Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive170

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Videos Used As A Reliable Source[edit]

Green tickY issue does not require administrator input. Advice given below seems sound.

Hello. I would like to request clarification on Wikipedia's policy regarding use of videos as a source in articles. I understand that videos can be edited so YouTube.com should not be used to source articles. However, certainly in courtroom settings, videos are used routinely as evidence to convict someone even in a capital offense.

So are there circumstances in which videos are acceptable as a source in Wikipedia articles?

What about a those from site which reliably records entire unedited, television broadcasts?

What about when two or more uneditied amateur videos simultaneously record the same event?

It would seem that direct quotes from a video should be a more reliable account of an event, than someone's necessarily biased interpretation of the same event.

Could someone please clarify the Wikipedia policy, especially in light of the widespread availability of videos on the web? Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already use videos in articles (such as ejaculation), and if they come from a reliable website, I don't see why not. --Gwib (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Freedom Fan means as source, not in articles. To answer this: WP:V applies to videos just the same way as it does to text, see also WP:RS. I do not recall that there is ever been a difference based on the way the information is presented on the link that has been given as a source. For example, on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 the whole cast section is sourced to a video released by EA[1] and that is just as reliable as if EA had written it down. SoWhy 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It's allowed, as long as the video isn't a copyvio (so you can't link to a CNN video on YouTube posted by "Bobby54341" as a source), but you can still cite to a video if the source itself is reliable. So, if CNN said on Anderson Cooper 360 last night that a given breed of ducks are descended from elephants, then you can cite to the broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360 last night without actually linking the video if it's not available, but then you'd have to I'm guessing defend the use if anyone calls you on it. Non-copyvio videos are fine, though. here's an example I used in article. The facts it cites were all stated during the video, which is still available the last time I looked four days ago. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing this is being asked because the user is trying to use a video as a source for something contentious, and others are resisting. Asking the question without the background is not good practice, as general advice may well not apply to the specific case. As it happens, Freedom Fan is one of those arguing over the inclusion of contentious material in Alex Jones (radio), noted elsewhere on the admin boards. Int hat case, the video is a primary not a secondary source, so drawing some inferences from it will violate WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 20

September 2008 (UTC)

True. That's one of the articles I have in mind; although I am unsure why a specific case would be relevant to an understanding of general Wikipedia policy, but here goes:
In this particular case, there were about a half dozen amateur videos recording an event. An administrator used verbatim quotes from the videos. Then another administrator deleted all references to the event citing WP:BLP and admin-protected the article. There were no inferences being drawn in the article -- the entire section consisted almost exclusively of direct quotes from the subject, recorded from multiple simultaneous sources. The specifics of the event were confirmed by a post on the subject's web site, which appears to be allowable per WP:BLP. So I questioned why all reference to the event were censored, since this was easily the most reliably sourced information I had ever seen in a Wikipedia article. Would inclusion of such material be a violation of Wikipedia policy?
In another case, references to transcripts from MEMRI have been questioned, even though they are always accompanied by unedited video from television broadcasts. MEMRI has never been accused of editing a video, although sometimes a particular word of translation has been challenged. Would inclusion of such material be a violation of Wikipedia policy? Freedom Fan (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Some comments:
    • Videos from reliable sources which have a fixed publication medium or a definite air-date/time/channel such as VHS should be fine. For example, a documentary from a reliable source about the making of Star Wars would be fine as a reference on Star-Wars-related articles. A fan-produced video might have WP:RS issues. Although YouTube is not considered a reliable source, if LucasFilm had a well-known YouTube account and it posted a documentary about Star Wars on YouTube, as an editor I would defend that as a reliable source.
    • Answers to specific questions: Courtroom videos: Treat as any other court proceeding. Sites that reliably record unedited television broadcasts: Be absolutely certain it's reliable and be cautions of "secondary infringement" for copyright violations: A site that is likely to be taken down for copyright violations is not appropriate. However, if you are talking about an archive of public-domain programming such as some material on C-SPAN then sure. Amateur videos should not be used except as backups to a reliable secondary source. For example, CNN and other sources probably host amateur video of 9/11 on their web sites. However, CNN has already gone to the trouble of vetting the video for tampering.
    • "It would seem that direct quotes from a video should be a more reliable account of an event, than someone's necessarily biased interpretation of the same event." Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It takes its information from news and other secondary sources with primary sources to back up the secondary sources when necessary for clarification. Where only primary sources are available, it's a good hint WP:Notability might not have been met. There are times when it is tempting to use an unpublished or not-reliably-published video to support a claim in an article about a notable topic. For example, suppose hypothetically that CNN has some amateur video about 9/11 but YouTube has a legally-posted copy of the same video only it starts 5 seconds sooner. In the first second of the YouTube version shows a flash of flame coming out of the bottom of the airplane 10 seconds before it hits the tower. Could you that video as a reference to say "A flash of flame was visible from the aircraft 10 seconds before it hit the tower" in an article about 9/11? Of course not. If CNN didn't air that 5 seconds, it's probably for a reason: Either it's suspect, it's misleading, it's unimportant, or as some would say but I don't believe, that in this hypothetical situation CNN is engaged in a great conspiracy. On the other hand, if this particular hypothetical YouTube version and CNN's hypothetical cut-down of the video became famous among conspiracy theorists and had its own Wikipedia article, you could talk about it in that article. In this case, the source doesn't need reliability because it is the subject of the article. A copy of that hypothetical YouTube video on another video-sharing service would need to be authenticated before being used, due to lack of being reliably sourced.
  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
One note, contrary to popular myth the vast majority of C-SPAN programming is copyrighted material and not in the public domain. - Dravecky (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin bot approval proposal[edit]

There is a proposal to change the bot policy on whether or not administrators need approval to run bots under their account. All are invited to comment. Prodego talk 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user The undertow editing through his block?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked users can still edit their talk and Pedro needs to remember that in future

Ex admin The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made two edits today (Special:Contributions/The_undertow), yet the block log shows him as, well, blocked [2]. To be honest I'd like to see him back, despite past disagreements, but am I missing something as to how a blocked account is editing? Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their talkpage. In this case, I'm wholly confused why The undertow is doing so... Maxim(talk) 15:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, blocked users can only edit their user talk page, they cannot edit anything else. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not being to clever here am I :0 Obviously blocked users can edit their talk (which my brain managed to ignore) but, yes, Maxim raises a good point as to what he's doing. Nevertheless, my initial comment was wrong - clearly he's not "editing" as per the encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The why? is probably because it was just recently unprotected. Otherwise, it would seem sort of random. :p Haha, I think he's just playing around. He spelled his name out in images. XD Jennavecia (Talk) 15:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot[edit]

Resolved: harej is working on the problem and will no doubt prevent any erratic bot behavior until the problem is solved

Two errors have been noted on the talk page of the RFC bot. An email to the bot owner was replied to, but there is no indication whether the bot owner has stopped, or is attempting to fix, the bot. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 20:32, September 21, 2008 Messedrocker (Talk | contribs | block) (279,928 bytes) (→RfC - Are curly quotes acceptable in mature articles?: ok) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 20:31, September 21, 2008 Messedrocker (Talk | contribs | block) (279,621 bytes) (→RfC: Are curly quotes acceptable in mature articles?: let's try without colon. maybe colon is throwing bot off) (undo)
Beg to differ. --harej 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand harej's response. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. What I meant to say is, I have attempted to fix it. --harej 20:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Egads. This is a pretty aggravating error. I do wonder what is causing it. This shall be investigated. --harej 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre[edit]

Resolved: Sceptre has withdrawn his request for unblocking --Rodhullandemu 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sceptre (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

Sceptre is requesting an unblock on his talk page. Hersfold has already denied the initial request, however it seems this may be a extended discussion given the topic of his reason for wanting to be unblocked. Caulde 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore. The hypocrisy here is staggering. And the childish attitude is depressing. Sceptre seems to think he can do whatever he likes, because in his mind, Kurt is worse, and Kurt may be unblocked. Well, no. This kid needs to go away and grow up. Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That was entirely inappopriate, Moreschi. Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
How so? It's factually correct. The problem here is nothing other than maturity. That's not in our hands, either. Moreschi (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"Go away" and age discrimination are not the way Wikipedia works. Corvus cornixtalk 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Kindly get off the moral high horse. "Go away" is exactly what Sceptre needs to do. He's invested far too much emotional energy in this place - the sort of emotional energy you'd usually put into a marriage, FFS - and as a result his editing has become incredibly irrational and erratic. Real life, I suspect, has been marginalized. Wikipedia has become a drug, that, due to his being blocked, Wikipedia Review is now feeding. Obviously his age is a factor, to say otherwise is just silly.
We don't need this. We need editors who able to act with maturity and can cope without their wikidrug. Editors who can put aside the emotion and act rationally. Qst managed it: took three months off after his ban and came back a totally changed man (and I said man there for a reason. Think about why). If Sceptre can do the same, fine. If not...but for now he just needs to get off the computer. Moreschi (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the unblock request has been withdrawn by Sceptre. Corvus, would you be kind to remove this thread? I'd remove it myself, but I initiated it. Caulde 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The behaviour elsewhere of someone you've been blocked for harrassing/abusing/stalking (delete as appropriate) doesn't make any difference to your own block. Also, this discussion resulted in a consensus that Sceptre's block time be reset to three months for evading his original block. This was on 9 September, so even if Sceptre is unblocked at some point, it shouldn't be before this block runs out on 9 December. It's worth noting that before that discussion, his block was set to indefinite. Black Kite 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Location of ban discussions[edit]

I've attempted to clarify the documentation about where ban discussions should take place. WP:BAN already stated WP:AN as the location. WP:CSN was, according to the MfD, spun off from ANI and merged back there. Discussions in the past seem to have taken place in both place. Being bold, and if there are no objections, I'd like to formalise the preferred location as AN for a few reasons:

  • (1) AN (administrators noticeboard) has less traffic than ANI, but still enough traffic for a wide-ranging ban discussion.
  • (2) AN is smaller in size, so there is less need to create subpages (if any) and discussions can hopefully finish on the noticeboard.
  • (3) AN is possibly less drama-inducing than ANI (though that depends on the subject of discussion as well as the participants).

If there are no objections, the following diffs probably don't need changing, but if there are, could people look at them and decide what would be best? Please, if you do change something, try and keep everything consistent? Diffs are: [3], [4], [5], [6]. I've also left a note at ANI pointing people here, and one at WT:BAN. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that here is a better place, except where it naturally follows a discussion elsewhere. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this change, (and if the community sanction noticeboard wasn't full-protected, I'd have reverted that in the way I reverted the other links). For one thing, although we use this place often for notifications and announcements (such as when sanctions have been imposed and arb-cases have been closed), I don't think this venue will often have enough traffic for these sorts of measures to go through one way or another. In most cases, ban proposals stem directly from incident reports, and a lot of sanction proposals end up stemming from there (eg; GoRight's community sanction). In part, the natural way in which these proposals come out was what made it convenient for the community - I'm not surprised why the community sanction noticeboard remains completely dead. Yes, I note (and have noted more passionately before) that the size of ANI is always going to be an issue, but people have been listening and things are being done to deal with them appropriately. In the case of the particular incident that sparked this bold move, the consensus for the community ban was clear so it should've simply ended there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus for a block was clear, it was not, and is not, clear for a ban. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
An overwhelming consensus existed for the (de facto) community ban; I think the strong consensus was actually towards the outright community ban too (although that's obviously debateable given the summary in that subpage). And note, I made no view on support/oppose/otherwise in that matter. The reason there's uncertainty over what exactly Kurt would need to do in order for the unblock is due to the mixture of concerns, and I do think that if an appeal was left to the discretion of any single administrator, then whether they decline or accept, it is more than likely to carry some level of controversy and drama. I'd suggest that any appeal be handled by the community as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Ncmvocalist: The obvious solution to through traffic is to leave a non-timestamped notice at ANI, directing people to AN This is no different to linking from ANI to a subpage of ANI. The logical conclusion of driving traffic to ANI because you think AN is too low-traffic is to reduce traffic still further at AN and increase the size (and hence number of subpage spin-offs) of ANI. The other solution is to resurrect some form of CSN (which, BTW, is completely dead because it got closed down at an MfD), but in a very different format to avoid the previous concerns. Note also that community sanctions are different from a complete ban proposal, though they may involve topic bans. Also, all administrators should check both AN and ANI. If that is no longer the case, that shift in culture needs to be reversed. Finally, see this diff. You didn't revert me - you changed what had been on that page in the previous version (as edited by Elonka). Previously it had said AN, now you've changed it to say ANI. There has been consensus for this page to say AN since October 2007. See here: " Consensus is that AN is a better place to discuss bans than ANI". Ncmvocalist, would you consider reverting yourself? Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so - the thing about subpages is that they're only moved after quite some time of it being on the original ANI page itself (after the proposals are made, and after it's received a decent amount of attention - they become long and that's when they're subpaged). What should happen isn't necessarily what happens in practice, anymore anyway. ;) And it's not that admins do/don't check both - it seems users prefer a centralized location where one proposal stems from the same dispute, which is often the case with sanctions/bans proposals. Coming to your other point, October 2007 was quite sometime ago in wikitime, and I do think according to current practice, more ban discussions occur on ANI rather than AN. I haven't reverted myself, although I've made a note of it in my subsequent bold edit just now. You're welcome to revert that though, but I do think that sort of defeats part of the purpose of your bold edits in the first place - to keep it consistent with how it is now. Maybe we should reopen that discussion too? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted back to Elonka's version. I'll asked User:Jehochman, who wrote that back in October 2007, if he remembers where the consensus came from. You are right, of course, that things might have changed since, and that policy should be descriptive. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Picking up your other points. Having a ban discussion ensue directly from a preceding discussion has both advantages and disadvantages. Events are still fresh in people's minds, so the impetus for a ban may still be there. Equally, that can lead to "heat of the moment" decisions, and a bias in participation. I think a break, to a different venue, and in time, of a few days or a week, can help ameliorate these problems. If things are urgent, a block can be carried out, but if there are no preventative reasons for a block, then waiting a week to start a discussion won't matter either. If community discussions are a valid way of doing things, it shouldn't matter either when a discussion is carried out. We don't insist RfAs or AfDs are done at a particular time when certain people are available. So ban discussions can start at any time, and the community members that are around during that week can take a look and se what they think. Those that want to participate will still turn up at the discussion, so that shouldn't be a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Support holding discussions of longterm community sanctions (including bans) on WP:AN. ANI subpages are notorious for their ability to derail discussions; twice in my recent experience, discussions that were progressing well to a conclusion under the eye of the community as a whole were disrupted and left unresolved because of Ncmvocalist's arbitrary and undiscussed decision to move them to a subpage. The issues being addressed will undoubtedly rear their head again, instead of having been resolved. The objective is to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of the community, as best as possible. It isn't to have an easy-to-read noticeboard. We're a diverse community, on significant issues we should anticipate extensive discussion. Risker (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If there is going to be consensus for a ban, there is going to be consensus for a ban. It really does not matter if it was discussed on ANI or AN. The venue of the discussion really does not matter, as long as the issue at hand is resolved in a dramaZ free fashion and is in a public enough place for the community to be able to comment if they feel so inclined. I really do not see why we need to make yet another rule when it comes to banning, I mean if a user brings concerns to ANI and the discussion gains consensus for a ban, it will no longer be enforceable simply because it was not discussed at AN? That seems a bit, ridiculous to me. Tiptoety talk 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not about any specific incident, but more moving forward to see what can be done better for next time. There was a similar discussion before, but nothing really got documented or carried forward from that. What I'm concerned about is ban discussions started in the heat of the moment. Banning is a serious step and should be done in the cold light of day, with clear presentation of the history, and after calm reflection. ANI, by its nature, deals with specific incidents, and as such is poorly structured to deal with ban discussions. The incident should be dealt with, and then a move to a ban discussion can be made, but that discussion should, to recognise the severity of the sanction being called for, be done at a different location. There is a reason that arbitrators, for examnple, don't turn up on a noticeboard and arbitrate there. People go to where the arbitrators are and things proceed from there. Similarly, a ban discussion should take place at a venue separated from the noticeboards. It might seem that I'm calling for a separate venue, like WP:CSN (closed down), and in a way I am, but not the old CSN. Something better. For now, though, deflecting such discussions from the at-times-frenetic pace of ANI, to a calmer discussion at AN may help. Once a discussion has started on ANI, it is normally too late (in the very early stages, it could be carefully transplanted and a note left behind), but if people start to actually follow this October 2007 consensus (I'm waiting on a reply about that), then maybe things will improve slightly. For all I know, most of the ban discussions have taken place on AN, and the recent ANI ones are the aberrations? Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think people are getting too bogged down in process. A ban is a block that nobody will lift, and consensus on that can change. I don't see a huge difference myself. The idea of formalising "community ban" discussions was rejected, for good reason, I think the more productive use of time would be discussing other community-imposed sanctions (specifically editing restrictions). I still think we should try to resolve more issues through restrictions, since these very often clarify the matter speedily - if the editor is unwilling or unable to ifnd another focus then they will either leave or be blocked, if they do find another focus then everybody is happy. Is X blocked or banned is a pretty sterile debate and usually not a very pleasant spectacle, it would be better to debate the simple issue of whether people think a block should be lifted. Every block imposed by any admin is a unilateral act and always will be, the only body corporate with the power to require blocking or banning is, I think, ArbCom. It doesn't matter if the blocking admin is at the head of the mob with torches and pitchforks, it's his or her call to make the block. The established mores here are that we don't lift other people's blocks without discussion, and if that discussion results in an unblock then the editor is unblocked, if it doesn't then they are not, and that's about it, I believe. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After seeing ban discussions like Koh's, Kurt's Scetpre's, Steve Crossin's, and Prom3th3n's, I've written up User:MBisanz/RfBan as a proposed way to better handle such discussions in the future. MBisanz talk 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

unblock Sz-iwbot[edit]

Resolved

plese unblock Sz-iwbot, now have a global bot --Shizhao (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked per Wikipedia:Global rights usage#Global bots. WJBscribe (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness[edit]

Resolved: Nigel McGuinness reduced to semi-protection by Cirt. --John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness has been full protected for an unusually long time now — since June 23. I'd have unprotected, but way back in early December 2007 User:FCYTravis cited OTRS:#2006092210008209. Regrettably, he has been inactive since mid-July, not long after the protection of this article. Would an admin with OTRS access please review the situation and lift the protection to see if the problem has gone away? Thanks, Splash - tk 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The full protection was because a minority of editors wanted to put Nigel McGuinness's real name into the article (gleaned from private information). The person objected to having his real life name put in the article, and proved that he had not made it public. So, if we can get assurances that there will be no attempts to put the person's real name in the article, I see no reason not to drop the protection. If there are further attempts, then I would support the protection on there indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we obviously can't 'get' assurances and it'd be better not to go pinging the people in question anyway. We could, though, suck it and see with the oversighters at the ready. Splash - tk 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I stepped it down to semi-prot, please monitor for above-mentioned issues and other possible WP:BLP concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Posted a notice to WP:BLPN. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that none of the other edits revealing his name have been oversighted, I doubt further Oversight is necessary. I suppose there's no harm in me watchlisting it for further eyes on it however. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to still be blocked. It would be nice if someone could at least clean up the References section; it's a real mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.218.223 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A user that keeps changing names[edit]

We have a user who makes poor edits, faces criticism, leaves, opens a new account, and repeats the process over and over again. This user is on their fifth account by now. Is there anything that we can do about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a case for SSP. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
SSP can't enforce anything though IIRC... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, but it can prove that it's the same user, and take further action as it's needed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is to file a request at WP:RFCU. This will do two things: 1) Confirm that these are indeed the same user and 2) determine if they are editing from one of two static IPs or a small range of dynamic IPs. Before you do this, be certain that you can demonstrate that there is an obvious pattern of disruption. A cursory glance at the users' contributions does not show much disruption at all. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It's known that they're the same; the problem is with conduct. I personally don't see it as very disruptive, but he has on occasion been annoying to clean up after (as has Freewayguy, for that matter). It's a decent question in general: can someone restart under a new account and continue making edits that are [annoying/disruptive, pick one]? --NE2 12:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More history can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive130#Problem_with_Rschen7754 --John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Britney Spears 2008.jpg and a certain editor[edit]

Resolved: Image deleted and permission being reviewed as otrs:1929435; editor blocked and unblocked an hour later. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If admins could look at the edit history of this image they will see that Ogioh removed a deletion tag without resolving concerns, probably preventing the image from being deleted on the 19th. Ogioh has a terrible history when it comes to images, he has deliberately lied on occasions (see warnings on his talk page), where he uploaded a copyright image, claiming it belonged to his Uncle. When I pointed out the copyright AP symbol in the corner, he cropped the symbol out and claimed it was a T.V. image. He's overdue a block as it is. — Realist2 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. It can always be restored if OTRS gets meaningful proof of origin. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've looked over User:Ogioh's contribs and left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I just had a look at his uploads--all but one of them has been either deleted or flagged for trouble. Is a warning enough at this point? Blueboy96 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's worrisome but the last upload was 8 days ago. Let's see if the warning gets heeded. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, been away all day. Thanx for taking care of that, should I report back here if there are most of these problems with Ogioh? — Realist2 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The user left a reply to my warning and I've answered with another warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this another copyvio? He claims the owner licensed it under Creative Commons. Any way of verifying that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it got deleted while I was posting, but he uploaded it after Gale's warning and before he replied to her. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked him indefinitely pending the outcome of this thread. This needs some input, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Picture taken at the MTV Video Music Awards, it seems. No way that image is free. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Well he was unblocked after just one hour. Could those with banhammers play close attention to what this guy uploads. I've been monitoring this guy and reporting his various lies for weeks and all it's resulted in thus far is a slap on the wrist. I thought we took copy right infringement seriously, or at least I did... — Realist2 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Resolved: Rollback removed from Majorly at his request. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please remove my rollback privs. I don't wish to do anymore accidental rollbacks. Majorly talk 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. WODUP 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, as the user apparently reverted, I oppose this removal. I interpret this as an accidental-click, which can always be changed using Undo and an edit-summary. Franamax (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't oppose Majorly having rollback, but if he doesn't want it-for whatever reason he doesn't want it, I'm not going to force him to have it. I've accidentally rolled back edits while looking at a diff, too. It's not a big deal, and if Majorly would like rollback back, I'd be glad to give it to him again. WODUP 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)And as the editor who spotted the reversion and pointed it out to Majorly, he did immediately apologize to Franamax, which I always think is a Good Sign. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't intend to do any vandal fighting, or make use of it, so I don't really want the hassle of having it. If I get back into vandal fighting, I'll ask for it back, but right now, I hardly ever use it, and it's not worth the risk. Majorly talk 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:HoiTuCorp[edit]

Resolved: User page deleted as spam. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody speak Vietnamese? Is User:HoiTuCorp advertising? Corvus cornixtalk 07:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't but I'd give it a pretty high chance..--Crossmr (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should ask at WP:PNT to get someone to translate it and tag it accordingly if needed. SoWhy 10:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As Crossmr could tell you, I make use of user categories when I hit those questions. Category:User vi or Category:Vietnamese Wikipedians might help. Sometimes it can be difficult finding somebody whose active on the project, but right away I see a very active Wikipedian, User:YellowMonkey, who might be able to help you out. (Of course, Crossmr also reminded me that we have to make sure the user has sufficient proficiency. :) In this case, he's tagged level 2, which ought to suffice.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It was advertising for a Vietnamese business and I've speedy deleted it as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Corvus cornixtalk 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance with watchlisting[edit]

Resolved: Semi protected by Master of Puppets for seven days. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Womanizer (song) is a high traffic article, it's the next release by Britney Spears, so you can imagine. I'm the only active editor trying to maintain it from all the unsourced junk etc etc. Could I have some assistance please, would rather not go down the semi protection route. — Realist2 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD mess[edit]

Would it be possible to get some admin eyes here? The template Template:Mpdb movie was nominated for deletion, but there's a previous TfD still open, and questions about whether the website it links to is eligible under WP:EL rules. (The template is used to place external links to MoviePosterDB on film articles. An article about the website was deleted a while back for lack of notability.) Some help in cutting the knot would be good, I think. (I'm involved in the discussion, but I've tried to avoid rehashing any arguments here.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I should note a small side discussion here as well. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have closed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 6#Template:Mpdb movie as "stale". p.s. I think the old discussion shouldnt be duplicated in the new discussion, as it makes it more difficult for people to figure out where they should comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot approved.[edit]

Hi, I have recently approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot, an adminbot that has currently been running for a month. I believe that all concerns are taken care of. Please feel free to add comments. Xclamation point 03:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Look a few sections up. Hesperian 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please reopen the discussion. I am awaiting responses to #Approval of FA Template Protection Bot before deciding whether there is consensus for such a bot to be sysopped without RfA. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if the request remained open for community comment. WJBscribe (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

impossible to create the page "Virb"[edit]

Hello,

It's look like the title "Virb" is blacklisted. Why? Is it not a social networking website like others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Ranska (talkcontribs) 08:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been used as a redirect for VIRB°, which in turn was deleted many times over because of this AfD. If you have reasons why the reasoning from the AfD is not correct anymore, please tell us them and we can decide if notability can be established to allow creation of such an article. You might want to provide some reliable sources for such claims though. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbrowll[edit]

Resolved: sock tags removed as unnecessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dbrowell (a new user) was accused of IP Sockpuppeting by VasileGaburici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and requested a CU which was rejected, his explanation is here.

In light on the Checkusers response, Im wondering if we can remove the suspected sock puppet templates as they seem overly WP:BITE to be accusing a new user of sock puppetry because he may have removed a AfD tag whilst logged out (most likly accidentally logged out, as well as not knowing removing tags is wrong)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tags - as Sam Korn said, it's not an abusive sockpuppet. I suggest the pages be deleted, with a careful reason as to not BITE him when he decides to create a userpage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of this thread until now; I discovered it serendipitously. After checkuser was denied, I've removed the stuff added by TW to the talk pages of the two users on my own initiative, and blanked the sockpuppet request as well. But I forgot to check Dbrowell's user page; thankfully, Od Mishehu did that. It looks like 69.105.112.249 was engaging in repeated vandalism (others warned him before me), and it was an unfortunate coincidence that he removed that AfD. Asking for sockpuppet/checkuser is a pretty laborious job when done manually. Twinkle alleviates this to some extent, but it "spams" the users with sockpuppet warnings, which not only look scary, but aren't of any help to the "accused" user since realistically only checkuser can provide any real evidence. Telling the user to "defend himself" on the case page, which what TW's warning does, seems pretty pointless (how can someone prove he's not a sockpuppet or master?), and indeed WP:BITEs. I'll be more careful with TW in the future. VG 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Banning proposal[edit]

After seeing ban discussions like Koh's, Kurt's Scetpre's, Steve Crossin's, and Prom3th3n's, I've written up User:MBisanz/RfBan as a proposed way to better handle such discussions in the future. Please comment at the talk page. MBisanz talk 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I like it, as these types of discussions do happen, and it isnt helpful to have them linger on AN or ANI. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Since this appears to be a special case of an RfC, that is, an RfC with a desired outcome of bannination, could it not be handled through extension of the normal RfC process to include implementation of sanctions which have widespread support? Guy (Help!) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My primary fear is that by combining the discussion of a user's conduct and the discussion of the sanction on the user, people will jump over and ignore the discussion on the user's conduct to focus on what sanction shall be given out. MBisanz talk 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I like this idea. See comments there. RlevseTalk 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev again..[edit]

I'm sorry to bother you guys but User:Dilip rajeev is back, this time the battleground being Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China#WP:RS, the so called Phenoix TV stuff removed (yes we should really do something about that long title). He repeatedly (twice, up to now) removed a source that's agreed by consensus to be notable and is deemed RS from WP:RS/N. Can someone keep an eye on him if he ignores my 2nd warning on the talk page and start reverting again? Thanks. --antilivedT | C | G 07:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff please to something being removed, or another objectionable edit? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought i put up diff links in the talk page but I was mistaken. 1st removal and 2nd removal, he basically twisted it around and retained only the bits that are addressed by the report author, making it even less npov than it originally stands. --antilivedT | C | G 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have warned Dilip rajeev to stop removing the content, and left a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Phoenix TV reliable source? --John Vandenberg (chat) 09:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that I believe had made my reasons for the edit clear on the talk page before I removed the content[7]. I have attempted to further clarify my reasons for removing material from the particular source, here:[8] Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IPBE and softblocking[edit]

Does the IPBE process make sense if the range is only soft-blocked - i.e. if logged-in editors can still edit? If no, then should the two rangeblocks here be changed, to put into effect Thatcher's apparent intention when issuing them? As the blocks stand, the editor in question is still easily evading his ban.[9][10]  —SMALLJIM  12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was an error; have you tried dropping Thatcher a line? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for endorsing what I thought. It seems to be pretty uncontroversial, so I'll amend the blocks myself and let Thatcher know (his talkpage says he's on a short wikibreak).  —SMALLJIM  18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I just forgot to unclick the boxes. I have an unfortunate tendency to do that :( That range should be hardblocked since the editor in question just goes elsewhere to make accounts. Thatcher 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also note that as of now, there do not appear to be any unblocked Bsrboy accounts on those ranges, so if someone asks for IPBE you can grant it first and ask a checkuser to followup, rather than requiring verification first. Thatcher 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah - thanks for the nicely-timed reply! I've just amended the blocks. Incidentally, could this have been blocked as a single /20 range, or would that have had a different effect?  —SMALLJIM  20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Same thing. I probably saw him on one of the smaller ranges, then later realized he was on the neighboring one too. Thatcher 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the explanation - I'm gradually learning. Have this smallbarnstar: * for all your good work :)  —SMALLJIM  21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 3RR noticeboard[edit]

Resolved

The last admin activity was at around 13:00 hours. I have a report on there that is still pretty new, but there are a couple on there that are getting to be several hours old. If any of you have the time would you mind helping out over there? Cheers! Landon1980 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Tiptoety talk 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Landon1980 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done Tiptoety talk 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Misza13[edit]

Refer to relevant ANI thread; no need for two concurrent threads. —kurykh 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mpvide65 indefinitely blocked for harassment[edit]

Mpvide65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I have just blocked Mpvide65 indefinitely for harassment. As a series of anonymous users, he has harassed both Ryan and J.Delanoy. Much of the worst of the harassment has been oversighted.

I don't see any reason at all to set anything other than an indefinite block here.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sam for nailing this guy and thanks also to J.delanoy, WBOSITG and East718. Much appreciated, —— RyanLupin(talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

deleting articles[edit]

Is there a way to delete really bad articles on wikipedia and rewrite them? I've never really edited an article, my brother used to but that was a while ago.--76.16.216.41 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article can be deleted by administrators, but usually not because the article is really bad. Usually we just ask you to edit the article and make it better so that we can attribute those who helped create the article. Feel free to edit any article and make any improvements. Also, check out your talk page where you will find some helpful links to help you to edit successfully. Lastly, if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask at our help desk, where people can answer just about any question you have. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I wrote to you on your page. The article sucks, I don't know anything about cars but these people have to be cutting out stuff, GM is really terrible right now, and there'snothing in the article but a lot of stuff about how they're so great. that's a lie even if they were doing awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.216.41 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If you think that the article (which you have not named) is not written with a neutral point of view, you can add verifiable and sourced information about how the cars are "really terrible", but bias is not a good reason to delete, according to policy.--MrFishGo Fish 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The article in question was General Motors. If you want farther commentary on the situation, feel free to read the bottom of my talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:JohnathanCheechoo[edit]

Jonathan Cheechoo is an NHL player. JohnathanCheechoo (talk · contribs) is using his name (though spelling it wrong). I reported it to WP:UAA and was told it isn't a blatant violation. WP:USERNAME says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. Any inputs? Corvus cornixtalk 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen WP:UAA ignore things that were obvious, blatant policy violations. Just keep trying. Bstone (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But, my dear Bstone, this isn't a blatant policy violation. One of the other comments on UAA was that there was a vandalism problem- if so we may need to block for /that/. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes looking at his deleted contribs he did create a page that was speedily deleted, however it's not vandalism. Just non-notable. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, L'Aquatique you are indeed correct here. Sorry! Bstone (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique made this incredible comment: Yeah, probably not a blatant violation. For one thing, it's not a hugely famous name (I, for example, have no idea who that is). In other words, if L'Aquatique has never heard of the person being impersonated, it's not important. And note that I made no claims of vandalism, the only edit the User has made was to create an article on an nn person, not vandalism. Corvus cornixtalk 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are we having this conversation in two places. If you're going to quote me, for G-d's sake at least quote the whole thing: "For one thing, it's not a hugely famous name (I, for example, have no idea who that is) and the fact that the first name is "misspelled" suggests to me that it might be the person's actual name.". Now, this seems like forum shopping to me, but I'll give you my opinion; two admins have told you it's not a blatant violation. Why don't you go ask him if it's his name? L'Aquatique[talk] 05:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I brought it here because the response at UAA is wrong, since it is a violation of the USERNAME policy. Your being an admin has no bearing on the fact that you are wrong. Corvus cornixtalk 06:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sure. If you can find someone who will block him, more power to you. But this discussion has run its course. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you guys try talking to the user himself (and please don't use that entirely unhelpful template if you do...)? Sometimes that works wonders, if he does not respond you can discard this as stale and if he refuses to change his name then maybe something should be done then (I am not certain really), this username I would say does not express any particularly bad intent and so does not merit an instant block-hammer. - Icewedge (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, what do you know? An admin who actually understands policy blocked him. Corvus cornixtalk 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Correction, an admin blocked him pending identify verification. And you need to lay off the sarcasm, it's unbecoming. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This leads to a point of - how well known does a person have to be before using their name is a violation of UAA? The example above is probably correctly handled, since it is an unusual name, but most people outside the USA would have no clue who that person is (I didn't). What about really common names - would there actually be an issue with, say, User:Michael Owen or User:David James if they stayed away from football articles? Black Kite 06:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In that vein, how exactly do you measure famous-ness? There isn't exactly an SI unit for this purpose, although there probably should be. The truth is, it's not exactly recommended that you use your real name for your username anyway, but that's not part of the policy. I think this should be handled on a no-harm-done basis- if a user actually pretends to be someone famous (and we are sure they really aren't that person) that could be a problem. But I'm not really sure why having the same username as someone famous is really a truly bad thing. I think a clarification of the policy, at the very least, is in order here. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Famousness isn't the issue, and I have just made an updated to the policy to reflect that. Impersonation and/or misrepresentation are the issue. It's just that famous people are more likely to be targeted. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the substance of policy and guidelines[edit]

This isn't a request for action over a specific incident; it's more of a general complaint that admins may have some suggestions for addressing.

Namely: people are edit-warring over the substance of policy and guidelines. This happens a lot; for example, it's happened today at two pages I happen to be watching (WP:MOS and WP:NOR). It shouldn't be happening - these pages need to be stable (in terms of substance, not necessarily of wording), since they may be referenced in ongoing disputes, and in any case these battles make it harder to determine what the "established" policy is in the event of no-consensus-to-change outcomes. And the belligerents are in many cases experienced users, admins even, who appear to genuinely (though incredibly obstinately, in some cases) believe that their version is either (a) the established version which there is no consensus to change, or (b) a version which has recently gained consensus.

OK, what can we do about this when we see it? We can report it to the admins; someone will probably come along and protect the page. They may (according to blocking policy) try to determine which is the established version and protect that version. But there's no guarantee of this - they may just protect the version on top, a move which may well reward the "aggressor" and damage the integrity of the page. So rather than cast the dice, people prefer to revert for themselves, thus continuing the war.

In my view, something needs to change. The easiest solution might be to require admins protecting policy pages to investigate and ensure that they protect what seems to be the most recent consensus version. But a protection-based solution is not ideal, since it ties up the whole page, not just the part that's in dispute. Some kind of warning to participants to refrain from changing policy without consensus (or refusing to recognize consensus to change it, as appropriate), coupled with a neutral user's (admin's?) reasoned assessment of what is current consensus, ought to do the trick in most cases. It's more process I know, but something needs to be done to stop this phenomenon, which generates much ill-will and wastes huge amounts of time that could be spent on something constructive. Thoughts please.

I will take the opportunity as always to mention the proposal WP:Policy/Procedure, which is connected with this to some extent.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really generate much ill will? I was the last person to revert and I certainly bear no ill will towards anyone else participating. I think the "other side" is wrong on the merits and wrong that there is a consensus for the change but I'm sure they're acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Also, while we certainly have a messy way of making sausages we do make some good sausages. Haukur (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: I am no longer the last person who reverted :) Haukur (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ill-will can be found on the talk pages. Of course it would be there anyway, but I'm sure the existence of an ongoing edit war makes things far worse. (And on sausage quality - we make some good ones, we make some bad ones, I'd like the bad ones to be better.) Incidentally, it looks like WP:MOS does currently need protecting, in view of the curly-quotes nonsense currently going on there.--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Automatic correction of spelling[edit]

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.
See WP:BOTREQ for bot requests, but it won't fly there, either. Nothing further to discuss here. Shereth 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't know where to place this...

There needs to be a bot of some sort to fix uncommon spelling errors (uncommon in the sense that, unlike teh, they aren't known and have their own page, as some spellings might be intentional, but like maximise, which brings up 1120 hits when searched, and criterea, which I fixed about fifteen instances of). I don't know if anyone is working on this, but it would be nice at least. Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Maximise" is not a misspelling. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
So true. — Satori Son 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

yes it is! It should be "Maximize" !!!

  • Absolute total oppose. Anyone who's ever used the AWB typo fix feature will know that at least 10% of the hits it gets are false positives. If you're that concerned about a particular typo, then open up AWB and run a search-and-replace on it, but make sure you manually check every edit, unless you have a blinding urge to see your talkpage filled with abuse for your Reshad FeildReshad Field and Anguilla anguillaAnguilla Anguilla "corrections". – iridescent 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, one of those is easily nullified with the creation of another redirect... Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. Automated tools are notoriously bad at picking up what is a typo and what isn't. Mix in the usage of three variants of English - British, Canadian and American - add in IPA text, foreign language translations, equasions, etc, and we're either going to spend more time fixing the "fixes" than we do fixing the mistakes, or the overhead involved in writing and running a script that can accomodate for all of this would not be worth it. Resolute 17:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot requests go to WP:BOTREQ. This is a perennial request; see also: Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots#Spell-checking bots. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of time when the misspelling is intentional ("teh", for example), that would be unable to be correctly interpreted by a bot. Corvus cornixtalk 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though there might be a few misspellings here and there on Wikipedia, the great thing about the human brain is that it can still read sentences when its wrttn pourly! Gary King (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Humans are even better than that. They can even complete a . JoshuaZ (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Nielson DMCA Takedown[edit]

So I get a notification on my watchlist that Template:Miami TV and Template:WPB TV were removed by a bot: "Removing TV region templates per DMCA Takedown Notice from Nielsen Media Research, OTRS ticket #2008091610055854"

Now I may not be an expert an copyright, but my feeling is that this is completely ridiculous. If I remember correctly, all it was were a list of channels in the marketplace. This is common knowledge. Am I missing something here or has Nielsen become very desperate?--Jorfer (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

About to post about this myself. Is there anyway to see what OTRS ticket #2008091610055854 is? I am seriously confused on what the deletions are about and if there is some way around it (removing all Nielsen information, etc). - NeutralHomerTalk 04:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is here either. The only thing I see is that the templates contained a link to the Nielsen site. All the information in the template is public knowledge. Did someone actually talk to Mike? KnightLago (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the takedown should be submitted to Chilling Effects. BJTalk 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't know how to talk to Mike. I am just trying to find out the reasoning behind it. Because if it is removing market information and Nielsen linkage, we can do that. - NeutralHomerTalk 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The WMF Office was consulted on this matter and per an OTRS ticket indicating a DMCA takedown notice, the content was deleted. The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license. SWATjester or Mike Godwin can probably clarify as they were the ones who handled the matter, but the material should NOT be restore by anyone prior to contacting them. By their nature OTRS tickets are private and cannot be released, but it has been confirmed by WMF staff that the ticket number in question is valid. MBisanz talk 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
See your talk page. - NeutralHomerTalk 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If people are looking for guidance as to how to define TV station areas, Cary Bass from the WMF office produced a copy-vio free version of TV station data at List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market#United_States_of_America. MBisanz talk 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request MBisanz, could you please look at User:Ckatz/US TV templates test and advise me as to if it should go? I had retrieved the contents of the deleted Seattle template before I found this thread; the one I linked to linked is a revised version minus any mention of Nielsen or their "proprietary" term for the Seattle area. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we go nuts and start "rebuilding" all these templates, we need to "rename" all 211 Nielsen Markets with the MSAs and go from there. Do a couple test templates, get Mike in here to "yea" or "nay" them and then go nuts. - NeutralHomerTalk 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
As a complete aside, anyone else find it ridiculous that a template that is basically an alphabetical list of stations within a market could even be subject to a DCMA takedown notice? Statistics aren't copyrightable, and that is basically what a list of TV stations in a market defined by the people who measure such things is. Or, at least that would be the case in a sane world... Resolute 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. This is ridiculous. Nielson did not invent the areas that TV channels serve. This stuff existed before them and is common knowledge. It is not like the titles sport any creativity either. This feels like Amazon patenting "one-click" as if they created the idea of clicking on something once to get the desired product.--Jorfer (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

....and the certainly don't control the way we create templates on Wikipedia. They want their linkage off, fine...outside that, this is Wikipedia, not Nielsinpedia. - NeutralHomerTalk 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple lists of items (in this case, television stations) can not be copyrighted. In fact, you can go to places such as the FCC site and get lists of all stations in a given area (all Florida stations are listed here, and any other list of stations can be found for any state within the US. I'm sure other country governments have similar public lists). Nelson's claim that they own a copyright to the list of stations is absurd (since that's all the navbox template was). Additionally, the Excel file linked to in the template doesn't even have the information contained in the infobox (other than perhaps the market mentioned in the title of the box itself: "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market"). Since that's the only possible claim Nelson has here, I don't see a problem with the templates being recreated if we just don't reference the idiots at Nelson. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in this situation, Nielsen Media Research claims copyright over the concept of the marketplace designation. Sure, the content was a list of television stations, but it was a list of television stations based on a designation set forth by Nielsen. We could, in all theory, recreate similar templates that do not utilize Nielsen's categories and instead the FCC's. Or this could be the lava lamp fiasco all over again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I got nothing. This whole thing has confused me to no end. - NeutralHomerTalk 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note: I was not involved in the removal of the templates. My actions were with the removal of certain content on the List page, and were at Mike's direction. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Just to reiterate what is said above, this was a DMCA takedown notice, and the action was requested by Mike Godwin, foundation legal counsel, so there's probably no mileage in challenging the basis for it, even if we don't like it we probably can't afford to fight it - and we, as a bunch of barrack-room lawyers should not in any case be second-guessing Mike, who is a pro. Last night there were some comments which violated Godwin's Law, which is kind of ironic, but I don't see any mileage in complaining about it, and Cary's idea of rebuilding on the basis of a source which is in the public domain is the best approach, I think. Assuming good faith here, as we should, it's reasonable to interpret this not as a chilling effect but as the routine protection of intellectual property by a company whose IP is its stock-in-trade. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not a lawyer, but I think the best analogy would be Dewey_Decimal_System#Ownership_and_administration, if the Dewey decimal system of organizing libraries can be copyrighted, I suspect it is very conceivable that the system for classifying TV stations can be and is. MBisanz talk 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I find it plausible based on numerous examples, but I freely acknowledge that I lack the expertise to judge, so I defer to Mike. It's noticeable that most of the work seems to have been done by one user, and there was some suggestion that this might have been a Primtime sock, I don't know if anything came of that. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You'd be surprised what can and cannot be copyrighted. For example, if I run a website dedicated to my favourite English Premier League or Football League football team, I can't have a page listing their upcoming fixtures - or this happens. Black Kite 10:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    I recall hearing of similar takedown threats regarding Australian Rules Football match schedules as well. Perhaps the laws or caselaw are different in Britain and Australia than in the USA; the American precedent (such as the Feist decision regarding telephone directories) is very much in favor of the non-copyrightability of purely factual listings not involving editorial creativity. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • They've copyrighted the... upcoming game schedule. *facepalm* And we think the American system is overly litigious... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll attept to reconstruct what's going on here.

  • One of the templates can, for now, be seen at [13]. Its format is:
    • (title) "Broadcast television in the South Florida (Miami / Fort Lauderdale / Key West) market (Nielsen DMA #16)" with links to the metropolitan areas and cities, and an external link to [14]
    • "local stations" sorted by channel number, for example "WPBT 2 (PBS)" with links to WPBT and PBS
    • "digital-only channels" in the same format
    • "local stations in Key West" with the note that "Most of these stations either serve Miami proper, or are repeaters of Miami stations." and the same format
    • "local cable channels" apparently sorted by name
    • links at the bottom to templates for other Florida markets, and to the Bahamas and Cuba
  • Nielsen Media Research claims copyright over something here. I don't believe we (on WP:AN) hae been told exactly what they claim copyright over, but I would assume it's the lumping, for example, of Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West into one market. Looking at the FCC list, I see that they do not combine them in this way. However, some of these places are close enough (I think) that there will be interference if, for instance, a Miami company and a Fort Lauderdale company use the same station. I assume this is simply done on a case-by-case basis.

Here's my question: how well-known are the markets? This actually provides a good test case: Nielsen combines Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Key West, but separates West Palm Beach. On the other hand, the Census Bureau puts Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach together, but separates Key West. Is it generally known to the TV-watching public that West Palm Beach is a separate market, or is this something that only statisticians care about? If the latter, then there's no reason to use the Nielsen markets.

But if the former, we need to determine exactly what's copyrighted. Presumably I can say what I said above about West Palm Beach being in a separate market. But can this be said on a template? Can we have a template for all three cities (ignoring Key West for now) and a note that Nielsen separates West Palm Beach? I definitely do not understand exactly what is copyrighted here, and I hope someone can explain that. --NE2 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed quite a bit of arbitrariness to the market divisions, when you get to the borderline. I'm a case in point myself... the condo complex in which I live is in Palm Beach County, but it is located right on the side of the canal that divides this county from Broward County; the houses on the other side of the canal are categorized as being in a separate Nielsen market from me. To some extent, there's some actual truth to this separation despite geographical proximity; people on the other side of the county line get a different set of cable channels from people on my side, and that can affect their perception of the world; when I watch the 11:00 news on TV, I see West Palm Beach channels that concentrate on events to the north of me, while people on the other side of the line see Fort Lauderdale channels that talk about events to the south, so there might be very different perceptions of what current events matter based on this arbitrary division. However, people socialize a lot with others who live across the county line; it's not a Berlin Wall. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Resolute and NH ... it's pretty well established in American law (and I'm assuming Canadian law as well) that you can't copyright facts. Seems to me based on what has been discussed, this should be the way to go:

  • Cull a list of stations that serve a particular metro from the FCC list. We at WP:TVS know what stations are part of what market, so this shouldn't be too much of a hassle.
  • Use them to make new, non-copyvio tables along the lines of the Canadian station lists. I'm assuming the Canadian lists are based off the CRTC database, and if they're public domain like U.S. government documents are public domain, there's no issue there.
  • Bounce them off Mike to make sure there's there isn't something we don't know about, and we're in business.

It may take a few days, but if Nielsen went berserk over a mere link and the list of market designations, it should be relatively simple. Blueboy96 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this can be allowed. The FCC uses Nielsen rankings in some of its own rules. Would a court uphold the use of such restricted data in FCC rules? (See 47CFR73.622(f)(5)) TripEricson (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The FCC might well have specific permission from Neilsen to use those data in its own works. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
But how can they enforce their rules? If I run a station and choose not to pay Nielsen (some stations do choose not to), how am I supposed to know what market I am in to abide by FCC decisions? TripEricson (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question that might help us gain perspective into this matter later on. Fellow obsessive editors and admins: Given your experiences of the collaborative process of Wikipedia, how likely is it that we would've removed the offending material if Nielsen had asked politely before resorting to legal threats?
I'm being overly cynical, but someone has to. --Kizor 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to write a bot to undo that CydeBot damage and restore these articles, imo. Xizer (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/notes.html answers everyone's questions. Specifically Television Market Areas are based on material copyrighted by Arbitron, Areas of Dominant Influence (ADI), and Nielsen Media Research, Designated Market Areas (DMA). They are reevaluated every 3 years. By grouping the listing, even remotely, by DMA runs afoul of their copyrights. FCC rules do not specifically quote any ADI/DMI information, they simply refer to them. (which makes sense as they change far more often than the rules.) -- Ricky 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation[edit]

Office actions are based on policy set by, or consultations with, Wikimedia's legal staff. We here are not qualified to overrule them. It would help if those responsible for the policies or decisions would come here and post an explanation so we don't have to waste our time building templates that get taken down. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--and I'm speaking as both an admin and a WP:TVS member. If my hunch is right, the only plausible explanation for this is that Nielsen objected to the use of their market designations as the basis of the templates. It should be relatively simple to fix, but is there something at play here that we don't know about? We need some guidance here. Blueboy96 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something here? I thought there was an explanation? Guy (Help!) 13:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, no explanation as of yet. All we know is that Nielsen Media Research requested copyright takedown via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. We don't know why (although presumably copyright) and what was the problem with it I believe. D.M.N. (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • In particular, we need to know exactly what they have a problem with. How much can we refer to these designations? --NE2 13:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Er, right so the explanation that Nielsen issued a DMCA takedown notice, referenced in the OTRS ticket, is in some what not an explanation? Still not quite getting this one, mate. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
        • See Rootology's comment below, almost an hour before this non-answer. --NE2 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think everyone is looking for the specifics of what was asked to be taken down in the DMCA notice, which wouldn't be private, and without which there is no way to work around the problem so the replacement material doesn't just prompt another DMCA notice in a week. rootology (C)(T) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have OTRS access, to a fair number of queues. The ticket is said to be otrs:2008091610055854 so I figured I'd go read it and see if I could see what is being asked... either I'm not entering that right or I don't have permission to see it as I get a "No Permission!" warning. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    It got directed over to the legal queue. --CBD 18:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    It is in ::legal. The explanation of DMCA takedown and a ticket number is sufficient explanation. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    @NVS: I think you misunderstood why I was trying to read the ticket (and if it's in Legal now, I don't have access to that queue...) It's not because I have any issue with abiding with the notice, or because I'm questioning that it exists or anything like that... I just want to know what it says to tell what it is exactly that has to be removed. A large number of people are wondering the same thing. None of them are saying "who cares"... just "what is it we need to remove so we can do so"... ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    It is sufficient explanation for why this action was taken. It is NOT sufficient information to understand what to do going forward. For instance, are the 136 pages still using {{Nielsen}} ok? --CBD 18:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    (EC) It's not really a sufficient explanation, as I mentioned above. People need to know exactly what was infringing material so that the replacement edits don't just invoke a new DMCA next week or next month. It's "legal" isn't sufficient unless the OTRS legal admins want to recreate the new material to replace it themselves. rootology (C)(T) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The explanation is not sufficient because the content creators don't understand what they have done wrong. We need an explanation so that their time won't be wasted by further notices. It is not fair to ask people to throw darts in the dart until they hit the target. Tell us please, specifically, what was the copyright problem with the content, and how can we avoid that in the future. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 18:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    Does Mike work weekends (silly question, no lawyer works weekends)? Can someone email or call him and ask him to come over and explain this so we can know what the next step is? - NeutralHomerTalk 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I can gather across various discussions - the DMCA notice included at least the use of Nielsen's 'Designated Market Area' (DMA) classification system. As our Media market article says, Nielsen coined the term and holds a trademark on it. The takedown notice may have included more, but I think it is fairly clear that much at least was an issue. Hence the removal of the DMA classifiactions from List of television stations in North America by media market. --CBD 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So...could we say "Broadcast Television Stations in New York City" or "Digital Television Stations in Washington, DC" and then create the templates with the same general layout we had before (so they look the same) and just not use any Nielsen terminology? - NeutralHomerTalk 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. For now I'd say remove anything which is clearly derived from (or directly using) Nielsen's DMAs. Other than that we'll need to wait for more guidance from Mike or someone else in the know. --CBD 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading up on Nielsen a bit. They spend alot of money doing research and then sell that data to advertisers and others looking for information on television viewership. Ergo, they'd undoubtedly be concerned if Wikipedia were to make the results of their research available to everyone for free. One aspect of that research is the classification of their DMAs... these are defined based on the amount of viewership various stations get by people in various US counties. I would therefor not be at all surprised if they consider the list of stations they classify as 'within a given DMA' proprietary information. Advertisers looking to get more customers from people in Dubuque are going to want to know which TV stations to buy advertising from. Right now they pay Nielsen to get a list of the top stations. If we copy Nielsen's list or recreate it based on their individual station viewership data and make it available for free they are out of money. If we were to use a different criteria, such as 'stations which can be viewed in a given area' (regardless of how many people actually do so) then I'd think we would be ok... but I am not a lawyer. --CBD 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The templates I am familiar with are not based on viewing patterns at all; they are based on channel availability. Recognizing that Miami and Broward County tend to get the same channels is common knowledge...not something that requires research.--Jorfer (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rebuild templates[edit]

I think we should start rebuilding the templates now. Here's what i think the Phoenix tv template should look like

when it is remade Powergate92 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should wait, in case there's something going on that we don't know about. Like I said, the only plausible objections I can think of on Nielsen's part are the use of their designations as the basis for the lists. Alternatively, is there any way to cite Nielsen in the templates? Blueboy96 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I still think we should start rebuilding the templates now. Has long as we don't include a DMA number or a Neilsen link. Powergate92 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems a bad idea to me. Why not wait until it is clarified what is covered by the request? There is no rush ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we all want to get the templates (revised or completely changed) back on the pages as quickly as possible. - NeutralHomerTalk 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that RingtailedFox has started rebuilding the templates. he has rebuilt the following.