Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive141

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

Noticeboard archives



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clear. The block stands. No need to continue the pile on. - KnightLago (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am getting tired of seeing this name, but is anybody else uncomfortable with User:Nothing444 trying his hand at mediation? – ClockworkSoul 07:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Objection_to_mediator, I am strongly opposed to letting Nothing444 do WP:DR. MBisanz talk 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree here, from how I've seen his conduct/contributions, both on en wiki and on an external wiki, I'm not convinced that he would be an effective mediator. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, he's not ready to mediate. He's inexperienced with mainspace and content disputes, he has recent blocks, he misunderstands lots of things on Wikipedia, as highlighted by Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Arbitration Cabal and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nothing444 2. Probably, namespace ban could be appropriate, if he continues. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest making him (and the others usually mentioned when his name comes up) take Fillls AG challenge. Not the multiple choice either. Also, I would possibly find any dispute I was in would degenerate to an unworkable mess if he contributed to DR. Dan Beale-Cocks 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yesterday I was one Ctrl-V away from silencing him on IRC. Make what you will of that. --Deskana (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Namespace restriction[edit]

What is the feeling on some sort of namespace restriction for Nothing444 (talk · contribs). Maybe that he can only edit article, Talk, and User talk:? MBisanz talk 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gp75motosports monobook solution is a good one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this user is already under namespace restriction per [1] and has been ignoring it. I'm thinking this Medcab issue now warrants a 1 to 2 week block. MBisanz talk 09:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for a new namespace restriction. Simply tell him that with regret, the Admin Cabal has decided that his presence at the Mediation Cabal is not appropriate at this time. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we need to go beyond the "please don't edit outside the mainspace" phase, and move on to something more restrictive. As we've seen again and again this user, though well meaning, tends to color way outside the lines. Perhaps he needs to be told, once and for all, that for the next three months, if he edits outside or main or user, he'll be subject to blocks of increasing duration. I've been watching him very closely, and I think it would be best for all involved parties if he's fenced in for a little while. – ClockworkSoul 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In a way it's a shame that his RfA was closed so early as SNOW. The pile on, had it been left open of editors saying "NO" might have given him a clue. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to dislike draconian measures, but, given what I've seen over the last month, I think what I put at User_talk:Nothing444#Explanation_required is entirely warranted. MBisanz talk 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This user's behaviour has been causing problems for some time and firmer action is needed. Hut 8.5 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. This discussion last night (as a result of this note I left on his talk page) shows his inability to accept advice when dealing in the user talk space. I think a restriction is needed. And I think that he needs to avoid new page and recent changes patrols because he cannot A. fully grasp the policies and B. cannot communicate with others effectively. Metros (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I endorse MBisanz and Metros' comments, and support a further restriction. - Philippe 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As do I. I'm very against draconian measures myself, which is why I unblocked him not once but twice. Really, I think we gave him plenty of rope and he went and got himself all tangled up in it. – ClockworkSoul 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This specific case has already been resolved, but we need to stop trying to force these editors to edit articles. When they're obviously incompetent, the last thing we want them to do is touch important things. I have no strong opinion on whether we should tolerate their playing in user space, but telling them "you must edit articles" is just plain harmful. Friday (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I have blocked Nothing444 indefinitely for a recent act of pure vandalism to Photochrom. My extended reasoning can be found at their talkpage; I'm in far too much of a slothlike mode to draft a second extended statement here. :-) east.718 at 18:04, April 25, 2008

  • I endorse this block. MBisanz talk 18:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse as well. I am tired of the games with this user. They are obviously not here to contribute constructively. Enough is enough. KnightLago (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I also endorse this block, per this (admins only), which was what was added to Photochrom above. Ral315 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Dogpile plus me. – ClockworkSoul 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. His subpages will need to be deleted or redirected to his userpage as a result. Also, this seems to be a blank RFA for him created by him. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added {{indef}} to his navbar. Microchip 08 (non admin) 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • <sigh>I'm sorry Nothing444, but I and others believe you have been harmfull to wikipedia. I have no choice but to Endorse the block. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have known Nothing444 for a while and I have seen how much he has done wrong to the encyclopedia. He/She has been blocked many times. He has offered many users adoption while welcoming users even when just blocked, he has vandalized a few times, he is harfull to the project, making many wrong edits. He is overly enthusiastic, running for adminship way too inexperienced, copyrighting images, socializing, ect. He thinks that wikipedia is more of a WP:MYSPACE than an encyclopedia to me. These are the reasons I endorse this block.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying you agree he should be blocked because he has done the same things you have spent most of your time on Wikipedia doing? I know you are trying to sort yourself at the moment, but you are in danger of becoming your own prosecution here! George The Dragon (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
RyRy5 is his own editor, and I've witnessed a vast maturity boost in his editing. Your assessment is unfair GTD, and is based on older complaints against RyRy (that I agree with). Your comment here was unnecessary and had "nothing" to do with "Nothing" (444) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to drag this out, though I think it's fair to say we have different opinions of the best way for Wikipedia to achieve the best future, but what I will add is that if all social-networkers and would-be social-networkers look at Nothing444's situation and decide to focus on the project, then something good would have come out of his Wikipedia existence. And that, I do believe, would be a good thing George The Dragon (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, then we agree. I'd encourage you to look, if you wish, at some of RyRy's recent contribs. I've seen some very positive contributions mixed in with the chatter, including starting some articles that were missing. My point was to tell you to talk about the issue at hand, and to try not to talk about those other editors that also partake in the discuss (and ironically and as proof of growth, agree with you). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to jump in - though I feel that discussion of RyRy's behavior is off-topic, I'm pleased to say that I've seen a MASSIVE attempt at fitting into this community from RyRy. He has asked for and taken advice, and has gone from trying to adopt to being willing to be adopted, with good results so far. He's a little impatient, and he makes mistakes, but who doesn't? It's no secret that a couple of weeks ago I was nearing my breaking point with RyRy, but to his credit he has done everything that I've asked of him to the very best of his ability. He has my respect. Unlike Nothing444, Ryan is working very hard at defining his role in this community and is showing every sign of maturing in his judgment. To lump him in with Nothing444 is - at this point - a massive distortion of the facts. - Philippe 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Philippe. RyRy5 has been working hard lately, and if this is one of the areas he can improve in, then let him. Let's not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Philippe, which was why I challenged the comparison drawn by GTD. Please visit this section of my talkpage to see an analysis of RyRy's improvements. Keep in mind, I was one of the initial complainers about (and to) RyRy5. Completely unrelated to Nothing444. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything Philippe said. I've noticed many positive changes by RyRy5 in the past 2 weeks. APK yada yada 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse this block. I feel that all avenues of attempting to correct this users behavior have been tried, and none have worked. Tiptoety talk 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I'd be surprised if anyone didn't. Wizardman 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely endorse - it's a shame so much good faith was extended to him, yet he's consistently abused it. :/ krimpet 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse its been a long time coming. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I'm sorry, I know this user has been troublesome, but indef seems harsh even to me, couldn't we have just blocked for three months or something? I think he deserves one last chance. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
He has had for too many "one last chances" given to him, all of which were abused. When do we say "enough"? Tiptoety talk 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We say "enough" now. Nothing444 has had 3 "last chances" according to my calculations.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (e/c)This is now his fourth block for pretty much the same reason. Is there any reason to think he will be different after 3 months? Or will even come back after 3 months? Mr.Z-man 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I realize all of that, but one of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:AGF, and Nothing444 has acted in good faith most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I dislike social-networking on Wikipedia very much, but this user is not relentlessly vandalising, so I think he should be given a conditional last chance, perhaps put under arbitration, maybe a restriction to only article and article talk? Maybe get mentored and watched more closely and maybe he'll become a better contributor. Look at RyRy5, look how much he grew in the past weeks, maybe a similar thing will happen with Nothing444, just take a bit longer. I'd be for blocking him for another week or so then putting him under restrictions, getting him some mentorship and made clear (I think it's already pretty damn clear) that any repeated incidents will get him an indef block. I just hate to see potentially good users gone to waste and Nothing444 might very well give something to this encyclopedia. The DominatorTalkEdits 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. Enough is enough. KnightLago (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse which is wholly unfortunate. Enough energy has been used up. Time to move on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse it's clear that nothing short of a miracle would get this user to edit articles, and even if this did happen he would do more harm than good. Far too many opportunities and chances abused. Hut 8.5 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse We've got better things to do than coddle someone who is so obviously unrepentant for their actions. EVula // talk // // 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pour encourager les autres. :) --barneca (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - we've seen absolutely no attempt at reforming and becoming a productive member of the community. he's had plenty of chances. My patience is exhausted. - Philippe 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the specific users conduct. I do however find this endorsement unnecesary. If someone needs to be blocked for a reason as obvious as vandalism there is no need to make a big list of endorsement over it. -- Cat chi? 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Possible Grawp sleepers[edit]


98 red balloons (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), Typingvolume (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), and Don't Know Why (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), Destroyerofterran (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). I was browsing Encyclopedia Dramatica and it seems that some of it's users are helping Grawp vandalize by creating accounts for him and giving him the passwords so he can bypass the checkuser block. I would post a link but links to ED are blacklisted it seems. Also, check their contribs. Each of the accounts has a single contributions worth of creating a page in a very similar manner. I wouldn't be surprised if their original user wasn't creating pages with false info.--Urban Rose 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that the passwords have all been changed which means that Grawp has already logged in as them and changed the passwords. They should be blocked as compromised accounts.--Urban Rose 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)--
No checkuser data on three of them, the other one is taken care of. Thatcher 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The accounts are clearly socks of the same user. I did a google search on "Euan G. Cameron" and the only hits it gets are this article on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. They should be blocked for hoaxing if nothing else.--Urban Rose 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, this diff show one of the accounts creating a page on a person claiming that they are deceased, though, the current version of the article reads that they are alive.--Urban Rose 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Something is off, but I don't know what. The first 3 accounts all created articles that were nominated as hoaxes by the now indef-blocked RepriseRubric (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). In all 3 cases, AfD's determined they probably weren't hoaxes, but it seems like all had pretty bad info in them to start with (fake death dates, possibly a fake middle initial (there evidently IS an author Euan Cameron, and deleting the page might have been a little rash) etc). Urban Rose, are you saying you think all three were also RepriseRubric, and this was some kind of game? --barneca (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm starting to catch on and see the pattern, I'm blocking all three that Thatcher didn't block. --barneca (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(Refering to your previous post) Possibly so. I saw a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica where a user ("") claiming to be the owner of the accounts revealed their passwords to another user who claims to be the vandal Grawp so that he could compromise the accounts and avoid being checkuser blocked for creating his own accounts. I will email you with a link to this page if you request it.--Urban Rose 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)No need (I can't access that place from where I am anyway). I'm going to be a bit rouge and block all three. Hoaxes, being involved with an indef blocked sock of you know who, and your description of the situation. 3 strikes. Blocks can be reversed if I'm being to aggressive. --barneca (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The only author I can find is Euan K. Cameron. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm it, I saw it as well. No need for email. KnightLago (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So anyway I guess it's possible that "RepriseRubric" could be ED user "ByAppointmentTo".--Urban Rose 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop discussing Grawp related vandalism, it is all he wants, just revert and block, because of all the threads like this, it is becoming a game. This is the only way to deal with trolls, stop discussing them, and delete the vandalised lines from page histories also. Jackaranga (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't meaningless discussion. I reported some compromised accounts so that they couldn't be used for vandalism. Ignoring a problem won't make it disappear.--Urban Rose 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Just check (removed diff). This proves that RepriseRubic was also compromised by Grawp, though I assume that it could have originated from "ByAppointmentTo".--Urban Rose 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the diff above, just vandalism that is freezing firefox. KnightLago (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a very serious checkuser flush of all this. It is getting very boring. -- Cat chi? 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll file one myself if you like.--Urban Rose 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why, Thatcher is a CU and he ran one? See the top of this. KnightLago (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
He didn't run one on RepriseRubric and the other accounts to see if their was a common IP range. If we can find a common range other than Grawp's, we can locate ByAppointmentTo's IP range and at it to our list of ranges that Grawp socks are originating from since he admits to be aiding Grawp in creating socks. I've added a new request at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp.--Urban Rose 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The accounts I blocked are way too old for CU. Good catch, Urban Rose, but really, I think we're done here. DNFT and all that. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Nothing there right now... αlεxmullεr 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a backlog over at WP:AIV. Thanks. :) Corvus cornixtalk 22:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing dispute[edit]

Myself and someone else, are having a dispute over the Dutch Empire. I have listed references, created a new map(filled in the needed area), and made a few new paragraphs for the new locations. However, he claims my references are not reliable. The main site I have used has references on where they got all of their information from such as this page for example However, he wants me to go back, and find out if the people who wrote this site misinturprutated what the references say. That would result in me buying hundereds of books, hunting down old newspaper articles from the 1600's and flying around the world for a couple of years look at the remains of the forts and musuems in Africa, Asia etc. Now, I could be wrong, but isn't his a big ridiculous? I have listed more than this, I believe I listed six. Anyways, go to the Dutch Empire talk and you will see what we have been talking about. Thanks. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

As a long-standing and serious contributor to the history of colonialism space, I have pointed out to this user why his "sources" (a collection of self-published websites) are not in accordance with WP:V. I have also, regrettably, gotten a bit too emotional about it and quite badly exceeded 3RR. However, my final attempt-at-interim-solution action was to remove the map altogether until others have had the opportunity to contribute. However, the response was an immediate revert from Red4tribe to put his map back. Anyway, I am going to take a break now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM - Franjo TuđmanFranjo Tudjman[edit]

While the backlog at WP:RM is nowhere near as bad as it has been at other times this year, we are mere hours away from the proposed move of Franjo TuđmanFranjo Tudjman being on the books for a full month. Any experienced administrator's assistance with the closing of this proposed move would be appreciated. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


If User:Nukeh (user page reminds me of User:Conservative) continues to mess around on my talk page, can one of you do me a favour and shoot him? Richard001 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Which gun? Sig Sauer, .30-06, or Combine SMG? In any case, I have your page watchlisted. He shows up again and bugs you, he's gonna regret it. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 08:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nukeh is evidently either trolling or completely confused, a classic case of a disruptive editor. I've given him a stern warning, this behaviour is definitely blockable. Fut.Perf. 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for recreated deleted articles?[edit]

Looking to stay one step ahead of those recreating the same deleted article but under a slightly different article name? Where Special:PrefixIndex allows you to search article names that begin with a certain text string, grep is a recently improved tool that allows you to search text strings anywhere they appear in the article name. For example, if the article John Smith is delete and recreate as John J. Smith, entering ^John.*Smith$ at grep allows you to keep tabs on all John Smith articles, whether John, Johnny, Johnson is used, or any text string is placed between John Smith. search example Even if the beginning of the article name is changed, grep lets you search the middle and end of the article name for common text patterns. grep allows you to find such postings in project space and any other name space. The grep tool also is great for finding all related categories and all related templates, even if they are not categorized in a [[Category:]] -- GregManninLB (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

With this search, I found false blocking notice, Blocking or other action needed: 1, 2, 3, 4; Offcolor article names in user space: 1, 2, 3; Offcolor userboxes 1, 2, 3; Offcolor commentary: 1; Offcolor essays: 1, 2. GregManninLB (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso, & sockpuppets[edit]

Amoruso (talk · contribs), a long-time editor on Israeli/Palestine issues, has lately, among other things, been edit-warring on articles about different settlements/neighbourhoods of Jerusalem. I noticed that as soon as Amoruso had "used up" his 3RR, another "fresh" editor, Robertert (talk · contribs), conveniently came along to take up where Amoruso had to stop. I requested a CheckUser, and it came up with this result, namely that Robertert (talk · contribs) is also Arzkibar (talk · contribs) and Onthedunes (talk · contribs), and " Likely also Amoruso (talk · contribs)." Could some admin please take a look at this? Thanks. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's legalize killing! How obvious![edit]

User:Porosenok17, a new account whose first edit was earlier today, and who may or may not have a very strange sense of humor, has been advocating this proposal on numerous editors' talk pages, as seen here, including mine, as seen here. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitly as a vandalism only account, after those messages he started vandalising articles. Davewild (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy speedy delete request[edit]

Hi. Would some kind soul please delete the orphaned redirect Template:Administrative divisions of the Republic of China so that name may be used for the current "Template:ROC divisions". Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ironically it got speedied faster then if you CSD'd it probably. Wizardman 15:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks already! Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued trolling by sockpuppets[edit]

I would refer you to this incident and advise that the situation is continuing via a series of what are definitely WP:SOCK transgressions. Please see my talk page in particular and the contributions of User:Fieldgoalunit, User:JimBakken, User:Mountlaurel, User:Fiddler Einar of Saipan and now User:Longrunup, all of which are the same person. As is, so I have been advised, the banned User:Richard Daft.

This person via his several userids is carrying on a campaign against me because of actions that I took to improve Golden Age of cricket, an article that was seriously lacking structure and context, as well as being afflicted by content errors and poor spelling, grammar and syntax. Since the article was redrafted, this person has attacked my talk page on several occasions.

As you can see from the incident quoted above, he has first attempted to "out" me by using what he thinks is my real name (in fact he has mistaken me for someone else that I actually know). Despite interventions by both User:Orderinchaos and User:Moondyne, he has carried on a campaign of trolling which is designed to discourage me from using Wikipedia.

Would an administrator please take whatever action is necessary to stop this person from abusing (and even from using) the site? Thank you. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no connection with the listed names but as I was unhappy with JamesJJames comments on the article, he has begun attacking me. Mountlaurel (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Before leaving this to rot, I would point out that it began with a vicious and uncalled for attack by the so called James on something I had put up for edit. This attack continued and was motivated by his supposed knowledge of who I am. I am Jimbakken as well, though I did indicate this. I know who longrunup is but not the other names. Too much of Black Sabbath's second album I think. Oh and all his great friends at Cricketarchive would send regards, were anybody speaking to him. Over and outFieldgoalunit (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All of this relates to some sort of off-wiki feud between members and others associated with Association of Cricket Statisticians. There's history here that I don't understand (a possibly uninvolved and now retired User:BlackJack would probably be able to explain it all) and don't know where to begin to explain it all. The problem is that they've now come here to point score and attack each other. Certainly there does seem to have been a campaign of harrasment against JamesJJames, but his hands are not entirely clean either. IMO, his edits to Golden Age (cricket) and AfD'ing several of BlackJack's articles seem to have been more about making a point than anything else. I confess I don't know what to do here but would not be unhappy if someone blocked the lot. I know we're not supposed to use cool-down blocks but this may be a case to do so. Moondyne 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Please file a report at WP:SSP. That's the way to get attention from users and administrators who are accustomed to dealing with sock puppetry cases. You also need to be specific and factual. Less talk, more diffs. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I please make clear that I have no problem with User:BlackJack, who is (was?) a brilliant contributor to Wikipedia and other sites on the internet. I know who he is, via the ACS, and I have communicated with him personally in the past, mainly about his own website. I supported him when he wanted the article about himself removed from Wikipedia as I know something of the problems he has faced.
I am already aware that two of the articles I recommended for AfD were started by him but I did not act out of malice towards him. I made a mistake with List of works by cricket historians and writers because I didn't understand that lists of this sort are actually useful on the site. I withdrew the nomination as soon as I realised that consensus was against me and that I had missed the point. I then attempted to make amends by making a few enhancements to the article.
The other BlackJack article was Monster Bat Incident 1771 which was a straight copy from another publication (the Cricket Society journal) and I thought it was a breach of the original publisher's copyright. I was wrong again and withdrew that nomination too, but consensus at the AfD discussion was that the article was not objective enough and should be made more concise, which is what happened and I could only demur, though I did make a couple of edits to it myself.
The third and final article I nominated was Golden Age of cricket and this had nothing whatever to do with BlackJack. His contributions record indicates that he left the site (hopefully not permanently) before the article was even initiated. My objections to the article have been clearly documented and I fail to see why an undeniably poor article should not be improved. I thought that was something the site expects of its editors? The main contributor to the article was the Fieldgoalunit troll and his work was frankly abysmal. It was far and away the worst cricket article I have seen on Wikipedia. Since it was overhauled by a number of editors such as User:jhall1 it is now quite good and is a worthy "start-class" effort.
My problem was with (what was) a badly written article and there is no way that anything written by BlackJack comes under that heading. As for the ACS, I have already stated that I am a long-term member and I feel bound to defend its interests (which is not something that BlackJack himself would do any more).
I do not know where the WP:SOCK troll is coming from at all. He appears to both support and denounce the ACS but I am mystified as to his motives, other than his intention of stopping me from using Wikipedia. The comment above about CricketArchive makes no sense whatsoever. As you can see, he has contravened WP:SOCK in this thread alone as User:Mountlaurel and as User:Fieldgoalunit. He certainly does know who User:Longrunup is: himself!
As for his assertion that I "know who he is", I'm afraid I do not. It has been suggested to me (offline) that he is a certain person who used to be on the ACS committee, but I never met or even communicated with that person so I am as confused as User:Moondyne obviously is. However, I do know the man that User:Fieldgoalunit named and tried to "out".
The mind boggles and I despair. I am thinking of calling it a day as this has got completely out of hand and is a waste of my time. I'm afraid the internet as a whole, including Wikipedia, is at the mercy of trolls like this one. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Account keeps getting deleted[edit]

Resolved: claimed account seems to be able to edit fine

My account keeps getting deleted. WHY? I'm realsynical and it YOUR SITE keeps deleting me. WHY. SOMEONE DOESN'T want me on wikipedia. WHY????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Accounts can't get deleted. Not sure what you mean. Wizardman 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Could you provide us with the names of the accounts? There might have been a violation of our username policy. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this User:Realsynical? You have to type the name using that exact case, i.e. with a capital "R". Seems like a fairly long-standing, if not much-used, account. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you can "cheat" the first letter, but not any of the others, as a side effect of the automatic uppercasing rules. Saves half a keystroke, at least. Gavia immer (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

800 MEGABYTES???[edit]

Since a few weeks ago I've noticed that Wikipedia has become much slower than it used to be, especially after I've been using it for a while. This seems to be associated with a severe memory leak, for which the only solution is to restart my browser frequently, which is hardly acceptable. My computer has never has a virus so it must be in Wikipedia.

Could someone give me roll back so at least I can revert vandals without taking several minutes?

And why does in now say 'new section' rather than '+' at the top of the screen? I'm used to the position of the old thing on my screen and now always find my muose navigating to the wrong place. Could you please change it back? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I've noticed a decrease in the speed Wikipedia works at, not to mention the repeat lockings of the database (and this always seems to happen when I'm editing;) are the servers in the process of being upgraded or something? Qst (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So many edits in so little time. Wikimedia hardware needs upgrades but for that we need funds. :) -- Cat chi? 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The "new section" tab can be changed back to a "+" with a setting under the gadgets tab of your preferences. —Travistalk 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did that. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you using Firefox? Because Firefox is kind of known for leaking memory... I can't imagine a reason why Wikipedia and only Wikipedia would cause a browser to leak memory. Veinor (talk to me) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been using the same Firefox for a long time and this has never happened with any other site. It also didn't happen last year with Wikipedia so something must have changed. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that a website could do that would actively cause one particular browser to spring a memory leak. If you're using an old version of Firefox, well... I'd say update that first. EVula // talk // // 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Firefox makes it easy to open many tabs or windows, and then it tends to slow down if there are more than a few of them --it has an option for giving a warning about that--you might want to activate it. DGG (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't open more than usual - just one for Wikipedia and one for whatever else I'm looking at. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
there several reasons for the recent wiki issues. FireFox just released a new version, it may have introduced a memory leak then. Also the master database server's clock was lagging by 7 seconds until about a day ago. that is what was causing the high job queue and the database locks. βcommand 2 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me rollback anyway? I think I'll have to quit Wikipedia is it takes this much time ... The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on your edit history and propensity for making questionable decisions (such as edit warring with admins ([2], [3], [4]) or creating pages like Wikipedia:Toilet to house "copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content"), I suspect that most admins would be extremely hesitant to give you rollback privileges. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Based upon a series of reverts with another administrator at Real social dynamics only today, I'd like to wait a bit. In addition, I don't see how this thread is related inanysoway to rollback rights -- you can use TW or other javascript programs, or perhaps another browser, to edit with. Firefox is riddled with memory leaks. seicer | talk | contribs 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to just step and say. I use Firefox as my main internet browser and I have never one experienced a lockup while being on Wikipedia and it seems to be loading quickly to me. Just wanted to add that. Rgoodermote  16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I concur with the original problem. My browser is presently using 273M and rising. I don't know if the problem is related to Wikipedia, as I usually have Wikipedia open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rania al-Baz[edit]

This article was recently deleted, supposedly for BLP problems. I'm not sure what the potentially libelous information in the article was (maybe it did not source her accusations of abuse by her husband? they received international notice and were widely reported). Can someone restore this? Here's a source: More are easily googlable. Mangostar (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the deleted article and (although I do not often involve myself in BLP matters) confirm that there were problems in the article, not only for the subject but also the ex-husband, regarding bias. When sourcing references for a contentious BLP article the references must be impeccable and neutral; those used were neither (and nor is the one provided here). There is also a question of notability, in that the subject is probably not notable outside of the incident which makes up the majority of the article content. It is possible that there could be an article created around the incident and aftermath, with some background of the main two protagonists, and its rarity in Saudi culture. You may wish to take the matter to deletion review, but I suggest that an article regarding the incident as commented by me above may be a more appropriate way of having the incident included in the encyclopedia - providing you stay within BLP guidelines when referring to the parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Do I have to take this to a formal deletion review if there was never a deletion discussion? This woman also was notable outside the beating; the reason she attracted so much attention is that she was a television personality beforehand. (see the linked article beforehand). And how is it inappropriate to cite a Guardian article? It is clearly infused with opinion, but the facts in the article have presumably been reviewed before publication... Mangostar (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mangostar on the subject of reliability- if The Guardian isn't reliable, then we would have to reject all press. I would not reccomend deletion review- the subject seems to be notable, but the article is awful, and I agree with Doc's deletion. The article should be rewritten. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian newspaper is certainly reliable, but the website...? With newspapers there is a point of reference (an archived copy) but it is less certain with websites. Also, the style (I am a Gruniard reader) is less objective than print editorials are. As regards notability of the subject; I am aware that every regional newsreader in the US appears to have a stub at minimum, but that doesn't mean that newsreaders (even a female one in a male dominated society) are inherently notable. I believe that any notability of the individual concerned is implicitly linked to the domestic violence in Saudi culture issue, and that it is that incident that appears to satisfy notability claims. Even if the individual is marginally notable it makes no sense to have a stub article which links to the assault and subsequent divorce - the two would best be combined in the more notable subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you support that solution if, hypothetically, Gordon Burns (my local newsreader) became embroiled in some kind of incident that achieved international recognition? I don't agree with the idea at all- say 4chan was behind the next September 11, would you support merging the article on the website into the article on the incident? I believe that if someone was notable before an incident (not saying this person certainly was, but the way The Guardian talks about them suggests that they were) then we should include the incident in the article about them, even if we don't already have an article. Then, if it becomes too long, we can split it out, as with any article. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr Burns does not have an article that casts him, or anyone connected with him, in a potentially poor light. If Mr Burns was, for instance, acquitted on a technicality in a case of whelk trafficking with some salacious tabloid stories as references then - unless the article was returned to stub status - BLP may be involved and Mr Burns be a redlinked (if linked at all) mention in the articles regarding The Krypton Factor and the North of Watford Whelk Trafficking Scandal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article is not a blog posting, but an interview conduscted by their reporter. That they put it onto the web does not make it any less subject to their editorial control. It's miscellaneous blog postings of readers that may be attached to it that are not usable for BLP--or anything much else, for that matter.DGG (talk)

User:Miyokan and standardization[edit]

I would like to bring to your discussion on User:Miyokan (Talk) recent deletion and edition history. Recently, this user has been removing vital code from the article "Template:Russian cities." I am not knowledgeable on whether there is a standardization rule here on Wikipedia, but I hope you would agree that it is a reasonable unwritten rule here. In recent days, this user has removed images all together, added unnecessary information or code, and removed a vital location tool from the template. This has repeated for weeks now, and I would hope that you would agree that this needs to stop.

This is not this user's only notification on deletions and editions on Wikipedia. Miyokan has been noticed about altering the articles "Russian presidential election, 2008," "Ronald Reagan," "Anti-Russian sentiment," and has done others in witch I have no reference for except for on his talk page. I gave this user a warning that I would inform an administrator about these and other edits, but he has refused to acknowledge this and reverted the article again. — NuclearVacuum 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to get some feedback about the process of making a WikiProject in witch to officially standardize the all Templates of city populations. I would both like to get your feedback on this and your opinion on standardizations on Wikipedia: is it an unwritten rule? — NuclearVacuum 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I expect this would come under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have fully explained my edits on talk. NuclearVacuum's has refused to compromise on anything and his entire argument seems to stem from some kind of "standardization" rule, which does not exist, as each template is different. Furthermore, "standardization" does not concern trivial matters (2 images instead of 3, abbreviations instead of the full text, Tnavbar), only the main format of the template has to be the same, which it is.--Miyokan (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
First, Template:Russian cities has been reverted by both parties 3 times in the last 24hrs. Both parties are hereby reminded of WP:3RR and warned to stop this edit warring immediately.
As Gadget850 points out, WP Cities would be a good place to start.
Now, my thoughts on the two different versions: NuclearVacuum's version, Miyokan's version
  • 2 pictures looks better than 3. With 3 the photos are a little too small to be useful. If there is any major dispute regarding the number of photos (and yes, the number of photos is a relatively trivial matter), then simply use no photos at all since the total absence of photos would not diminish the information presented.
  • Abbreviations for federal subject, state, etc. do not look as good as giving the full name. There's enough space for the full name, and the abbreviations are meaningless to the uninformed reader. Yes, you can see what the abbreviation means if you place your pointer over the text, but why should you have to do that when there is enough room to display the text anyway?
  • (third point, forgot to mention it earlier) if it comes down to choosing between 2 images or giving full state names, then I'd give displaying the full names priority.
True, standardisation is an unwritten rule in many areas. BUT there is a difference between coming up with a standard and one person simply saying that their way is standard. And if situations arise where this "standard" doesn't quite fit, then usually it is the standard that needs adjusting. 52 Pickup (deal) 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In The News[edit]


Hi guys. I'm not sure where most of the "regular" ITN-updating admins have run off to, but there are a few items on ITN/C that seem to have consensus to go on the live mainpage template. I'm talking specifically about the Nepal Elections and the Bamyan Oil Paintings. A few minutes of help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Random89 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Template updated. --Tone 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. SpencerT♦C 17:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disabling email when blocking[edit]

Admins, please keep in mind the email function should not be disabled as a default when placing blocks. Email should only be disabled if it is abused, not preemptively. I've seen this happening more and more frequently. (pet peeve) - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options: "This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the 'email this user' feature." Is there a specific case/user you're having trouble with, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been said many times. Anyway, probably having it in red font would let blocking admins stop and think for a second before enabling it. Probably also a link to the policy section would help? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Daniel Lièvre[edit]

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

Do we really need a particularly active (across a number of websites he is trying to get included in articles as sources) pro-pedophilia activist causing more disruption and waste of good-faith editor time on Wikipedia? Especially one who encourages users banned for PPA and soliciting minors to sue the Wikimedia foundation? John Nevard (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it's the same person, he is a leading PPA on forums like BoyChat and has participated in discussions about promoting the pro-pedophile agenda on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I spent all of five minutes Googling up Daniel Lièvre and had enough. Yeah, there are discussions regarding pro-pedophilia, disguised under some minor -> adult relationship (or something along those lines) and other nonsense on other forums and blogs, including his own. seicer | talk | contribs 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not he is the same person, he's announced himself as that person - even if he's not, the use of that name is provocative, to put it mildly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. east.718 at 03:15, April 27, 2008

Ban proposal[edit]

Ban this user. RlevseTalk 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He's probably effectively banned already - is there any administrator who's going to unblock someone with the word "pedophilia" in their block log? Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
His block is very unfair, you just blocked him because you don't like paedophiles. Like he said paedophilia is not illegal, and while it may disgust us, he should be entitled to his opinion. Of course if he is trying to unfairly push his own point of view in articles then he deserves a block, but if he is trying to build consensus to support his point of view that should be fine. Like he said paedophilia is not illegal, only things such as child rape, or sex with minors is, freedom of thought is paramount, paedophilia is a recognised mental illness. As long as he is not violating 3RR or spamming I don't see why he was blocked, even less banned. I hope he wasn't blocked because of a dislike of paedophiles, this has never been a reason for blocking, blocking for ideological differences or dislike of handicapped people should not be tolerated. Also you should be ashamed to take the content on wikisposure as truth. And finally his strain of thought is not rejected by everyone in France far from it: read French petitions against age of consent laws, they were signed by many politicians and well known intellectuals, including Jack Lang who later became minister of education. Jackaranga (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd unblock if there was any sign of useful contributions to articles. --Carnildo (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Also his block log is unfair, none of the people engaged in 3RR over all the "accusations of state terrorism by country ..." articles got a block log saying "terrorism related disruption" Jackaranga (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't know anything about Pedophilia read the article, nowhere does it say it is illegal. Jackaranga (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm archiving this discussion, as ArbCom have stressed in the past that sensitive discussions regarding blocked possible pro-pedophilia accounts should not be discussed on-wiki. Please direct any further questions or concerns to them. krimpet 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Do not move to Commons[edit]

Many images use this template which is a problem because per 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A USA did NOT agree with Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works's article 7.8 (Rule of the shorter term).

In other words media that are free inside the US but not free outside of the US are in fact not really free inside the US per 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A.

We should sort this mess out. Commons incompatible "free" images should be unwelcomed to English wikipedia for not being free enough.

-- Cat chi? 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something that the foundation lawyers can sort out? I don't know if this is something a layman can determine with certainty. (1 == 2)Until 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not want to run to foundation lawyers first thing every time... -- Cat chi? 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Making policy decisions based on non-lawyers' interpretation of laws is not a good idea. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not interpreting the law. I am quoting something well known and in common practice. Such images for example are deleted in commons. -- Cat chi? 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure if there is a need, then somebody will. (1 == 2)Until 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There are other license templates that fall into this category...{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and {{PD-US-1996}} come to mind. Probably worth raising at Wikipedia:Copyright. Kelly hi! 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping a general discussion on this noticeboard since project talk pages do not get the necesary attention. -- Cat chi? 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting things. This template would be appropriate and correct for a work from a life + 100 country -- in the US, the work would only be copyrighted for life + 70. Likewise, it would be appropriate for works like Peter Pan or the King James Bible: they're under perpetual copyright in the UK, but not in the US. The US did not adopt the rule of the shorter term, but to my knowledge, it did not adopt the rule of the longer term, either. --Carnildo (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you adopt the rule of the shorter term by default you are adopting the rule of the longer term... You are missing the entire point... -- Cat chi? 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There are three options here, not two.
  1. The rule of the shorter term: if the copyright in the country of first publication is shorter, use it. A bunch of countries adopted this
  2. The rule of the longer term: if the copyright in the country of first publication is longer, use it. I don't know of any country that's done this.
  3. Apply your own copyright terms, regardless of the term in the country of first publication. To the best of my knowlege, this is what the US has done.
--Carnildo (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit point alpha[edit]

  • Law isn't a matter of opinion. There are many (far more than three) practices conducted by signatories of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Countries need to ratify each individual article or section in their own laws as the international treaty by itself is meaningless. Not every country chose to ratify "article 7.8" of the Berne Convention for example. In addition Berne sets the minimum amount of protection. Countries may choose to be more restrictive. Berne for example suggests authors life +50 years but US chose to be more restrictive with authors live +70 years. Because the servers are inside the US, only the US laws are binding. Foreign laws are only binding per US law stating that it is.

  • 17 USC 104 (above) basically talks about how laws of other signatories of Berne Convention is binding in the US even if the work is not published. 17 USC 104 and particularly 17 USC 104A extends the copyright protection beyond Berne to include non-signatories of Berne such as WTO members and etc. There even is executive privilege over the matter.

  • 104A's a-1-b talks about protection unless the work has entered the public domain in the US at some point for whatever the reason. This addresses templates like {{PD-US}}, {{PD-US-1996}} and etc where works made/published in the US somehow become PD. Once a US work becomes PD inside the US, it stays PD forever at least within the US. This also means even if a work becomes PD in the country of origin the "author's life +70 years" may still apply (rule of the long term for you).
  • 104A's b explicitly states that the laws of the works origin applies. Fortunately for most countries copyright expires within 70 pma, some as low as 50 pma or even 25 pma. As you can see on the grand list for some countries the copyright term exceeds +70 pmas. Per 104A's b if it is copyrighted in the country of origin it stays copyrighted within the US.
  • Tying the two items above together... 104A's a-1-b explicitly states "if the work never entered the public domain in the United States" meaning US law makes no guarantee weather or not the work stays within PD if it did not entered PD within the US. This is 70 pma (post mortem auctoris) rule also per 104A's b the laws of the country of origin apply. Therefore a work may stay copyrighted until it is both PD in the country of origin and for some reason it became PD as per US laws as well. US laws explicitly give priority to the laws of the country of origin.
  • On wikipedia we prefer to play it safe per past experience. Unless a works PD'ness is guaranteed by the US law, we treated as if it were copyrighted even if the work became PD in the country of origin. We made this mistake with Template:PD-Soviet. PD-Soviet was based on the fact that "all works published in the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, were not protected by International Copyright Conventions" which was fine until Russia passed laws renewing copyright of PD-Soviet works. They can do that. Had they renewed after the US 70pma, then it would be a different story but even then it is an unnecesary gray area.
  • I do not believe {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} has any legal basis. Or at least the template doesn't link to it. It appears to be wishful thinking at best as is but works published before 1923 are typically safe as in most cases the copyright has already expired and such images should be marked with {{PD-old}} instead.
Is it more clear now? (Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection answers all three point of yours.)
-- Cat chi? 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyright duration is determined by Chapter 3, not Chapter 1. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Please quote the specific legal text you are referring to. -- Cat chi? 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
17 USC 302 and 17USC 303:
17 USC 104(c) may also be of interest:
as may 17 USC 301(a):
In short, the only thing that determines the term of copyright in the US is 17 USC 302 and 17 USC 303.
--Carnildo (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am {{cquote}}'ing your post so I can follow it more easily. I hope you do not mind.
You are omitting an important detail. These laws only apply to images originally created inside the US. Neither Peter Pan nor King James Bible are such works. In addition we are concerning ourselves with media (images, sound files, video files) and not written works, that'd be wikisource or wikibooks.
Media originally created outside the US will be under the jurisdiction of non-US law ("law of the source country of the work") per 104A's b. Are we in a disagreement with this?
Media originally created in the US will be under the jurisdiction of US laws per Berne Convention and other treaties. Right? There is no reason why such free images shouldn't be uploaded/moved to commons. Am I missing something?
-- Cat chi? 16:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point of 17 USC 104A entirely: it covers works that were out of copyright in the US on January 1, 1996, because they did not comply with US formalities, but were copyrighted in their country of origin: see 17 USC 104A(h)(6). It restores copyright to such works as if they had never been out of copyright, giving them the same protection as works first published in the US (17 USC 104A(a)). It says absolutely nothing about applying foreign law in the US. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Something copyrighted in a foreign country per that countries copyright law is copyrighted in the US. We are talking about the same thing here. -- Cat chi? 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. Something published in a foreign country that is eligible for copyright in that country also gets a copyright in the US. However, the duration of the copyright in the US is determined by US law (17 USC 302 and 303), not by the home country's law. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the hell do we give a flip about the UK or EU laws when the server is in the US? Also, I take issue with your misappropriation of the the word "free." This is a blatant attempt to restrict freedom not expand it, so stop hiding behind euphemisms. It is bad enough our biographies pretty much suck now with those rediculous "missing person" boxes, without more perfectly good pictures being deleted to prove a point. Also, there are any number of reason for not hosting on commons, such as pictures that don't belong there because they are userspace stuff. Stop creating solutions in search of problems which don't exist. If you find this so objectionable, then maybe the time has come to fork into en-US and en-GB. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

account identification[edit]

Hi. There is an old account I think may be mine but my password attempts failed and the requested new password did not arrive. It may have an old email address that I no longer have access to, and I may be able to prove it to an admin who can see the account info. Can we try, or is a new account my only option? I use that id elsewhere in cyberspace and really like it; I would hate to have to give it up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm not sure. I will ask the community;
Community, is it possible for this anon to email a CheckUser with the name of the account and the possible email address (and likely geographical area for the underlying ip) to confirm whether this could be an old account? If it is very likely, would the ip then be able to usurp the account? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, checkuser can't see email addresses, but even if there is still any checkuser data left, the IP is a dynamic IP on a /12 range probably shared by every Verizon user in Washington D.C. Its pretty unlikely that the IP and the account could be confirmed to be the same person. Mr.Z-man 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A developer could read the e-mail address straight out of the database tables, but I expect they have many better things to do with their time. Try Special:Emailuser/Tim Starling, and be very appreciative :D. Happymelon 22:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous user needs an account to use email function, though. Does anyone know Starling's real email address? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking to end a discussion?[edit]

In this edit an administrator threatened to block users who continue a discussion s/he doesn't like. This seems to me to be problematic: the ability to block doesn't exist to impose silence or "closure" on a discussion, but rather to prevent damage to the project. Any thoughts? --FOo (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest following the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign and/or moving any further discussion to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Awesome report, and excellent work. But it's not relevant to the concern I raised above: that admins shouldn't be threatening to block people for continuing a discussion they don't like. --FOo (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
He didn't threaten to block for continuing it, he threatened to block for "further non-constructive posting" after a thread at the bottom of the page reached consensus that the page had turned into a giant troll magnet. That's not inappropriate at all. --erachima talk 00:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr accounts and contacting photographers[edit]

Sorry for posting this in the wrong place. Need some help with contacting a Flickr photographer in a case of image management burnout. See here, and here. Would anyone here be willing to contact the Flickr photographer who posted this, and ask for more permissive releases for that photo and the other three listed at PUI? And is there a place to make such requests? Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sent a flickr mail. Gimmetrow 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources.[edit]

5) For the next year:

  • PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. For the next year:
  • PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
  • PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source or citation by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

Bot reverting YouTube video links on Durham Miners' Gala[edit]

Resolved: XLinkBot is functioning properly, adding lots of YouTube links is discouraged and all is well in the world--Hu12 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:XLinkBot has been reverting YouTube videos showing the Durham Miners' Gala (see here). The bot seems to go through taking out anything with a YouTube link, even though the videos are not banned outright. I can't see that it cotnravines any copyright having the videos there. It simply highlights the spirit of the event nicely: it's so much more enriching if people can see what it is like. I'm really upset that this stupid bot is removing these videos. Can somebody take a look at this? (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the list of sites it removes, and youtube is on it. I can't imagine youtube having much encyclopediodic value, but I suppose it does help from time to time. Oh and btw, try not to describe things as stupid ;-)--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Okies, so can someone edit the bot? Clearly removing anything ith a YoutTube link is useful at getting rid of most spam, but it's still throwing out good stuff. It's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because the links do not contravene any Wikipedia policy (as far as I can see), surely it is the bot who is violating policy by remoiving such links. Thus, its reverts are wrong, and it should therefore be immediately be deactivated until the owner (or someone else) can sort it out. (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the vast majority of the youtube links that are added to Wikipedia do indeed tend to be copyright violation or inappropriate, so this is more of a case of throwing your change away with your meal. Especially since it's programmed to not perform the reversion more than once per page per user. I've found that the bot's merits outweigh its shortcomings, at least in my experience as a link patroller. Veinor (talk to me) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's not the point. A criminal can break the law, yet then do a thousand good deads before getting caught, but they still broke the law. What the bot does well does not excuse what it does not. That it removes a lot of spam does not then make it ok to remove legitimate links. That is the point. (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
88.107, your analogy isn't valid; for starters, breaking the law usually requires intent. This would mean that the bot's programmer intentionally made it remove links that he somehow knew in advance wouldn't violate the link guidelines. This'd be more like negligence, and a charge of negligence can indeed be dropped if it's shown that reasonable care was taken. And it has. It's unreasonable to expect any sort of spam-removing bot to have a 0% false positive rate. It's more like a person who normally does really well at their job, but occasionally makes a mistake. You're not going to fire this person because you know nobody can be perfect, and the mistakes they do occasionally make are ones that are easy to fix. Veinor (talk to me) 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No it's not - negliance isn't acceptable once it is found. When it is spotted, it should be immediately corrected. We cannot say it is ok for the bot to revert legitimate positings because most of the time it gets it right. Granted it was not the creator's intention, but now we know it is reverting legitimate posts, it has to be changed to ensure it is not doing this. (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the bot works as advertised, it only reverts the edits that (a) add links to sites that are on its revert list (b) made by editors whose accounts are less than 7 days old. Not a bad set up, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And "for some values of legitimate" - the collection of links in question smell strongly of processed meat products. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it upsetting to see something writing "I can't imagine youtube having much encyclopediodic value," as if that matters. What is TYPICAL of youtube may have no encyclopedic value, but what is TYPICAL is NEVER the point. The point is whether the one link being added or deleted has encyclopedic value. Just because 99.999% of everything written is crap is no reason to abolish writing if the other small fraction of it is of great value. Same thing with youtube or anything else. Wikipedia relies heavily on that fact. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly :) (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
However, when 99.9% of the links added are to 'typical' unencyclopedic youtube stuff, the minor .1% that is encyclopedic but is reverted anyway is an acceptable price. It's never the case that a youtube link, or any other link for that matter, is so critical to an article that it would require dismantling the quite useful XLinkBot. To reverse my earlier job analogy, if an employee is a lazy slacker 99% of the time, and the other 1%, he's only maybe slightly above-average, would you fire him? Of course you would; the 1% of above-average productivity isn't worth the 99% of below-average. Veinor (talk to me) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, but if the hispanic population had a lower literacy rate than the white population, and you had a white and hispanic man apply for a job, you would not use those statistics to choose the white man. That is what the bot is doing. It is a really sad day when you start to say that censoring legimate links "is an acceptable price". I do not know a great deal about WIki, but I am sure that must go against some key principle, somewhere. I can't believe there are people like this who run Wikipedia :( (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The fundamental problem here is that your analogy (and mine, for that matter), involve a human performing the decision. XLinkBot is, obviously, a bot. It does not possess artificial intelligence, and is thus not able to test a link on its own. And it's not like you're forever denied of the right; just register an account and wait 7 days (I think that's the bot's autoconfirm period). As far as I know, there's no such thing as a white-ification procedure. Being Hispanic is part of one's identity; being an anonymous editor is not. Nor is it your fundamental right to add a link to an article. Veinor (talk to me) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Bot 1 spam 0 --Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(New section) Ultimately, Wikipedia has these bot requirements. I have left a message on the talk page of the bot, so therefore in time I expect the creator to be aware of the issue of removing legitimate links. If the bot is not changed, the creator of the bot would be in violation of the policy on vandalism, specifically:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Since the removal of legimimate links is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, they would therefore be violating the policy, and be subject to whatever recourse is usual. End of. (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the bot is currently on vacation; I'm not sure when he'll be back, but it won't be at least for a week I'm pretty sure (unless he decides to pop in). And I would draw your attention to the word "deliberate": in order for this to count as vandalizing, XLinkBot would have to be removing all youtube/blogspot/whatever links regardless of who added them. As it is, this is a simple filtering mistake of the sort that cannot be avoided in any anti-spam bot that will have any affect at all. Veinor (talk to me) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I agree, it is a mistake. It does become deliberate though if he then allows it to continue to make mistakes when he is aware of it. (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What you fail to understand, but as many have tried nicely to explain to you, is that the argument is actually irrelevant. No bot works 100% perfectly (heck, no human works 100% perfectly). But for the same reason we don't ban anti-vandalism bots over the rare revert of a good-faith edit in an article concerning genitalia or something of the like, we are not going to ban this bot because now and then, the youtube link was actually good. In my own experience, the vast majority of youtube links added by new or unregistered users are blatant copyright violations, and keeping these off the project is far more important than not causing you a 10 second inconvenience every once in a while. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And I don't mind that, as long as steps are taken to make sure unregistered users can post legitimate YouTube links! I'm sure it does a lot of good :) (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh. You can just undo the bot's edit, and it won't make it again. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You have to register to do that though :( I don't want to register. I have tried reverting 2 times and it just switches it back. (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll notice it didn't revert you until you made another edit after reverting the bot. So it was probably actually acting on the next edit you made, and by default reverted all of your edits, which is the norm for anti-spam/vandal bots. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be no bot removal of YouTube links. While many of those that are linked are copyright violations, some videos are posted on YouTube by the copyright holders, and having links to such videos can be very beneficial to an article. If the bot is programmed to remove the links, won't it just remove them again even if you revert? Everyking (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is time I clarify some things here (as one of the bot operators; I am on holiday, only here now and then):
  • The bot reverts links which are in the large majority thought to be unhelpful, or which are strongly pushed by new/unregistered accounts, or which should simply not be here (not only for copyright, but per one or more of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:OR ..). Youtube is on that list, as it is in over 99% of the cases crap, especially when added by users who don't know our policies (some of which forbid copyrighted material to be linked, though yes, not all youtube videos are copyrighted material) and guidelines.
  • It reverts an account once. If the account then adds the link again, a warning is issued to IRC, but the bot does not revert on that page again. It does not make a difference if the user is an IP or registered, or that another user makes that edit. It will revert the user again if he edits another page, though. It does revert if the editor then makes yet another edit to that page where an external link on the revertlist is used.
  • It does not revert accounts older than 7 days.
  • It does not revert accounts which are whitelisted, that can be named accounts, and IPs .. though the operators should be reluctant to do that for IPs, or it must really be sure that the IP is static.
  • For as far as detectable, it does not revert inside references, templates and remarks.
  • It does not revert more than 3 times in a 30 hour period on one page, regardless who make the edits (which could be 4 different users adding 4 different links which are on the revertlist).
Now some statistics: en.wikipedia is operating under about 133 edits per minute, of which 73% to content-like namespaces (main, template, category; 96 per minute). In over 6% of these edits external links are added (or changed; including references; so about 6 per minute), containing on average 1.78 external link per edit. For youtube, in about a month since the current database started there were about 15000 youtube links added (about 1 every 3 minutes). Recentchanges has quite some people watching, the link-additions-channel only a few (and quite a few of these are concerned more with the cross-wiki aspect of external link spamming). It is undoable to watch that by eye, and just like VoABot and ClueBot, it reverts on algorithm to decide what is too often a problem, and it does make a few mistakes in that. If it makes mistakes too often, then a rule should be considered for removal.
Youtube links are often a problem(Wikipedia:External links states "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently)."), though not banned (if it was banned, it would be on the blacklist). In this way the floodgates are controlled. Youtube videos can be beneficial, and therefor it is possible to override the bot.
I hope this explains and clarifies a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this explains a lot. Thanks. It would be beneficial if the bot actually said (in the message posted to the 'offending' user) that you can add the links again without them being reverted. But then, I suppose that's a valuable piece of info for spammers. (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As Beetstra explains, links can be re-added. The bot warns on first addition with a pretty scrupulous good faith msg. It won't revert to itself if the link is re-added. In this case the user was edit-warring with the bot and a real user, re-adding links and getting reverted. [5]
Normally, since I edit as an IP, I'm up in arms about treating new users differently but this has been thought through quite soundly, IMO. The payoff for reverting mostly-dubious URLs on sight from new users is obvious, the bot's msg is good faith, and good links can be re-added. Win. (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add, the bot will also not revert when one of the undo functions is used (rollback, undo). And in response to, the bot is not telling that in the message, per WP:BEANS. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Public domain images (old uploads)[edit]

I've recently noticed that some of our old public domain images (in some cases claimed, in other cases clearly PD) that were uploaded many years ago (2003, 2004, 2005) are being tagged and deleted for lack of sourcing information. The lack of sourcing information is in many cases because standards were less strict back then. A recent example is Image:Ac.ptolemy.jpg. There is a large backlog (over 11,000 images) at Category:PD tag needs updating, but many of these will be public domain, and indiscriminate tagging (along with some fixing), as seen here can quickly overwhelm things. It is important to get the workflow balanced right. See also here for an example of a retired editor where lots of tags were placed (some for disputed PD images, some for non-free images). I'd like to ask the advice of admins in general on how to handle this. I recently started a conversation here, but the reaction (saying that the criticism by me and others had been discouraging) actually discouraged me as well, as that editor is doing good work fixing images. I'm just worried that the line is being drawn in the wrong place. I would much prefer to motivate people to help fix images, rather than tag them for deletion when there is a large backlog and not enough people working on it. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You can help with June is Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month and YOU can help! which the whole purpose is "to motivate people to help fix images and educate so there isn't anything to fix". MECUtalk 04:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that people cannot easily identify the articles and images in their sphere of interest that require attention. A little while ago I used CATSCAN to identify all the Western Australia-related articles with {{fact}} tags on them, and posted it on WT:WA. A number of people mobilised to attack the list, and about half of it got done in the course of a week or so. I reckon you would see the same effect for just about any combination of topic and maintenance category. For example if someone extracted a list of all the images of plants in Category:All images with unknown source and posted it to WT:PLANTS, you would see immediate action from members of that project.
A longer term solution is to subcategorise. We subcategorise our stubs, so that people can easily find stubs in their area of interest. I've never understood why we don't also subcategorise our maintenance categories. Category:Articles lacking sources is virtually useless, but Category:United States geography articles lacking sources would be very useful indeed, albeit to a much smaller class of editor.
Hesperian 04:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The major problem here lies in poorly written and/or poorly run bots and careless image patrollers who act like bots at the bot speed. It is a fact of life that some web-pages do go down every day. No source or a dead source is just as useless as far as we are concerned and we are not about to go through all images at WMF servers every day to update the status of the WWW when pages disappear or simply change. Even Betabot who can do wonders in term of speed, if not quality, can't scan the web every hour.

Sometimes, the image status is totally clear even if the source is dead. Being able to tell requires human attention and care. Bots can't do that. Human beings who tag dozens images per hour can't do that either. Image patrol is the job that requires utmost care and speed should not be an impediment. --Irpen 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, tagging images as "source needed" and deleting them when they are clearly public domain because of age, have a stated origin, but no ephemeral internet "source" URL is bloody absurd. I've been asking for ages for a place where I can make a noise about that, but nobody seems to know; meanwhile large numbers of useful images are being deleted. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Provide a list of examples of such images, and then I'll help kick up a fuss motivate people to do things slower and organise fixing efforts as opposed to tagging and deletion efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There were plenty of examples. Here is just a recent one:

  1. one, note the years of life of the guy and the image too.
  2. two deletion nomination by Kelly
  3. three anon adds a source
  4. four deletion nom by MER-C because anon is a "banned user"
  5. five rv by myself. with addition of proper tag and years of life that both Kelly and MER-C could see if they spent 10 seconds looking at the article and image
  6. six. Still retagged for deletion (!) by Kelly per "db-banned"
  7. seven, I revert spurious attack on WP content again and
  8. eight have to explain to an image patroller some GFDL basics, that is myself being the last editor, being responsible for the image rather than whoever uploaded it, be it Jimbo or a banned troll
  9. nine, patroller backs off the deletion urge and replaces a perfectly acceptable description to a bot-readable one for whatever reason.
  10. ten, exhausted, I take a safety precaution.

Hopefully, now when someone copies this to commons, no one would have to rehash this circus there one more time. With {{KeepLocal}} the image is safe here. For now. --Irpen 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice description. Thanks. That is a particularly egregious example of rules-lawyering gone mad. Do you have any more examples of images, though? Both ones that are still here and ones that were deleted? Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. one, PD image (again, just look at it and the subject's years of life)
  2. two, ifd by Kelly
  3. three, anon adds source and a year, 1908 (!)
  4. four, again ifd by Kelly who replaces a source with a no-source tag (!)
  5. five, anon reverts egregious carelessness
  6. six, ifd by MER-C
  7. seven, anon reverts
  8. eight, umpteenth ifd by Kelly
  9. nine, this stupidity gets noticed by me, and, hopefully fixed
  10. ten, Kelly adds a bot-read tag
  11. eleven, I add more info and a safety precaution again.

More? --Irpen 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes please. I wasn't aware of all this CSD#G5 stuff going on in the background. I agree it doesn't matter who uploaded the image. Ideally, sources will give a provenance for the image. Websites should say where they got the image from, and artworks can be drawn today of long-dead people, so it is when it was published, not the dates of the subject, that matters. With photographs, you have a clearer argument that the photograph was taken and published in the lifetime of the subject. But even with the artworks, I would still say that insisting on deletion is cutting our nose off to spite our face. If you want to do timelines, fine, but I was hoping for a clear set of 8-10 separate images where deletion is being threatened inappropriately. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go - a random sampling:

Questionable taggings:

It'd be great if people actually added a description to the image page, then most of the above problems can be avoided. MER-C 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To take one example, Image:Auto Square Sign 2.jpg was uploaded on 25 April 2005. The uploader last edited in February 2008, but only appears to edit sporadically. I think it is a really bad indictment of how badly images were handled a few years ago that it has taken three years for someone to get around to pointing this out to the uploader (who in all probability did take the photo). I know we need to hear that from them, but the PD tag in April 2005 looked like this. It wasn't until 9 January 2006 with this edit that the tag was deprecated and the alternatives listed, as seen here. So a good first step would be to filter out the PD uploads that took place after that date. Does anyone want to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we need to change the image deletion process to allow longer for people to fix PD uploads from before 9 January 2006? Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to request User:Susanbryce be officially warned or reminded of Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO policy.

Even after another editor pointed out to this user on their talk page (Dated:17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)) on the Street_Children_in_The_Philippines article that they shouldn't do this, this editor still made a recent edit (Dated: 15:25, 22 April 2008) to an article that was essentially a cut and paste from the article it cited. The section read poorly and does not even make sense given the previous sentence in the article.


The following text:

Angeles Mayor Francis Nepomuceno has acknowledged the problem. “We admit having HIV cases and that prostitution may be flourishing". STD cases rose five times. The RHWC treated 1,421 cases in 2005, 2,516 cases in 2006 and 6,229 cases in 2007. Most of the afflicted were women. [39]

is cut and pasted from this article.

As I am going through the Human trafficking in the Philippines Wikipedia entry even more, I am finding additional WP:COPYVIO violations which I am documenting in the talk page.

I've also found one in the Makati section of the article which I haven't documented on the talk page yet.

HurryTaken (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation is only a direct cut-and-paste from a copyrighted source. The passage you provide, and the linked article, do not match exactly. The use of specific numerical figures and/or direct quotes from within a work is allowed so long as it isn't a copy and paste, which it is not in this case. VanTucky 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am little confused. What I have found evidence of is a lot of cut and pasting from other sources and very little original and/or re-written work. This is often patched together in order to build a new Wikipedia article or sections of it. But a large percentage of the text is a direct cut and paste.
For example. The sentence: "Angeles Mayor Francis Nepomuceno has acknowledged the problem."
This line is a direct cut and paste from the cited article.
The sentence: "The RHWC treated 1,421 cases in 2005, 2,516 cases in 2006 and 6,229 cases in 2007. Most of the afflicted were women."
This is again a direct cut and paste from the article. But stitched together from different areas of the article.
The actual article says: "The RHWC treated 1,421 cases in 2005, 2,516 cases in 2006 and 6,229 cases in 2007. Most of the afflicted were women; there were only 69 men among the recorded cases."
So they cut and paste and then just ended the sentence at women.
I have additional examples as well that I have posted on the discussion page.
In the Pampanga section of the same Human Trafficking article. The passage in the Wikipedia article reads: "More than a dozen of cybersex operations have been busted in the Pampanga province and Angeles City areas, this resulted in the rescue of hundreds of exploited women, most of them minors or below 18-years of age. Human trafficking or trafficking in person is some sort of slavery.Hundreds of computers sets have been seized, including sex toys and other gadgets used in the cybersex operations mostly maintained by foreigners. A forum hosted by the Prosecution Law Enforcement and Community Coordinating Service (proleccs) discussed several factors that contribute to the human trafficking problem and these include poverty, the proliferation of underground cybersex through internet and sex tourism..[1]"
If you go to the source cited. :::Judiciary, PNP vow stop to human trafficking
"In the past years, more than a dozen of cybersex operations have been busted in the province and in nearby Angeles City areas, this also resulted in the rescue of hundreds of exploited women, most of them minors or below 18-years of age."
This was re-written slightly by omitting or adding a few words.
This line is a direct cut and paste from the article.
"Human trafficking or trafficking in person is some sort of slavery."
This line is a direct cut and paste from the article.
"Hundreds of computers sets have been seized, including sex toys and other gadgets used in the cybersex operations mostly maintained by foreigners."
The last line about a forum being hosted is a stitched cut and paste.
The source says: ..."a forum hosted by the Prosecution Law Enforcement and Community Coordinating Service (proleccs).
And then in another paragraph of the article ..."discussed several factors that contribute to the human trafficking problem and these include poverty, the proliferation of underground cybersex through internet and sex tourism."
If this is not a copyright violation, so be it. But large percentages are being cut and pasted. Sometimes a word is added or sometimes it is stitched together, but the main written text is mostly copied.
I have documented other examples as well on the talk page of that article. The work of checking each of the sources is tedious. If what is being said is that this practice is mostly acceptable for Wikipedia, I will stop checking.
HurryTaken (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Without deciding whether to call it copyvio or not, I am pretty sure this is too close to be accepta