates primarily to the term "abuse" as WP:WARN comprehends it; I apologize if it's kind of long, but I hope it's neverthless concise.
Although WP:Warn uses the term "abuse," it does not define that term, there is no policy "WP:Abuse," and the term is not defined in any canonical[REDACTED] policy of which I'm aware. And if it is not a defined term of art at Misplaced Pages, its use at WP:WARN, surely, must be understood in light of its ordinary meaning. See Plain Meaning Rule. That being the case, "abuse" cannot be in use as a wikipedian term of art - at least, not in any sense where admins should be able to sanction and criticize users for construing WP:Warn's use of the term in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term "abuse."
As I understand it, "abuse" is clearly be a separate concept to "vandalism"; if it were not, it would be redundant to have a tag for abuse distinct from the five-levels of tagging available for vandalism at WP:WARN. This understanding finds support in WP:Vandalism and Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse:
WP:Vandalism does not include "abuse" within its definition of vandalism ("Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages"). To the contrary: it explicitly lists "Vandalism" as a 'subset of the broader category of "abuse," of which it provides several other examples.
Implitly, Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse reinforces the premise that "abuse" is a separate concept to "vandalism": it "is a page intended to hold information describing editors or IPs who should be known by as many users as possible to aid in detecting and defeating their policy violations." That clearly implies an understanding of "abuse" as being "policy violations" generally, not the violation of the vandalism policy specifically.
My concern is that I've been upbraided and accused by several admins today, for allegedly misusing the {{Uw-longterm}} tag, a tag that WP:WARN declares unambiguously to be for the purposes of warning a user for a "ong term pattern of abuse." The conduct which I warned the user for was not vandalism, but serial abuse of the minor edit tag over a period of three years. That, to me, seemed to be by definition a "ong term pattern of abuse," and because I was under the understanding that when a user has engaged in conduct falling within the scope of two or more warnings, they should be served with all applicable warnings - in this case {{Uw-minor}} ("Incorrect use of minor edits check box") and {{Uw-longterm}} ("Long term pattern of abuse") - I added both warnings to the user's talk page.
When the user reacted that s/he was not in violation of policy, I took the issue to ANI for a determination. There was no substantive dispute there that the user had indeed been abusing the minor edit tag. (The only dispute of any kind was a semantic objection as to whether it constituted "abuse", in contradistinction to "misuse" or some other term, but that of course goes to the heart of the point: WP:WARN has no definition of the term "abuse.") However, several admins criticized me because the template that accompanies the warning tag was worded in a fashion that was excessively harsh for the kind of abuse at issue. There's certainly something to that point: the template warns that "This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated." This, of course, is why I discussed the difference between abuse and vandalism at some length at the beginning of this posting: the template speaks as if it were a Level 4im warning for vandalism. But that isn't the purpose for which WP:WARN clearly says it should be used: WP:WARN clearly and unambiguously says that the {{Uw-longterm}} tag warns a user for a "ong term pattern of abuse." There clearly exists a mismatch between the purpose for which AP:WARN advertises the tag and the text of the template.
Thus, I am totally at a loss to see how the admins' beef is not with the wording of the template, or the wording of WP:WARN, rather than me, and I am totally at a loss why several admins have repeatedly insisted that I was "out of line" (and words to the same effect) to use the {{Uw-longterm}} tag to warn a user for conduct that all bar the user agree falls squarely within the the conduct WP:WARN says the tag should be used for. I had understood the purpose of the warning templates as being not to save me keystrokes, but to standardize the formal warning process; so understood, it strikes me as irrelevant what the template says: what matters is whether the conduct at issue merits the warning that WP:WARN says the tag conveys, a fortiori when (as here) the tag has only a single level of warning, rather than multiple levels from which I would choose the most appropriate for the conduct at issue.
I've since been told that I was "technically reading it correctly, but reading it wrong in spirit" - if that's correct, then I've been attacked not because I read the rules wrong, but because the rules are badly drafted or/or inadequately explained by WP:WARN, in that they fail to properly convey in writing their intent. That being so, the conduct of several admins today has been little short of obnoxious. Even to the extent[REDACTED] is a community, it's a geographically-diverse community communicating through a textual medium. Where is this supposed "spirit" documented? Of necessity, any rules used to govern the community must be written down somewhere, otherwise how the heck is any user supposed to know what the rules are? It might be one thing for a kind of wikipedian common-law to finesse the fine points of the formal rules, but it's absolutely astonishing to be told that there is a wikipedian common-law totally at odds with the formal rules and policies, and that a user can be hung from them when it so takes an admin's fancy. That is an invitation to completely arbitrary administrative action.
In view of all this, I have two points to raise. Firstly and more importantly, I feel that if WP:WARN is going to use the term "abuse," that term should be either defined in the article itself or a policy such as WP:Abuse, or else admins should accept in good faith a user who understands the term "abuse" as comprehended by WP:Warn to mean "abuse" as that term is ordinarily used. And second (and more personally), I feel very much aggreived that several admins have mistreated me by accusing me of bad faith, of misunderstanding and misusing policy generally and the {{Uw-longterm}} tag specifically, notwithstanding that I've used those things in accordance with my good-faith understanding of them which has turned out to comply with them as they are written. When I asked for clarification on what exactly I did wrong, I ran into insults and in one case, what I took to be a threat. Indeed, User:Autocracy is the only admin who responded who actually took the time to try and understand what I was saying. I appreciate User:Autocracy's doing so, but the reactions from user:Theresa Knott and User:AKMask in particular were unwarranted, unreasonable, unduly hostile, in total violation of the letter and spirit of WP:AGF, and strike me as being conduct unbecoming an admin. Simon Dodd02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, templates exist basically as a convenience. If there's any wording in a template that you don't understand or agree with, you should probably use your own words (or a different template.) You told the user "Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated" and "The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages." Whether you did that using a template or typing it yourself is basically immaterial. It does seem a bit over the top to call misuse of the minor edit flag as "vandalizing a page". Herostratus03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of it is completely backwards to how I had understood it. I didn't tell the user that "Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated" - I formally warned them that they were serially abusing a[REDACTED] tool by using the tag WP:WARN provides for the purpose of formally warning a user for abuse (and abuse is distinct from vandalism, as I explained above at considerable length).
As I understand the purpose of the WP:WARN templates, they are part of the formal disciplinary mechanism at WP. When I've asked at WP:AN for a user to be banned before, I've been told that I can't make that kind of request until I've gone through the formal warning process of WP:WARN. So my understanding of the WP:WARN tags is this: if a user violates something for which they could be formally warned per WP:WARN, they should be appropriately tagged. If multiple tags apply to their conduct, multiple tags should be used. (If any of that understanding is wrong, it not only isn't contradicted by any stated policy I'm aware of, it is refuted by very strong implication in WP:WARN.) Both of the tags I used applied to the conduct at issue, so I used both. In a formal warning of violating WP policy, I had thought, what matters is whether the conduct falls within the scope of the warning; it's of no more relevance, as I see it, that the wording of {{Uw-longterm}} seems to me to be excessively harsh (and maybe even inapt for the violation WP:WARN says it should be used) than it is that the wording of {{Uw-minor}} seems excessively milquetoast. As I see it, that isn't a determination for me to make. I determined the user violated WP policy; WP decided how big a deal it considers such a violation to be, and assigns text comensurate to how big a deal it is to the warning template.Simon Dodd03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the message you gave. It included this content (from the {{Uw-longterm}} template):
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.
You did tell the user that "Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated." You also threatened that they would be blocked. Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but that's what you said, because apparently you neglected to read the template before using it. --bainer (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because part of the template uses the term "long term pattern of abuse", does not mean it fits all instances of abuses when the rest of the template refers to vandalism. If you would like to start a WP:Abuse and even make templates for that, I'd even jump in to help construct it, but until then, use your own words or use the correct template, not just the one with the few words that convey your thoughts. CASCADIA/Trail04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of it is completely backwards to how I had understood it.
This hit's the nail on the head. You are in fact understanding the templates completely backwards from everyone else. They are not a formal system that you have to use. They are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then you just go ahead and say it normally. Now it is true, as you said on my talk page, that admins will not block a vandal unless they have been warned first, but they do not have to be warned via a template. People just use them for convenience. Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from statements like "I will not block unless the user has received at a least a level three warning". Admins do say this sort of thing all the time but that again is just a convenience, do not take the words literally. The admin doesn't mean "I have to see a level three of higher template on the page", they mean "The user must have been warned that if they continue what they are doing they will be blocked". You can do it via a template, or you can write your own warning, either way, if they have been warned, they have been warned. I hope this clears the matter up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: changes to WP:WARN, proposal of WP:Abuse
I'm going to split this into a subsection, because it covers a series of changes I think that can and ought to be discussed from my beef with preceding admin actions.
Per User:Cascadia, I have proposed WP:Abuse. I've also made changes at WP:WARN that attempt to bring the text into accordance with what is being advanced as its "spirit." (I reiterate that it is preposterous in a written medium that a user can be adminlynched for following the letter of a policy at the expense of its supposed (and unwritten) "spirit"). I appreciate contributions and assistance on this, as I've never proposed a policy before; indeed, I wasn't aware that users have any right to modify policy or propose new policy. As noted below, I've incorporated Theresa's understanding of templates into the main text of WP:WARN; I've also created appropriate warning tags. My original plan was to change {{Uw-longterm}} to {{Uw-longtermvandalism}} and create {{Uw-longtermabuse}}, but realizing that {{Uw-longterm}} is probably in use all over WP, I contented myself with changing the description of {{Uw-longterm}} at WP:WARN to reflect what I'm now told is its actual purpose (long term vandalism), creating {{Uw-longtermabuse}} and labelling it appropriately. The new template reads:
If what Theresa says above is correct, that was previously inadequately conveyed in written policy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that what Theresa says is the common-law understanding is completely at odds with the actual text. I have updated WP:WARN - coped and pasted from Theresa's comment - to make clear the purpose of templates. Misplaced Pages exists in a written medium; my misunderstanding came from taking written policy as it was written. Where there is ambiguity, as there clearly was here, Admins should presume good faith (which Theresa did not, in my view) as long as the user's understanding is reasonably consistent with the ordinary meaning of the policy's text, except where its terms are defined elsewhere in policy, a point I have also included in the WP:Abuse proposed policy.Simon Dodd13:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That is utterly reprehensible. I make a good faith effort to try and fix an identified problem, and your first reaction is to nominate it for deletion. Combined with your threat the other day, we can safely say you're now well into the exception to WP:AGF.Simon Dodd14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The understanding I had formed from reading the policies (WP:Blocking and WP:WARN in particular) and from previously attempting to get a user blocked was that while users could be informally warned on their talk page, there was a formal warning process, WP:WARN formed its core, and that admins would not block a user until the formal warning process had been observed. That policy made a great deal of sense, but this whole issue arose because a template WP:WARN advanced for abuse was too harshly-worded for warning a user for abuse rather than vandalism. The several changes I've proposed this morning seek to clarify the purpose of warning templates, to better-tailor the text of the templates to their purpose, and to clarify how policy terms generally and "abuse" in particular are to be construed by users and admins. This is a good-faith effort to try and protect other users from the kind of treatment I got yesterday. It's completely irrational and unreasonable to ask users to conform their behavior to policy if the policy the admins will enforce is other than what is in the written policy.Simon Dodd14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, were you trying to get a user blocked because he missapplied the minor edit tag? Is that why you want to put some sort of "official template" on his talk page? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No. The story there is that s/he'd irritated me with her/his attitude at an article we disagreed with the content of. During that edit war, I noticed that s/he kept signing his edits as "minor edits" which they plainly weren't. I resolved the edit war problem by requesting (and getting) page protection, which I regarded as the end of that matter. But I wanted to tell her/him to quit with the minor edit tags, and because I was irritated with her/him, I wasn't in any mood to cut them a break - they were plainly violating WP policy, so I skipped directly to (what I thought was) the formal WP:WARN system. As I keep trying to explain, my understanding - right, wrong or otherwise - was that when you use the WP:WARN tags, you use all those which apply. My understanding - right, wrong or otherwise - was that when using the WP:WARN tags, the point is the violation that the tag is provided for, not the text of the tag.
I can't imagine any admin banning someone for such a relatively minor infraction of WP policy, no matter how longstanding (for the same reason, I thought the wording of the template for such a violation was pretty harsh and inapt, but again, as I keep saying, within my understanding of what the WP:WARN templates are for and how they're used, I didn't think that was any of my business). I just wanted them to stop abusing the minor edit tag, and I had understood that a prerequisite to requesting any kind of admin intervention (i.e., in this case, reporting them at AN/I and having an admin tell them to stop abusing the minor edit tag), if they wouldn't stop of their own volition (and of course that's precisely what happened), was to first use the WP:WARN templates.
Now, my understanding of this process is apparently wrong, Theresa. But for any policy that is enforceable against users, there must be a way that a reasonable user of ordinary intelligence can discover what the rules are. The problem here wasn't that I didn't understand what the specific template said, it was that I was mislead by WP's written policy and previous replies by admins in blocking requests as to what the purpose of using the WP:WARN templates is. Now, you must surely see that there's only two possible ways that a user can discover that mistake: (a) if it's written somewhere in WP policy, or (b) if they get it wrong ("wrong" being defined by common practice) and an admin tells them so.
An appropriate response by the admins at AN/I would have been something like what an admin has subsequently put on my talk page. What he wrote there is perfectly lucid and reasonable. But it isn't in any written canonical WP policy document that I'm aware of. That left only one way I could find that out: to get it wrong and be told so. If one of the admins at AN/I had responded the way Ben responded on my talk page, that would have been fair and reasonable. But that isn't what happened: you guys formed a lynch mob and started hurling insults and threats at me. At no point did any of you grasp that you were trying to hang me from an understanding of WP policy which is not only not embodied in any written policy, but in fact cuts against the very strong insinuations of several written policies, not the least of which being WP:WARN itself. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for me to feel pretty aggreived by the way you guys conducted yourselves.Simon Dodd15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to aggrevate you. The truth of the matter is that i was absolutely flabbergasted by what you said, and couldn't believe that you would post a template on a user's talk page without reading it first, and then couldn't believe that you wouldn't remove the template as soon as you saw what it said. You are quick to critisize the behaviour of several admins but perhaps less eager to examine your own behaviour. The first piece of advice given to you was pretty polite. Yet instead of following it you argued. When admins could not believe their ears and argued back you accused them of attacking you. When several admins chime in and state that you were wrong you accused them of being a lynch mob. Be assured, no one is trying to hang you. Personally I just want you to stop. Oh yes and go and remove that template. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You are quick to criticize the behaviour of several admins but perhaps less eager to examine your own behaviour.
That's because my "behavior" can only be considered unreasonable if one accepts the predicate that users should somehow "just know" when WP policy doesn't mean what it actually says. And in any event, of course admins are and should be held to a higher standard than regular users: you guys are supposed to know what the policy actually is, and when users are misapprehending it, you're supposed to help them get it right by explaining why the policy doesn't mean what it says. You chose not to do that - you chose to be insulting and reprimanding. I've explained above - for the umpteenth time, it seems - why I didn't remove the template when I saw what it said, so I'm not going to reiterate that in response to your repetated incredulity that I accepted the template as it was.
Furthermore, your description of what happened at AN/I is way off, Theresa. You wrote: "he first piece of advice given to you was pretty polite. Yet instead of following it you argued. When admins could not believe their ears and argued back you accused them of attacking you." That isn't what happened. I reported the infraction, and the "first piece of advice given to" me was that (a) my "concern about the 'minor' tag was correct" but that (b) the template I'd used was too strong. I replied politely - and in good humor, hence the ;) emoticon concluding that comment - to explain why I'd used that template. And at that point, Theresa, someone jumped down my throat and accused me of bad faith, writing "Oh come on! Pull the other one. Is there something we don't know about here." That's the comment that escalated the situation, Theresa, and it was yours. And when I tried to politely explain myself to you, you responded by calling me "way of of line." Other admins piled on. And you don't see why I feel like y'all formed a lynch mob? Are you serious? Simon Dodd16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK let's stop this right now. I apologise if my remarks came across as overly harsh. I'm pretty thicked skinned myself and assume others are the same. I found it amazing that you didn't remove the warning as soon as you saw it, but that is done now. What I would like you to do now though is to remove the warning. I will remove it myself if you refuse but it would look so much better if you did it. Again I am sorry if I upset you, should have been more tactful. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Given the sheer amount of text Simon has now generated on at least five forums over this trivial matter, I'd not be astonished if some admin stepped in at this point and blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf.☼15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that users evaluate that comment in light of your threat towards me yesterday, (Theresa, at least, was just insulting - she didn't stoop any lower than that), and in light of your profoundly bad-faith nomination of the category I had just created for deletion without any kind of discussion here or anywhere else, and without the common courtesy of notifying me that you'd proposed it for deletion. Simon Dodd16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"several written policies, not the least of which being WP:WARN itself" - WP:WARN is not (and was not) described as policy anywhere at all - it is simply a system of templates to be used as users see fit. The fact that after it was reorganised it suggested that {{longterm}} was for something other than vandalism is unfortunate, but that is the only problem. The only important "policy" here is "Don't leave a message unless you have read it and mean everything it says. JPD (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you say that "he only important 'policy' here is 'Don't leave a message unless you have read it and mean everything it says,'" yet don't cite any policy document that says that. Where was it written - so that ordinary users could avail themselves of the knowledge - this time yesterday that the WP:WARN templates are just intended to save keystrokes, and shouldn't be used unless the user agrees with every word of the text? What policy states that policy, JPD? Simon Dodd16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
MASSIVE backlog at AIV
Resolved
I don't know if there's a concerted vandal attack going on, but it took me 6 edit conflicts to get my report in. About 20 items in the list. Anchoress02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I came across a request to have an autoblock removed on User talk:Pikminlover, and just before I granted the request, I noticed this user has suffered multiple autoblocks. I've outlined the issue briefly on the talk page, but it seems this user is engaging in sockpuppetry in order to vandalize using one account, then revert and report the vandal account with the first. On four occasions, a user who is blocked as a result of Pikminlover's reverts/AIV reports has resulted in an autoblock on Pikminlover's account. Seems a little too much of a coincidence. I've declined the request for now, but would appreciate another set of eyes. - auburnpilottalk05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks suspicious to me - even if h tends to use public IP addresses/proxies, reporting the user shouldn't tend to cause his IP address to get the autoblock. There are lots of IP addresses autoblocked, and the probability that his gets autoblocked every time he reports a vandal is so slim that I would probably open a WP:SSP report about him. OdMishehu10:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, (1) this is an 11-year old kid (at least that's what they say), (2) most of the other accounts that where then blocked previously had friendly contact with his account (wrote on each other's talkpage etc.) So either this is some sock vandalism game, or a bunch of kids at school. Fut.Perf.☼10:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My original thought was that it might be a couple of kids bored at school, but the IP addresses don't appear to trace back to a school . Unless I'm missing something, they all appear to be fairly static addresses for a home and/or business. - auburnpilottalk17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please can you go and speak to the user before bringing it here? And what if by some chance this user is actually called Tom Green? Ryan Postlethwaite14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of Tom Green, and would think it's such a generic name to be not a problem unless he's actually claiming to be a notable Tom Green (if you see what I mean). If he is claiming such, then he needs to verify his identity via OTRS I believe. --kingboyk16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that there's more than one Tom Green in the world - unless he claims to be the notable one, I don't think that we need to take any action. If he does make such claims, then his identity should be verified by OTRS, if needs be. Martinp2316:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that the policy states you cant use your real name if someone else who has your real name is famous. Tom Green has had multiple movies, tv shows, and currently hosts the only live video podcast on the internet. This isn't kosher, needs to be changed. -M16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, if it's a generic name, (which in my opinion Tom Green is) then we tend to assume good faith with it, it's in policy to stop BLP issues and such. If the user starts editing Tom Green then there may be an issue, until then, it's fine. Ryan Postlethwaite16:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
With a weekly schedule and callers. You can download it later, too, but he streams it live when it happens. It's led to some.... interesting moments. I only found the site after Alex talked about it in relation to... gah, forget the name, that one singer guys show... Lynchworld! there we go. -M16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agreee. His user page states that he is 21 years old -- that alone probably establishes that he is not claiming to be the notable podcaster. DES17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, also his talk page explains "If you were looking for Tom Green, the Canadian comedian, whose real first name is actually Michael, you want this article: Tom Green." Addhoc17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks reasonable to me, given to commonness of the name and the explanation on the talk page. InBC18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, after I've been shown the commoness of the name, and him disavowing that hes any of the famous ones, I think my earlier reaction was a bit harsh. -M20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Question from Sophymalophy
I wonder if you can assist me?. I created a page last year describing the conviction and eventual reprieve of William Herbert Wallace (that is the name of the page) for the murder of his wife in England in 1931. (I also created ones for Florence Maybrick and The Cameo Murder)
+ Since I did this, another contributor has added a a footnote which is incorrect, has no substance in fact and is simply his theory. The Wallace case is an internationally known mystery and no other person has ever been convicted of the crime. The footnote cites a theory by a Keith Andrews, who decribes himself as a criminologist and author. An exhaustive search of the internet has not turned up any published work by this person and he description of himself as a criminologist applies in the same way it might to anyonw who has read a book on crime.
+ His theory is without any foundation and leaves a reader with the impression that the murder is now solved. This is not correct as the murder happened in 1931 and all those involved are most likely dead. Andrews cannot claim to have solved the murder because, in the absence of a signed confession ever coming to light, it is unlikely ever to be resolved. This addition therefore is untrue. I have attempted to remove the last two lines of the article, that I was very satisfied with but the page is protected. If Andrews wished to expound his theory, and that is all it is and is ever likely to be, then he should have created a page of his own rather than altered mine. I would like the page to be "unprotected" so that I can remove this incorrect addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophymalophy (talk • contribs) 15:00, April 25, 2007 (UTC)
Note that the article now says that the case is unsolvd, but that Andrews believes in a particular solution. Note also that Keith Andrews (criminologist) cites published work about this theory, as well as other published work both by and about Andrews. It is surely true to say that Andrews "belives" a solution when he has published arguemts for it. DES17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Note also that as per WP:OWN, no[REDACTED] editor should think or speak of a page as "mine" (execpt perhaps in user space). DES17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Keith Andrews (criminologist) for deletion as an obvious vanity piece with no external sources to establish notability (and only 35 Google hits, of which most seem to be either his own or Misplaced Pages). Guy (Help!) 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Request from a user claiming impersonation
I reverted two fairly unpleasant unreferenced additions at Broseley, see diff 1 & diff 2. The user Mike Yates 07 (talk • contribs) contacted me to ask how to get the info into the articles, and I replied. I have now received another message in which the user claims that his account was used without his permission (diff), and asking that the edits be deleted from the history. I'm not sure if this qualifies for deletion/oversight, but could someone advise the user? Thanks, Mr Stephen17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Edits in the history can only be deleted through oversight. These now-reverted edits were simple vandalism and don't qualify for deletion under the oversight policy. No action required or possible here, I think. Sandstein18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically you can delete specific revisions, it's just not oversighted (which hides it even from admins). To delete a specific revision, delete the page, then restore all but the revision(s) you want. ^demon19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're of course correct. Goes to show that even what we mean by deletion is a somewhat relative concept. Of course, there's no point in deleting simple vandal edits, either. Having the diffs available to all will be useful if Mike Yates 07's track record is ever in the need of examination. Sandstein19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Now here's a thought...
in line with discussions at WT:BLP in respect of the default in deletion debates, and noting Doc's comment in the deletion debate for Jeffrey St. Clair, I would like to suggest a variant of the {{prod}} tag as follows:
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 14 days. (This template was added: 21 January 2025.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
Nominator: Please remember to notify the author(s) of this article via their user talk page using:
I support this. I've long supported the notion that unsourced articles should be nuked, not pushed into the backlogs saying "we'll fix it eventually." Oftentimes it's the BLPs that are the worst, so I think something like this would help to clean things up a bit. ^demon19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It might be nice to alert the Bio WikiProject to this (I'll do it). Personally, I emphatically support. We have well over 100,000 BLPs, most of them unsourced and many of them on the margins of notability. --kingboyk19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely support easier nuking of unsourced BLPs. But... up until now, PROD has been based on unanimous consensus for deletion, which is why people have accepted it. One objection kills a PROD. This proposal, now, will introduce ambiguity and discussions. Who decides whether an article has sufficient, reliable, and independent sources that warrant the tag's removal? One admin? All editors by normal consensus? People are bound to disagree, revert, edit-war over this tag's addition or removal. At which point, why not have a normal AfD in the first place, which is at least a well-established and well-understood process? If we want to make it easier to get rid of WP:BLP issues, a cautious expansion of WP:CSD might be easier in terms of process. Sandstein19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the wording, this tag should only be removed if the article is sourced, and editors get 14 days to do it. The "deleting" admin would have to decide whether the article passes muster or not. If the tag gets removed before then, it's probably incumbent on the original tagger or anybody else who notices it to check the article, and if they disagree, send it to AFD. Just like {{prod}} then, but with a longer grace period and an "only remove if sourced rule". I like it! --kingboyk19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. The onus should be on the BLP writer to provide sourcing and evidence of notability. If neither of these requirements is met, I don't see why we should keep the defective BLP. -- ChrisO19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:BEANS, I would hope the deleting admin would go back a few revisions to make sure a vandal hasn't removed sourcing from the article before prodding it (ala JB196) SirFozzie20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we don't need a special tag for this, and if the tag is removed it can always be sent to Articles for deletion. I don't support the idea of only allowing the tag to be removed conditionally, because that's a recipe for the very kind of tussle that proposed deletion is supposed to circumvent. --Tony Sidaway20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The point of this proposal, as I understand it, is to create a new deletion criterion, which is "BLP article with no sources". The existing prod won't do because it does not have this criterion. The new tag would be stronger than AFD because it does not require agreement to delete, only agreement that there are no sources. Note I am not arguing in favor, just explaining my opinion of what is being proposed. CMummert · talk20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There need to be sharp criteria for what "doesn't cite its sources" means. If it means there are absolutely zero references or external links, then I would support this, but with a 21 day or 31 day window instead of 14 days. When the reliability of sources or thoroughness of sourcing needs to be evaluated, AFD is more appropriate. CMummert · talk20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AFD would have to be the final arbiter where there are disputes, but given the potential numbers involved it would be good to avoid that forum wherever possible. --kingboyk20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If AFD is to be the arbiter of disputes, there is little or no difference to the old PROD, except that the new one takes longer. The crucial issue remains: who decides whether the article has proper sources, i.e. whether it should (not) be deleted? If the community decides, AfD is maybe a more appropriate forum. If one admin decides, we're actually facing a new WP:CSD, some of which already have complicated time requirements, etc. Not that I would be against this, it's more a matter of how we structure it. Sandstein20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The community deciding on each and every case could bog down the system. Do we trust admins enough to let one admin decide if an article is adequately sourced? I doubt it. If my summary is correct, that only leaves something like prod, or an entirely new system. --kingboyk20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If the criteria are made explicit, the admin will not have to exercise a great deal of discretion in most cases. CMummert · talk20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How about a CSD along the lines of "a BLP that lacks reliable independent sources for its substantial claims, and has been tagged to that effect for at least 7 days?" Whether or not we need a special tag for this or whether {{unsourced}} etc. suffice seems to be more of an ancillary question. Sandstein 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) -- If discussion turns out to be required after the fact, WP:DRV would be the place. Sandstein20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If the closing admin has to read sources to decide if the delete tag is valid, then it's not a "speedy" delete - it's a plan for backlog. CMummert · talk20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't stand in the way of the bio prod idea. It looks like a move in the right direction, with an appropriate grace period. --Tony Sidaway20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be an excellent idea, and would clear the bureaucracy surrounding the deletion of unsourced articles at AFD. Clearly, the criteria would need to be well-defined, but I would trust a single admin to do the deletion, having already been nommed by an editor. What are the current rules about deletion of NN/unsourced articles - can they be deleted unilaterally? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
There is a speedy deletion criteria for articles that do not assert notability, but no speedy criteria for articles that assert notability but have no references. Lack of references is a content issue, while deleting an article involves much more than the current content. CMummert · talk23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
BLP states: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced" but is every unsourced statement automatically "contentious"? I'm still on the fence about this. I would support the very long time period (21+ days) and I would make notifying the creator/major contributor mandatory for this. The point is to get articles improved, the creator is most likely to have sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For those who agree that unsourced BLPs should go, but who do not agree with a new PROD/CSD, it basically boils down to you thinking that they should all go through AFD. What if every unsourced BLP was mass-nommed at AFD? ^demon00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It would go down in flames because AFD is for deletion, not for cleanup. I'm assuming that the BLPs are not marginally notable and would otherwise pass our WP:N test. hbdragon8800:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The new CSD criterium should be applied only to the articles created after some cut-out date (say after May 1 2007) otherwise we would create a backlog of thousands of valid BLP stubs. I would support A9 for the BLP articles having no sources no external links whatsever. Everything at least partially sourced should go through Prods/AfD Alex Bakharev01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced claims about living people are already deletable on sight; eventualism doesn't apply to BLP articles. A BLP with no sources isn't a valid stub. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Was that really the intent of the policy (that there can be no unsourced BP stubs)? It certainly doesn't say that explicitly, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. CMummert · talk02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I did some cleanup of a random selection of articles from User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs a while back and found somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of the articles marked as {{unreferenced}} actually did have at least one reference in them. Since the unreferenced tag is being so widely misused in this manner I'm leery of creating an analogous tag that has deletion as a default action should it go unnoticed for a few weeks. Bryan Derksen07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the closing admin would surely check for sources in the article before deleting. (This proposal is basically WP:PRODUS, by the way, but applied to BLPs only where it will surely be less controversial (but probably still somewhat controversial).) --ais523 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, one main difference with PRODUS was that it would have applied only to articles created after it went into effect. (I don't think that's needed here, but it certainly is a major difference.) I said before and I'll say again-"unsourced biography of a living person" should be CSD A9. Seraphimblade08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A new user (User:BlueEarth) and some problems with the recreation of deleted content
I originally assumed good faith with this person and just thought that he did not understand that his articles were inappropriate, but he appears to be unwilling to accept this. If he continues to recreate these articles, his actions will become disruptive. At this point, I think that administrator intervention may be needed. Dr. Submillimeter19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The website in question has a copyright page that makes the license clear - it's a creative commons license. That isn't compatible with WP because we don't rerelease our work under a creative commons license. CMummert · talk00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor nominated a chess opening variant article for deletion which was about to be merged into a larger article on the parent opening per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. I have now implemented the merge (here), and redirected all the other variant articles to the main one. However, I don't want to redirect the nominated article with the AfD tag still on it. Could an admin close the AfD as redundant so I can do this, and then the nom can start an RfD on it if he still wishes to delete it (I wouldn't oppose this, it's a fairly unlikely search term)? I don't want to do a non-admin close on it as an involved party. EliminatorJR01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There are 8 revisions in the history. That history should technically be preserved somewhere under the GFDL, even if the redirect was considered not needed. Carcharoth01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's fine to leave it as it is - the main thing is to close the redundant AfD so I can actually convert the article into a redirect - thanks. EliminatorJR02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not here for the editing
Call me a suspicious bastard, but based on their interlinked contribution histories, I believe that:
It's not just you, but neither have edited in a month. Certainly they are seemingly vandalistic/nonsense throwaway accounts, so I'm not going to block them because I do policy wonk when contributions are that old. But I will watch for further contributions. Thanks, Calton. Teke04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked apologetic user seems to be forgotten about by admins
Administrator Jkelly came to my talk page on 9 April and asked my help in cleaning up a copyright mess. He directed me to a section of this noticeboard which has since been archived. Orbicle (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) had committed numerous copyright violations. Gmaxwell created a list of articles Orbicle had created here, and several of us went through those articles, googling sentences, looking for statstically unlikely phrases, etc. A lot of violations were found, but many of the articles/stubs/disambiguation pages were clean. While we were looking through them, Zscout370 blocked Orbicle indefinitely.
In some cases, when I was checking articles, even when I couldn't find any plagiarism by googling, I felt it was better to reword them a little, and sometimes I removed unsourced statements. This led to one of my edits being challenged, on a page about some opera, so, since several of the articles I was checking were about operas, I left a note of explanation at the Opera WikiProject talk page. There was some discussion there, and people felt that it would be over harsh to leave Orbicle blocked forever if he agreed to respect our copyright policy in future. Some of those people posted at his talk page, and at the admin noticeboard. Orbicle put an unblock template on his talk page; the request was reviewed and declined by Irishguy, who wrote, "We are still working on cleaning it all out."
When the cleanup was finished, I hoped that Orbicle would be unblocked. However, I think that administrators simply forgot about him. He had not attempted to to replace the unblock template. He did in fact post an apology and request without reusing the template. I suggested to him that linking to m:Avoid copyright paranoia was not the best way of requesting an unblock, and he removed the link.
Antandrus had said (at the Opera WikiProject talk page) that he'd unblock Orbicle himself if Orbicle promised not to do any more copyvios, and helped us to find the violations. (By the time Orbicle's request for unblocking had been made an rejected, the cleanup was almost finished.) Although Antandrus had said that, I felt that it would be courteous to make the request directly to Zscout370, as it was he who had placed the block. I made a request on Zscout's talk page on 17 April. I kept the page on my watchlist, but there was no reply. On 20 April, I posted that I didn't want to nag, but was there any chance he'd consider it. Again, there was nothing — not even a refusal.
Today, Orbicle posted on his talk page again, apologising once more, promising to be more careful, and saying that he would gladly have helped clean up the mess if he hadn't been blocked. See here.
I don't think there's a danger that he'll do the same thing again, so I really think someone should be willing to give him another chance. I fully uphold the Foundation's copyright policy, and applaud the administrators who work so hard to enforce it. But I think that once there's no longer any danger to the project, it seems rather merciless to keep him blocked forever. When going through his edits, I saw quite a lot of good work, and I am sure he was motivated by a wish to improve the encyclopaedia, and didn't fully realise that copying and pasting a synopsis of a book from Amazon's website, or a list of facts but with identical wording is not acceptable. ElinorD(talk)14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Resolved – Template was prematurely restored, and the Deletion Review decided to keep it restored. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
