Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive96

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

Noticeboard archives


Please help

There is little objectivity coming from some who insist on revising articles on Islam although the information they are deleting has proper references. I have been threatened by Arrow740 with banning/blocking because s/he continues to replace a segment with a totally biased statment. Karl Meier also replaces blocks of cited text with biased text. I'm willing to be open minded about our differences, and have stated why I made my changes in the discussion pages (which was then removed by Sefringle‎, who accused me of grandstanding).

I'm no novice at being challenged, or at responding in a respectful debate style, but there is little objective discussion about making changes, or any real justification to do so except that it is personally offensive to someone's negative biases about Islam. If that is what we go by, I have a few negative biases of my own that I could entertain (but I doubt that is the correct goal). Thank you! Salaam FOA 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by FollowerofAllah (talkcontribs)

Can you provide edit diffs and links to the relevant pages where this dispute has occured? --Hemlock Martinis 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Try here, please. Arrow740 and I are in an editing war.

This is what I revised:

Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may only enter into marriage with Muslim men,[1] although some contemporary jurists question the basis of this restriction.[1][2][3] On the other hand, the Qur'an explicitly allows Muslim men to marry any woman of the People of the Book, a term which includes Jews, Sabians, and Christians.[4][1] However, fiqh law has held that it is mukrah (reprehensible) for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman in a non-Muslim country.[1]

This is what s/he replaces it with:

Muslims may not place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions.[50] Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men.[51]

We've been editing each other for a few days now.

Thanks FOA 10:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to continue to discuss things on the talk page of the article but you should make your comments more succinct. Your main post was/is very long and is unlikely to be read, or appreciated, as a result of that. Try to formulate concise arguments rather than a long essay. DrKiernan 10:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Christine Marais Is it standard Wiki practice for administrators to be dismissive of reasonable requests? Is it possible that sufficient barnstars lead to a divinity complex? Could someone rationally look at this issue? 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting copyright violations, or pasting them to userspace, is not a reasonable request. Garion96 has not been dismissive, rather he's been quite willing to explain what he did and why. Please do listen to what he's saying. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
What he seems to be saying is that even in development an article may not contain any text which could be construed as a copyright violation by overzealous administrators. The real question is why a final article, which shows no copyright violation, should be deleted because of its ancestry? All material used in Wikipedia was obtained from sites that were copyrighted - editors and contributors simply modify the wording, but the essential facts remain the same. For to ask that the text be pasted where the supposed copyright violation can be seen by editors who may be impartial, is certainly NOT an unreasonable request. When malicious deleting or editing is kept undercover, in a system that should be transparent, then it is time for policymakers to heed the warning signs. Roxithro 16:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Garion found that portions of the copyvio text remained. When I originally tagged it, I think I came to the same conclusion. This seems to be Paul Ventor complaining, who asserted his right to start with a copyvio and gradually reword it into "free" text. Even if every word is changed it's still probably a copyvio or plagiarism. In this case I don't think it was altered quite that much. --W.marsh 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Editors who specialise in copyright violations should be sure of Wiki policy - asserting that "if every word is changed it's still probably a copyvio or plagiarism" doesn't create a great deal of confidence that copyright issues are being handled competently. Roxithro 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if every word is changed, the resulting work is a derivative work and thus still violates the original author's copyrights. Don't copy and paste text into Wikipedia. Is that direct enough for you? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It's unfair to say all text on wikipedia is simply reworded from another site. I think generally what happens is someone writes about something they know and then find sources confirming what they wrote. Articles grow over time from contributions by a large number of people. It is false to think that someone just googles something and then rewords it. Jackaranga 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone has ever done a survey of Wikipedia articles to determine how they are constructed, so this is a realm of pure speculation. Roxithro 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
People do that sometimes, but it's inappropriate. Using a source as a reference is different than just rewording it enough that it's not a copy and paste. --W.marsh 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate is termed a weasel word - are there any Wikipedia directives covering this. Roxithro 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like the word "inappropriate", how about the words "copyright violation"? --Carnildo 08:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"Copyright violation" is about as vague as "inappropriate" - and this is the problem because it is left to the often faulty judgment of editors to decide. Are there any Wikipedia directives defining a copyright violation and detailing the procedure to be used when writing an article? Roxithro 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted" from Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --W.marsh 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I said "probably" because it's possible that a new article was written that bore no resemblance to what was there before. And thus, was not a derivative work. But this was not the case here. I did not mean that just changing a few words but leaving chunks of phrases intact is only "probably" a copyvio. If you want to be a language lawyer that was not the quote to do it over. --W.marsh 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Without pasting the alleged copyvio article here for all to see, we have to take your word for it. Roxithro 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning before block

I am seeing that users are being blocked without receiving a level 4 warning (final warning). It would be considered biting if a user gets blocked right after receiving a level 2 or 3 warning and without a final warning. I am concerned with this situation. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, really. Can you please provide specific examples where you believe someone was inappropriately blocked without getting a level 4 warning? --Deskana (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
On User_talk:, User:Kuru has left a level 2 warning at first, then a level 3 warning. Then, without a level 4 warning, User: have been blocked. This really is biting. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't concern me. Firstly, if you look at the diffs ([1] [2] [3]), you see that the user was blatantly vandalising. Secondly, the IP address does not seem to be dynamic, as the only edits that have ever come from that IP were in that particular vandalising spree. Thirdly, the block was only for 31 hours. I don't think it's actually policy (or even a guideline) that someone should only be blocked after a level four warning. --Deskana (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the situation. If someone has a repeated history of vandalism, and/or their vandalism is particularly disruptive, vicious, or abusive, I'll swat them after just one or two warnings, and on occasion--if they're obviously a returning and experienced troublemaker--I'll block them immediately. In my opinion, genuine newbies messing around deserve four warnings. Judgement of individual administrators may vary.
Regarding Kuru's block, I support it. That person clearly knew they were vandalising, and they had two warnings. You don't get a free pass to vandalise four times. Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If the user is very disruptive, then a more appropriate warning message would be {{subst:Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{bv}}. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think every admin is aware of the bv template. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. Is this a open complaint or a suggestion? --Deskana (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a suggestion that if the user is very disruptive, then the {{subst:Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{bv}} should be used, or start warning the user with a level 3 warning. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but I'm afraid your suggestion is already common practice. --Deskana (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's really not newbie biting to block someone who does this three times. An example of newbie biting is when someone makes a good-faith but clumsy edit, and receives an angry message, or vandalism-revert message. Differentiating between good-faith edits and vandalism is sometimes tricky, but it is not in this case, imo. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I say block 'em if they continue to vandalize after receiving any warning that tells them that they'll be blocked if they continue ({{uw-vandalism3}} satisfies this requirement). WODUP 02:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone just made a bad faith edit for the first time and I just left a level 3 warning at first. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone makes a bad faith edit, I'd leave a {{subst:Uw-vandalism4im}} (the one that looks like this: Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ) before reporting the user. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A final warning is not needed. If the user is obviously acting in bad faith, you can block before it, as it's obvious the user will not be contributing any useful material. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've revealed my plan. If a user puts a curse word in his/her edit(s), I'll post a {{subst:Uw-vandalism4im}} on his/her talk page. Otherwise, if the vandalism is in good faith, then I would start with a level 1 warning. NHRHS2010 Talk 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats basically how I do it. I also include things like if it's attacking something or someone and other things. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The 4im templates are overused, and saying it's the only warning limits further options (or makes the multiple warnings look silly). It's better to progress to a level 3 warning which mentions a block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I'll try to start out with v1 if the edit is fairly simple nonsense such as "bob was here". If there is profanity or a fairly obvious indication that the editor knew what s/he was doing, I'll start with v2. Once we get to v3 and a block has been specifically mentioned as a probable side effect, I'm more than happy to block at that point if the vandalism is repetitive and obvious, or if it is on a high traffic article. I rarely use the IM warning, unless it is racist/blatant/clearly disruptive (goatse across today's featured article, etc). Obviously, this is just a general thought process and it varies; especially if there is a host of dated warnings already on the page or if personal attacks are involved. If you're curious in the future as to a block I've performed, please feel free to inquire on my talk page - I'm more than delighted to discuss any action I take. Kuru talk 04:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that a block after a warning which says If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing (such as {{Uw-vandalism3}}) is enough to block a clearly bad-faith user. I don't think that a clearly bad-faith user needs a final warning or only warning. Od Mishehu 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I (like Kuru) regard the 3rd level warnings, which mention the probability of being blocked if they continue, to be final warnings. I am therefore happy to block after that. However I will not block, regardless of the warning (unless it is blatant vandalism and the user has an "only warning") if they have been slapped with a level 3 or4 warning straight off for their first incident of relatively minor vandalism. ViridaeTalk 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and it is therefore fallacious that a block would be invalid if the "proper warning process" has not been followed. >Radiant< 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I am concerned, my way of doing it is not process for process sake, but an effort to give the vandal every chance to smarten up before they are blocked. ViridaeTalk 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a good point. Yes, it is certainly good to give people the chance to smarten up, and we should indeed strive to educate such contributors rather than blocking them. >Radiant< 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR, if they are blatantly vandalizing, then block, no warning needed. Users here for disruption only, don't need a warning. Wearing ourselves out reverting and warning repeatedly doesn't help the users understand any better, it just makes us look like fools. — Moe ε 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also remember: you give (n = [2, 4]) warnings per user, not per account. If you see a vandal doing the exact same thing than the one you just blocked, feel free to block away as an evasive sock. Also, there's vandalism and then there's Vandalism; in some instances, you can skip levels, or use a {{bv}} as a final warning, if you so desire. That is what I usually do, in severe cases. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem with fast blocks, I use them as well, but one thing people need to remember (also when reporting to AIV) is that the vandal often only sees the message after he has made a new edit, so that "he has vandalized once more after the final warning" often means "he has in fact stopped after reading the last warning". Fram 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Delays on undelete

  • In my job as an admin, sometimes I have to do histmerges, which involves combinations of delete & move & undelete. During that, in undeleting, sometimes the edits being undeleted disappear from the deleted edits list at once, but do not appear in the non-deleted file's history until after a prolonged delay, sometimes over 20 minutes. Why is this? Is there a way that I can hurry the process? Please when will this bug be cured? Anthony Appleyard 09:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's indeed a well known server problem, I've regularly seen such delays too and I think it was mentioned here just one or two days ago in some thread. If you're in a hurry to see whether you got the correct result, it apparently helps to force a server purge by making a dummy edit after the undeleting. Fut.Perf. 09:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The display on the history page tends to be incorrect for a while after any deletion/undeletion (although the history itself is fine), except in the simplest cases. Any edit to the page sorts it out (when history-merging, I find rolling back the null edit saying 'moved page' tends to be the fastest way to sort it out). --ais523 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's the problem I'm thinking about, try to change the number of items displayed in the history, that often makes the missing edits appear. -- lucasbfr talk 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Anthony. What you are encountering is the lost history bug. It's easily handled by hard refreshing your browser. Refreshing will reload the page with the appropriate history summary. Otherwise, you're just waiting for your browser to do it on its own. Happy editing. Keegantalk 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User adding copyrighted images and claiming public domain license

I'm at work and don't have time right now to go through this editor's contribs, so could someone do so? He is uploading a number of magazine covers and claiming that they are in the public domain. Then he is putting them in the infoboxes for the people who are protrayed on the cover which is a violation of WP:FU. Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 07:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, those aren't public domain. For the time being, I've left the user a message requesting they resolve the apparent licensing problems with these images, and to provide fair use rationales, and let them know that the images will be deleted if they are unable or unwilling to do so -- if they're new, I'd rather be courteous than urgent, I guess. If anybody else wants to keep an eye on this or take further action, feel free (in fact, I recommend it). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows protection status

This thread has been moved to ANI --16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (add timestamp for archival bots)

MAC address

I asked this at AN/I but I think it got buried in the crush over there. Is there any way to get a MAC address on a disruptive IP? Chick Bowen 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think MAC addresses are really only used for local routing... kind of useless because I don't think we can block them or anything. Plus any body with half a brain can figure out how to download a spoofing program. Sasquatch t|c 15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I can change my MAC address for my network card easier than I can change my IP. --Deskana (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think we would block it--a university IT guy I talked to wanted it to track someone down. Chick Bowen 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The MAC address is carried in the IP packets but I'm not sure we keep a record of them at all... I'm pretty sure you're out of luck but you can check over at WP:VP if you want. Sasquatch t|c 18:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The MAC address isn't carried in IP packets, only in ethernet or whatever layer 2 protocol is being used. You would only get the MAC address of the last router before the Wikipedia servers, so it would be useless. I'm surprised the university IT guy didn't know this. 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

West Azarbaijan Province

In the West Azarbaijan Province article IP users, different IPs, often attempt to alter a table in the Demographics section that is (1) sourced or (2) based upon a consensus of registered users, albeit a tenuous consensus. No reliable sources have been found for the percentages of Kurds and Azeri in the various towns, although there are sources on the fact that some towns contain both Kurds and Azeri. Nonetheless, IP editors often change, without citation, the population figures from the agreed upon source, making it look as if the agreed upon source supports their changes. They also delete town names and insert other unsourced ones, and they change the ethnicities to favor Kurds or Azeris, or they provide spurious percentages. They do not respond to messages on their talk pages, nor do they participate on the discussion page. What is the appropriate remedy? Does the 3RR rule apply to removing unsourced edits in what is an oft challenged table? -–Bejnar 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a week. If someone is altering specifically sourced information without providing a competing citation you're in the clear. Otherwise it's murkier. Occasionally I've encountered problems from IP editors who appear to have minimal English language skills. Perhaps these people can't read your questions? A query for assistance from a bilingual editor might help if that's the case. Try an article content request for comment to establish consensus if these editors communicate. DurovaCharge! 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Four hours hither, Ryulong indefinitely blocked the account as vandalism-only; in the absence of an {{unblock}} request, there's no probably no need for further action from the community. Joe 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request that Radfax (talk · contribs) be indefinitely blocked; it is clearly an account registered expressly in order to advance Radfax's interests, and the contributor clearly has no understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies or WP:COI. Nor does he wish to; there have been problems since 2006. — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 02:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryulong. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Sorry, should have checked the block log first. Just dealt with today's copyright violation and thought to bring it up. — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha hahahahaha, "hither." Phew. Thanks, Joe. Keegantalk 04:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but what of the checkuser who went through and banned every single one of CW's IP addresses, including non Tor ones? ViridaeTalk 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The decision does not address that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, and this in my opinion is the second recent example of the arbs completely failing to address a major part of the case. ViridaeTalk 07:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, I guess we'd better close up shop and go home. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there no clarification on the open proxy policy? --Cyde Weys 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is unclear - one of the "Findings of Fact" was that open proxies are prohibited from editing and may be blocked at will, but that editors are not prohibited from using open proxies ... this is not, as far as I know, a clarification. WilyD 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
So essentially, CharlotteWebb wasn't doing anything wrong (if editing via open proxies was considered wrong)? —Kurykh 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to Cyde's assertion, the committee has clarified the open proxy policy, although in my view we've simply re-affirmed the existing situation. Open proxies may and should be blocked at any time. Users editing from those proxies do not face sanction. How individual users feel about someone editing from open proxies is an entirely different matter. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of time... -- Ned Scott 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole RfAr was a waste of time from the very beginning, since nobody did anything wrong. Corvus cornix 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I note that Jayjg got a reminder as to what proper behavior did. So your statement is factually incorrect; had he done nothing wrong, he wouldn't have gotten a reminder. GRBerry 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
He was reminded that one should perform a certain action, but he was not told that the action that he did perform was wrong. Corvus cornix 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Request rangeblock

Please rangeblock 86.112 range, has several IPsocks and says he'll make new account. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to elabourate a lot more before we block 65536 addresses. --Deskana (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ Cheers, JetLover (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The listed IP addresses there are all in the 86.112.192-86.192.255 range - reducing the number of IP addresses involved down to 16384. Od Mishehu 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

List of IT Service Management vendors

I was wondering if it would be possible to permanently semi-protect List of IT Service Management vendors? It's fairly stable, yet seems to be a magnet for non-notable companies to spam. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bombaplena requesting unblocking

Bombaplena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked following a checkuser request and allegations of abusive sockpuppetry; I suggested he or she wait a short while before requesting unblocking, and they have. Whole issue seems a bit more complex than I'm comfortable deciding unilaterally. Submitting this here for discussion; anybody have an opinion? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Advise requested on User:BetacommandBot

I would like to get some advise on what to do about User:BetacommandBot. He has been tagging logos for some time as a fair use image that has no rationale. However, logos are the only area where a rationale is not really required. I'm strongly considering blocking the bot for disruption, as I've seen far too many logos being tagged incorrectly. However, I am putting this forward to the noticeboard for comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My only opinion (as an uninvolved non-admin) is that part of what makes Betacommandbot disruptive is the sheer volume. Any bot that requires a human to clean up or deal with afterwards, and does over a certain number of these a day, should be autoblocked. Full stop. To provide an example: What if I were to run a bot that nominated 500 articles for AfD a day, based upon an otherwise valid criterion? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)/
I'd say be bold and go for it... until we can get this logo thing cleared up at least. Sasquatch t|c 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Betacommandbot is now blocked until this is sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry you disagree with policy but it states per WP:NFCC10(c) that all fair use images need rationales, Logos are not exempt. Betacommand 12:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just realised who said this: you signature is very confusing. I am blocking the bot. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
(Not Again!) This is why I have always been vocal about templated boilerplate rationales. Most of the times the reasons for usage is same and when an user feels the use matches the criteria covered by the template can use it. This does not mean I am proposing a template for blanket use of copyrighted logos. Anyway, I do not want to start WP:AN/FURG all over again.
I have another idea. Create a list of admins who want to help with wrong fair use images. Admins who wish to help should enlist themselves to the list. The bot, when tagging an image, should randomly pickup one admin and inform them that the image needs attention, taking care that no admin gets more than 20-25 images a day. That would help distribute the backlog, rather than creating a MASSIVE central pool, the appearance of which is more than enough to overwhelm anyone. --soum talk 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast on blocking this bot. Where does it state that logos are exempt from the policy requiring fair-use rationales or that the bot is not approved for performing this task. Here is the approved BRFA and no such qualification exists. If someone doesn't like what this bot is doing when it helps us enforce site policy, perhaps the issue is with the policy rather than with the bot. We can't keep blocking this bot for doing things for which it was approved just because we don't like the underlying policies. --After Midnight 0001 12:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single logo will get the same fair use rationale: they are there as the organisation's logo - which is a representative image of said organisation, they won't cause the company to lose money, they are there for education. There's not a single reason to tag a logo as needing a criteria. Can I also refer to you to Wikipedia:Logo, which explains this better? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not block the bot, it is generally helpful. The only problem is that I've seen it tag images as orphaned when they are used in article space. Logos are absolutely not exempt from rationales. GDonato (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Ta bu shi da yu. I went to look at Wikipedia:Logo, per your request. The first thing that I noticed was the image tag which states: "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." What part of this situation do you think I am not understanding? It clearly states that a FUR is required. By the was it is incredibly bad for of you to block the bot as you have done while this discussion is on-going. --After Midnight 0001 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with After Midnight. Clear objections against the block had been raised here even before Ta bu made it, so he should have known there was no consensus behind it. And the policy requirements have really been discussed ad nauseam. (Disclaimer: I'm personally no big friend of the rationale requirements for logos either, but then again, I'm also not a big friend of having non-free logos included routinely and indiscriminately as eye-candy and without further special reasons on all sorts of articles in the first place.) Fut.Perf. 13:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Instructions in templates do not create policy. It is clear from policy that every image needs sourcing information, and that every inclusion of a non-fair-use image in an article requires an accompanying FUR. That means that images with no FUR whatsoever are policy violations. However, nowhere does policy insist that the rationale cannot be templated or that the FUR is to be phrased differently in each case. That requirement would be absurd and of absolutely no help to creating a free information source, the reason behind the FUR requirement. Also, nowhere does it say that the only thing to do about it is to run a robot as part of an image deletion effort without any corresponding effort to create compliance. There are two paths to an otherwise legitimate image (as most are) without an FUR. One is to add the FUR, which is clearly preferable. The other is the speedy deletion process. This bot makes the decision to go in all cases, project wide, with less desirable solution. I don't believe there was any consensus at the outset for launching the bot; if after-the-fact consensus is needed this is the wrong place to look. Go out to the projects, where hundreds of users per project are watching their project's articles being modified and images deleted systematically yet unpredictably. Ask for their consensus, not a talk forum designed for administrators to deal with administrative issues. Wikidemo 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, are you asserting that the bot is malfunctioning or acting outside its approval? Or are you asserting that you don't agree with the policy from which the bot works? If it's the former, I suggest you make that clear and explain why you think so, or else I'm going to unblock the bot. (I'll post this to his talk page too.) --bainer (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Ta bu shi da yu is now done for the day, having not edited for over an hour. Can I simply unblock at this time without this being considered a wheel war? --After Midnight 0001 14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, do. Several admins here have objected to the block and discussion has been sought. Fut.Perf. 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no legitimate reason for this block. I do not see how the bot is doing anything but what it is supposed to do, and what it was approved to do. It should be unblocked to continue doing it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a bad block to me - we block Bots when they are malfunctioning not because we disagree with what they're doing. In my opion logos should have rationales to explain why their inclusion in an article sufficiently enhances the article that fair use is necessary. But that is beside the point present policy says that all fair use images needs rationales. If Ta bu shi da yu thinks that's wrong he should argue for a change in the policy. He could also I suppose approach WP:BAG for the Bot's approval to be withdrawn. But I see no basis in WP:BLOCK for this block and I strongly support unblocking the Bot so it can continue doing what is approved to do. WjBscribe 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The text from WP:LOGO above is pretty clear, and Ta bu shi da yii appears to be operating under a mistaken premise. An unblock is probably appropriate, but I'd strongly urge leaving a message on his talk page too. - CHAIRBOY () 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am now going to leave a message at Ta bu shi da yu's page and then I will unblock. --After Midnight 0001 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that nobody has answered my personal reason for believing the bot should be blocked: Sheer volume of edits requiring eventual human interference (either to decide to delete or to justify). Anybody care to attempt to disprove my rationale? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So because Wikipedia is a big mess nobody should fix it? (SEWilco 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
But is this helping or just creating a bigger mess? I don't think you can clearly say that tagging thousands of images a day and creating a huge list of image deletions that some deleting admin will probably not even look over is necessarily good... Sasquatch t|c 18:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There are admins that are deleting images in a pretty high pace, though off course there is a pretty high backlog at the moment, but it means mostly that "you" have more than a week to write a rationale. Most of the images is images from years back, when they are done, ther flood will stop. AzaToth 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
On most days the bot tags approximately 500 images a day, not thousands. Further, while asking for the bot's permitted task to be changed may be open to discussion, blocking the bot while is it performing an authorized task is not. --After Midnight 0001 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it 1,000 tags per day? bot policy is that "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly... I would argue this bot is operating outside the scope of its approval, was improperly approved without adequate disclosure, comment, or community consensus, is harmful, not useful, goes against guidelines and policies, messes up articles, runs too rapidly, and is disruptive. People are having significant problems with the bot, all across Wikipedia. It has been blocked seven times now in the last six weeks since this task was approved, many more times before, and it has persistent bugs in the way it gets applied. Maybe that is all some baby steps at the beginning. Clearly, some kind of bot is needed to help deal with images lacking FURs. If the bot owner addresses concerns responsibly and works with people who want to help fix rather than delete images, perhaps it can be as good as any bot at achieving the goal. Wikidemo 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but with a bot I would think the chances of committing an error increase with the edit count. I don't know how many edits this bot has, but it must be one of the accounts with the most on wikipedia. It is not surprising if it makes occasional mistakes. People should be told if they did something wrong, and there are so many images uploaded that humans can't be responsible for leaving messages to everyone who forgot or didn't know to put a rationale. In response to the person above me, you make many accusations without specific repeated examples. I find it can be considered to be working with people who want to fix the images. If an image is lacking a fair use rationale then it goes into a specific category, and anyone can look through and add one. If none is added then an admin, not the bot, may delete the image after 2 weeks. It is only fair if you are told about something bothersome and nobody acts within 2 weeks that it can be removed. I know the bot caused a huge backlog and people may not have time to look at all the images, but the administrators have had a huge deletion backlog as well, and as such users have had over a month in reality to look at the images. Jackaranga 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about fairness to the uploader; we're talking about management of the images on Wikipedia. The uploader is only one very small piece of that. The biggest constituents are the public who reads the articles, and the editors who contribute. The bot has been giving 2 and 7 day notices, not 14 day notices. There have been errors almost nightly running into the thousands since this bot task first started, including: (1) tagging a bunch of wikipedia screen captures;; (2) putting duplicate notices on images on different dates and with different expiration times; (3) tagging images that do have fair use rationales, only the rationales are deliberately ignored because they are in templates and/or the part ouside the template is shorter than 20 characters; (4) giving incorrect notices (notice on user pages gives deletion date different than on image itself); (5) hundreds of user page deletion notices for a public domain image that was used on a template; (6) administrators deleted thousands of images inappropropriately before notice date, refused to help restore. No doubt there are others. The reason I don't want to go into this in great detail is that I'm not advocating for blocking the bot right now, just saying that's not a position that comes from nowhere. I believe Betacommand is working with people. We'll see if it is enough. But applying a speedy deletion notice with a deletion date is not an example of working with people. It's simply following (sort of) the policy and guidelines. The category list helps some but it is not enough. It does not help me to see a list of 25,000 to 30,000 tagged images, sorted by date tagged. I may want to look through the images only for a given project, or a particular class of images. We need automated tools, logs, and templates so people like me and others who want to add rationales can do so quickly. We also need some kind of schedule and coordination between the image taggers / deleters and the rationale adders instead of the common "that's not my problem" attitude. If you told everyone in a given project that the images are all going to get tagged and removed unless they start adding rationales, they could get people started. As far as I can tell the tagging process is somewhere between alphabetical and random. There's no easy way to know in advance what's going to happen that night. I don't get the notices because in most cases I'm not the one who added the images without an FUR tag.
The one month backog is part of the problem, not a matter of fairness. It shows the task is big and even with lots of effort it's not happening timely. Just as an example of how things coudl be better, how about telling the people on say Project Film that you intend to tag all the images on their infobox within a month if they don't clean them up themselves beforehand. That's over 20,000 images, most of which are noncompliant. I'm sure they would be happy to do so. Say they fix the rationales on 15,000 of them, refer 3,000 for deletion themselves because they're clearly inappropriate images, and give up on the other 2,000 because they're too complicated for an easy rationale. Now Betacommand and the deletion crew have only 2,000 images to go through, not 20,000. Moreover, they can organize by type of image so anyone interested in a particular kind of image can get some knowledge about it instead of running into random images in chronological order. That's not meant as a concrete proposal, just an illustration of one way that people fixing images can work together with people deleting images, to a better and faster result. Wikidemo 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The object here is not just to delete the images, please keep that in mind. If admins are deleting these quickly without looking at each one, please drop those admins a note. As long as there is a backlog that means that the uploaders have a month to actually fix the images. This is turning out great for them. The bot already notifies the talk pages, as well as those who actually did the upload. If projects want to pop in and help out they are free to do so, I'm not really sure how many non-compliant images we have, but I'm pretty sure that the bot has tagged the vast majority of them by now. Perhaps someone can ask betacommand about it. Another note please remember that the bot, and deletions under the relevant polices was halted for 1 month (from some time ago I forgot (early June I think, to July 1) to allow people to fix the images. People did not fix them. I did not see any wikiprojects jump in and fix their images in the infoboxes. The only way to make the problem known is to tag them all, then the backlog can be worked down slowly. As long as the bot is only doing 500 to 1000 a day, the backlog won't grow at an alarming rate. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"Great for them" is not the issue. Again, the goal is a better Wikipedia for all and processes to get us there, not extra time due to slow enforcement for someone who uploaded a bad image two years ago and and may or may not still be here. If the object is truly to fix rather than delete, the methods and the outcome don't match the ojbect. That nobody has fixed images to date and the deleters can't keep up with the bot are arguemnts against the current approach, not for it. Some of the wikiproject participans are upset and beginning to take action, but the word isn't out and they don't know what to do. I'm working with one of them so far, and likely more, on rationales they can add. Who is there to drop a note to? I have to look over every administrator's shoulder and tell them when they're being too hasty? Second-guessing each deletion would take twice as long as the deletions themselves. I'm speaking from a policy persepctive, not as someone who thinks his particular image got deleted inappropriately. Most of the time they are deleting rather than fixing images, nobody disputes that. And there are robots and software tools to help the deletion, but none to help add rationales. Nobody disputes that either. If you read up on it, the bot tagged 25,000 images in the first go-around, and the current one is slated for another 5,000. There is another phase of 140,000 about to start. But that's a policy concern, and policy concerns like that are probably better discussed somewhere other than this notice board, no? Wikidemo 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The problem was that there was no easy breakdown of images by type; and no agreed model rationales for typical uses (in fact there was heavy disagreement on a number of policy talk pages about what was appropriate, and what was best practice). Some of that has changed. :Template:album cover fur now generates a variety of standard texts for standard album cover usages, in particular for album (or single) cover usage in the main infobox of an album page -- see eg Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg for an example of it in full use. Wikiproject albums has a list of tagged album images which need rationales. At least one user from Wikiproject novels is systematically going through book covers needing rationales - but so far has only done about one third. I went through all the at-risk album cover images starting with 'J' yesterday. But this takes time. It's hard to properly review and add rationales for more than 20-30 images an hour. And nobody is yet doing logos, film posters, DVD covers, comic book art, video screengrabs etc -- partly because there's not a similar agreed reviewed high quality rationale available to cover the most standard use-cases yet.
We've already lost everything BCbot tagged up to 20 June. Much of that will be readily replaceable. But some simply isn't - for instance scans of old, specially selected hard-to-find material. This mass tagging may be legal; but I don't believe it's the best way to get to compliance with minimal angst and minimal collateral damage. Jheald 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Jheald, nothing has been lost. we do have Special:Undelete that admins can use to restore images. Also Ive generated image/template list that you asked for. We have given users years now to fix these problems, we now have 260 days to fix ~155,000 images, if we want to be compliant with the board resolution. I have do what I can to help. If there are better ways of fixing the image problem (that actually work) I have no clue what that is, and no-one as ever said it to me. 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
BC, I'm glad to hear nothing has been lost. Okay, so can you produce a list of the images tagged "no fair use rationale" between 1 June and 20 June, broken down by template type, and indicating the page that they were used on? Then we can see what should be put back. Jheald 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot do that. I am not an administrator and do not have access to the deleted revisions of the images that are needed for doing that. If I had the ability to do it I would. 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't do it, I can't do it; and I'm not sure an admin could do it either. This is what is being lost - the necessary information to know what has been lost, and where it has been lost from. But without knowing what's lost, you can't know what to ask to be restored - so in effect, yes it is all lost. Jheald 19:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If I was an admin I could get the information that you request. The only reason that I cannot is that I personally dont have access to deleted revisions. If I had that access I could create a bot to check the deleted content and provide the needed data. I might be able to create a bot that could do this. (I do have a private local copy of MediaWiki) I would just need an admin who is willing to run it under their account. If all you want is a list of images that would be even easier, but accessing the contents of DelRev's is restricted to admins only or I would have already done this for you. 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"… with a bot I would think the chances of committing an error increase with the edit count." Not if the bot's programming is defined well enough. The chances of errors increase with increased human typing. The chances of errors by a bot only increase with the number of unexpected situations which affect the bot's behavior. A bot which has a simple task (such as deleting a category from all cat'ed articles) might make no damaging mistakes. (SEWilco 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break BetaCB1

Section nine of the Non-free content criteria specifies:

It says "The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.", and for me it means that the rationale must be in plain text, not a linked template. AzaToth 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how one reads "plain text" out of "relevant," but that would serve no purpose. The best explanation is that the policy means exactly what it says it means, that there is one rationale per use, and the rationale must be relevant to that use. No reason a template cannot be relevant, and if it happens not to be, typing out, cutting and pasting, or subst-ing the template doesn't make it any more so. Templates are already approved for rationales under the WP:FURG guidelines. But that's a different question that has nothing to do with the bot. The bot is approved to tag missing rationales, not to make judgment calls in about which rationales are compliant. Wikidemo 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
See eg Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg. You will indeed find a rationale that is presented in clear, plain language; and is relevant to the specific page using the image. Jheald 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The Jeff Beck rationale is indeed well done. However, that has nothing to do with the way in which the rationale is presented. It is long enough to show thought, consideration, and how the image is actually acceptable according to US law and site policy. Unfortunately, some template rationales are not this way, and tend to be one or two word answers. (Of course, this can also be true of plaintext rationales, I've seen stuff to the effect of "Album cover so it's fair use"). The template, however, seems to encourage such short rationales, or at least in my experience most template rationales say very little and are unacceptable, whereas most handwritten rationales are detailed and make a good case. (It would, however, never be appropriate to have a templated rationale which required no intervention from the person placing it at all, since the uploader must specify why this image is acceptable in that article, not just "It's a (logo/album cover/what have you), and those are generally allowed, so I need say no more". That's why the boilerplates aren't and can't be usable as fair use rationales, and replacing that with a different boilerplate wouldn't be acceptable either.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely true; too many FURs tend to be "This is a logo, its from the company, it's used by them so it's here". This is inappropriate, since it's too general -- it should explain which page it's being used on, why the use on that page is necessary, why there is no free version fo the logo, who holds the copyright, where you GOT this version of the logo from, what changes (f any) you made to it to make it appropriate (reduced size, etc etc); and this is just for starters. Too many people treat fair use rationales too lightly; they need to be as complete as a regular person would go ahead and file as if they were going to civil court over this. --Haemo 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not true. People are making up policy here. One need not explain why a logo, or an album cover, are necessary on a page beyond that they are used to identify the subject of the article, an identical statement in each case. That is a complete and sufficient justification, and making people undertake extra busy-work helps nothing. It actually makes it a lot harder for downstream users to make sense of the images, and harder for us to track them internally, if you have a lot of free-form text where it is not needed. The reason there is no free version of a logo or record album is identical in each case. The sourcing and resizing information is once per image, not once per rationale. Those are standard as well. If a person were going to civil court to defend a claim of copyright infringement they would need a 20-30 page brief written by a copyright lawyer, plus 100-200 hours of legal advice at $300-500 per hour. Should we provide those too? When people try to play lawyer with fair use rationales they either cut and paste stuff, or say things that don't make a whole lot of sense, or both. Lawyers all use boilerplate as well, you know. They don't just sit in front of computers and impose arbitrary rules on each other that they can't cut and paste legal arguments. Wikidemo 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The idea for a Fair Use rationale should be to provide enough information that a lawyer could craft a proper document if the Foundation's use was challenged. You cannot simply slap a template on an article, and think that's enough; you need to include a number of contextual details; where you got the image, how the image is used, who holds the copyright to the image, what you did to make the image acceptable for use, etc. These are critical, and apply uniquely to each particular instance. You could make a template, but the number of string parameters it would require would make it no more useful that the standard "info-box" style templates we already use for rationales. You can't simply slap a "Fair use rationale for Logos" template on every image and call it a day; it would make the image nearly impossible to defend if challenged. --Haemo 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it this way. I am a lawyer, I have made a template that is useful in dealing with the rationale requirements, and broad classes of instances are not unique. The rationales that come from the template are more cogent than most handwritten rationales but none I have seen, handwritten or not, are of any help in dealing with a copyright claim. The rationales do not make these images harder or easier to defend if challenged. Wikidemo 03:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo, satisfying the law is only one part of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. You being a lawyer does not make you an expert on the things Wikipedia requires that is in addition to fair use law. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you read this thread, I am responding here only to the claim that the purpose of rationales is to give lawyers a complete fair use case in the event an image is challenged, that is all. I am well aware of Wikipedia's other objectives and argue that a new requirement that all rationales be hand-typed is neither part of policy nor does it serve the policy goals. Wikidemo 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it this way; I am not averse to templates which state a lot of the standard boilerplate. However, material such as I've listed above must be included by our own WP:NFCC guidelines - I hope this template, which I haven't seen, takes this into account. --Haemo 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
But now, Seraphimblade, look at the source for that page. (Use the button at the top of the screen, not the template source at the side). Apart from the name of the artist, the name of the album, and the name of the record company, the only other handwritten thing on that page is the single word "Infobox". Just as it is for all but a handful of the 400 other album pages that template has been applied to - all equally IMO "indeed well done". (Kudos to the template writer). That's the point of appropriate boilerplate text. Jheald 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The key thing here is that a good template allows people to override or update the information if necessary, but facilitates them in producing the parts that are routine. The existing template encourages people to merely type "yes" in the low resolution field if the image is below .1 megapixel. Even I think that's too simplistic, but it's an easy matter with a logo to ask whether it is full size or not, and ask the user to verify the size is reasonable. It still requires human review to make sure they are using the right argument for the right image in the right article. Wikidemo 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As long as they produce proper rationals. No rational is not an excuse. The rational needs to be more then just "Its fair use because it is". Heck I've seen some rationals that were just "its the cd cover". Right, I can see that... but why must we use it? Does it identify the cover? (please think twice before you say that all covers identify the album, they don't, some albums have multiple covers, and even if all albums had one distinct cover, I challenge anyone to recognize a random album from the cover based on just the image (text removed). I doubt anyone can do that consistently.) Please see articles such as Microsoft where the logo actually has text written about it. As much as I hate the company, that logo is justified fair use. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Generic templates already being used

Template:Album cover fur and Template:Logo fur, incase anyone didn't pick this up from the above discussion (took me a while to notice that Jheald's example was using a generic FUR template). -- Ned Scott 03:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it is not a generic template. It has all of the parameters in the existing, endorsed template and more. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding. Are the rationales it generates compliant with policy? If yes, that ends the discussion. If no, clarify the policy, modify the template, or, if you are an editor, you are always free to type in whatever you want in the template parameters or else not use the template in situations where it does not apply. Wikidemo 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
These are pretty good, in my opinion. Just some notes:
  • The source for the image should be where the user obtained, not a vague statement like "It may be obtained from {{{Article}}}" (what?) or "The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label." You can fix this by adding a string parameter where someone can write a URL, or a short statement.
  • The copyright needs to be more precise. Again, vague general statements are not appropriate; like "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the record label or the graphic artist." Which record label? Which graphic artist? The logo template doesn't even tell you who holds the copyright, something which is required.
  • On both, I would require a short "significance" string, to explain the use in the context of the particular article; this would prevent people using these images in stuff like main artist "slideshow" discographies.
Other than this, I think we can probably make this work out. --Haemo 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I've got you covered on the source. You can type "Website=xxxxx" and it will say that the source is that website. You can also type "Source=yyyyy" where yyyyy is freeform text. You can write whatever you want in there. One thing we need to think about is what to do in cases where someone else is adding the rationale and we have no idea where the uploader got the image but we know who owns it and where it can be found. In the case of a corporate logo or album cover that ought to be enough. There is a field for Label= and another for Graphic Artist=. If you include these fields, the resulting rationale will specify it; if not it will simply use the term "the label" or "the graphic artist." In an ideal world we have that information, and we usually do. The music wikiproject people have been diligent about putting that in the infobox. However, in cases where we don't know the label and someone has to run out to amazon or somewhere to find it, we have to decide what to do. We don't scrutinize handwritten rationales to that degree, and most of them don't have the label information, but it's a valid question. The field "Owner=" specifies who owns the copyright. If you specify it, it will say so. If not, it will say that it probably belongs to the graphic artist or label. For significance, I don't agree that you need to add more but if you do, you can simply add it in the "Purpose of use=" field. If you type something in there it will appear in that box. Also, at Betacommand's request I added a field "Commentary=" where you can describe what if any critical commentary is made in the article about the artwork itself (as opposed to the album). If you go to the template, all of these fields are described on the template page. I do plan to write an updated and better organized version of this template soon, as soon as I can make a first pass of book covers, movie posters, and perhaps a couple other fairly easy cases. Things like historical photographs are going to be hard to template and the templates will only add a little bit of help if any. Wikidemo 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Good work! Getting good, solid, and flexible boilerplate templates will not only help cut down on a lot of work, but also help people properly adding rationales to future images, since a well-written template will guide them into getting, and adding, the right information. Don't forget to write good docs, once you're all done! --Haemo 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
These things need to be required fields. The template allows a misleading incomplete FUR, giving the impression that it is acceptable to not use any additional information. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
95% of the cases where this template has been used are for main album articles, with album infoboxes. Putting the "use=Infobox" in the template generates the extended rationale cited above for e.g. Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg. Can I put to you that the rationale on that image page is entirely adequate for such an instance, and in fact better than most other rationales out there used in similar circumstances? Per what Wikidemo writes above, can I put to you that the FUR in this case is satisfactory? Jheald 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • People are conducting a great deal of hand wringing over whether XYZ usage is legal under U.S. fair use law. People are missing the point; Wikipedia's core philosophies are a superset of fair use law in so far as usage of copyrighted materials is concerned. Stop worrying about whether something is legal. Learn, understand, and adhere to our core principles instead. If you do that, the law becomes irrelevant. --Durin 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that, Durin, left to you, you'd prefer to get rid of all fair use images - you've made that clear more than once. But I've never really understood why. It seems to me that, once one has excluded the specific case of replaceable images, the inclusion of appropriate fair-use images is complimentary to the provision of good free content, not rivalrous of it. Wouldn't you agree? Jheald 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've never said I'd prefer to get rid of all fair use images. In fact, my stance is distinctly NOT in line with that idea. Please do not characterize me as maintaining such a position as you suggest above. And no, I don't agree. Non-free content is rivalrous of free content. My stance is considerably more in line with Jimbo's stance on the matter. --Durin 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well this is what I've never understood. Why do you think fair-use content is rivalrous of free content? Jheald 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That should be blatantly obvious. --Durin 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't. To make an analogy, you can be a feminist without being a feminist separatist. Similiarly, you can believe in free content without free content separatism. Again: why do you think fair-use content is rivalrous of free content? Jheald 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I still don't see why a company logo cannot be used in an article about that company without an additional rationale? I don't understand album covers, but the company I work for specifically says that an article about the company should contain the logo (if it's in the correct color). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's tease out a few issues. First, an article about a company may use the company logo and usually does as per our conventions. Same with album covers in articles about albums. The rationale is a piece of information required when using any non-free (copyrighted) image. Requiring the rationale is not an additional restriction on which images may be used, it is merely a data requirement. Your company's policies are not binding on Wikipedia of course. We owe them nothing (though check your employment and computer use agreements - you may). It does point out something interesting, that most companies want their logo to be used far and wide to stand for the company, and do not object. However, some companies think they can attach strings, and prohibit uses of the logo that are not favorable to the company and it's intended message. That is why any use of a logo has to be from fair use via Wikipedia's non-free content policies, not on permission from the company. Wikidemo 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No the company simply did not release the image under a free license, its simply not ours to use unless we claim fair use. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what I'm saying, that use of logos comes from fair use, not license by the company. So whether a company insists its logo should not be used, or insists it should be used, does not bear on our decision to use it. I did caution User:Arthur Rubin that as an employee he may be under some contract duties we are not under when commenting about his own company...yet another reason people should not edit their own Wiki articles. Wikidemo 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, {{album cover fur}} states that As musical cover art, the image is not replaceable by free content; As far as I know, there is at least one free cover album (Image:PostalService color300dpi by Brian Tamborello.jpg), making this point motto (because it generalizes something that, as demonstrated by that cover, is not true). I would suggest rewriting it, or sending it to TFD. -- ReyBrujo 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The template isn't used on that image, and it would not be, for a couple reasons. First, the image is a promo shot of the artists, not an album cover. The template is only for album covers. Second, if someone actually did use an album cover in an artist infobox to illustrate what the artist looks like, that would be an improper use of the template. That is, in nearly all cases, an improper use of an image in the first place, so no rationale can save it. As it stands, that is not a use the template was designed to handle and it's not among the options on the "use" parameter. Expanding the template to accommodate exceptional and borderline cases is problematic because it might encourage people to use improper images instead of thinking things through. Better to warn them, if it's not clear enough already, that they should only use the template within a certain set of common applications. It's always up to the uploader and editor to make sure they're using the right tags, rationales, and templates. Maybe you can discuss that on the template page, or simply add a warning directly. I've stopped editing this one personally to let other people improve it as they see fit. Wikidemo 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
commons:Image:PostalService cover300dpi.jpg. -- Ned Scott 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I would be careful that it's really a free image because there are two copyrights involved, the photograph and the band logo (see the discussion. But permission apparently comes from the record label so it's possible. Of course that image on Give_up is a situation where the image is free so no fair use rationale is required at all and there's no question of replacing with a free alternative. Wikidemo 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block of this bot. It is extremely disruptive, and it is impossible for users to write hundreds of FURs as quick as they are nominated for deletion. In addition, this bot has mistakenly nominated hundreds, if not thousands of images for deletion, claiming them to be "orpahned images", even though they are being used on articles. Betacommand should have instead invested his time in creating a bot that adds simple FURs to image types that all use the same type of rationale, such as album/single covers, which could all use an FUR like this:

  1. This image illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes the album or single in question.
  2. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the album or single in any way.
  3. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
  4. The image is being used in an informative way and does not detract from the album or single.
  5. No free or public domain images have been located for this album or single.

There is no policy that states every FUR must be custom-written. The above rationale applies to any album or single cover, provided it's being used in the proper way. Rhythmnation2004 22:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard move war

Few weeks ago a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has been created, it was intended to be used (and is) to discuss whether a given source is reliable or not; since then it has been used by dozens of users. Some time ago User:SlimVirgin moved it to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard, explaining in her edit summary that this should be attached to the sourcing policy, not to a discredited guideline. She has not linked the page, however, from WP:V, nor fixed any redirects. I asked on the noticeboard talk page why was it moved (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Noticeboard), no answer. I asked her on her talk page; after a few days my question was archived without any answer. I asked at WP:V talk page, where she didn't answer (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard). I thus moved the page back some time ago. Today, my move was reverted by SlimVirgin, without any edit summary. I reverted her and asked to state her reasons, I got the edit summary of This is the policy. Don't keep attaching it to a widely ignored, contentless guideline when she reverted. Since I don't want to start a move war, particularly silly between admins, I'd appreciate if other voices could comment on this. I believe that a board designed for discussion of reliability should not be attached to any related policy (it could have as well been moved to WP:OR or WP:CITE), as it can only confuse editors - particularly as content editors want to discuss reliability of sources, not their verifiability (which is never challenged). PS. As long as I am posting here, I'd also like to advertise a need for comments at a related WP:RS discusson.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm one question, where has WP:RS been discredited? If there are problems with the guideline lets start a RFC. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss in RS or V talk pages. There is no admin action required. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Jossi I respectfully disagree. Slimvirgin has made no effort at all to gain consensus for this move. And now, as you can see she is reverting, against consensus with no discussion. Wjhonson 07:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say any time that two Admins disagree this much (especially two Admins who have been part of Wikipedia for as long as Piotrus & Slim Virgin), it is on-topic for WP:AN. In any case, I believe it is better to have several thousand words on a rambling off-topic thread on WP:AN than one wheel war. -- llywrch 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The assertion that WP:RS is flawed was, iirc, part of the reasoning that led to the formation of WP:ATT as a replacement policy, which took the better part of a year but unfortunately didn't really get anywhere. >Radiant< 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that it's better to discuss this at AN than to have a wheel war. The specific reasoning that WP:RS is a discredited guideline is mistaken; it remains in force. So I consider it inappropriate to redirect the board without discussion on what looks like an argument that one sysop thinks WP:ATT ought to have become policy but isn't. DurovaCharge! 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I believe SlimVirgin meant to use the word "deprecated", not "discredited". This is important for context. - CHAIRBOY () 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about admin behaviour

Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked me for 3 hours yesterday. This was as part of a dispute in which another user, Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), was repeatedly deleting a request at WP:ANI with edit summaries such as "rv kuntan". I asked what in heaven's name he was on about (after reverting) and he said that the Tor IP who posted was a sock of a banned user. I said that I'd have to continue reverting until he outlined his evidence. He continued reverting back without outlining his evidence. Ryulong then blocked me for 3 hours (evidence was posted on my talkpage by another user earlier, after which I stopped reverting, but this didn't put Ryulong off).

I complained personally to him on his talkpage and got nowhere. So what's to do now?--Rambutan (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator can identify a banned user, then those edits should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. This entails removing the edits by the banned user, or deleting what pages they created. Blnguyen was doing this. You were edit warring with him. I blocked you for 3 hours for the edit warring. I blocked you much shorter than for any normal 3RR block (that I've ever seen). You discuss before you resort to reverting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed, and was not presented with evidence. It is simply courteous to provide evidence, even if you personally think you don't need any.--Rambutan (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been editwarring, period. If you didn't know, you should have waited.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, if I asked for evidence, and it wasn't given but the askee continued edit-warring, then it indicates poor faith. He ignored my request for evidence, and there are a number of reasons why he would do that. Anyway, I'm not discussing this issue with you, I'm discussing it with the rest of the admins.--Rambutan (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I'm discussed, I can discuss my own actions. You shouldn't have edit warred. I've mentioned this on your talk page around 24 hours ago when I blocked you. I mention it on my talk page in the discussion you started tonight. And I've mentioned it here. You were editwarring. I blocked you for 3 hours for edit warring. You should know better than that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If I might venture an opinion, it seems to me that this affair might be less dramatic if either of you would be slightly more cooperative. When explanations are requested and fairly easy to provide, why not provide them? When a number of longtime users are doing something they clearly believe is both urgent and necessary, why not seek understanding of the issue before leaping into the fray? It's a collaborative project, we can afford to try and work together, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, quite. I wasn't being unco-operative, I said that evidence is required in order to revert edits like that. I asked for it, and my request was ignored. That's highly discourteous.--Rambutan (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The word "cooperative" was not the most important part of my message. Please refer to the more important clauses for discussion. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I watched this play out yesterday. So what's to do now? I suggest you learn not to take such an aggressive stance in matters of which you know nothing. By all means ask for Blng's evidence. But to demand the immediate presentation of that evidence, and to threaten to revert until it is provided, is not acceptable behaviour. Hesperian 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it was discourteous of Bl not to provide the evidence. How did I know he was acting in OK-ish-but-slightly-iffy-faith?--Rambutan (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you know? You don't, you assume good faith. Particularly when the options you're considering are to assume bad faith and to edit war with an arbitrator and checkuser on a page that is watched by dozens of administrators. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There we go again, "with an arbitrator and checkuser". Apparently, some people have an extraordinary status here, and their edits are superior. They should not be reverted, because they are an arbitrator and checkuser, after all. [/sarcasm] SalaSkan 11:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with SalaSkan here - these days, everything seems to be about status and hierarchy. Regardless of who's in the wrong here - I haven't been involved with this case, so I don't know - I dislike this prevailing attitude of "he's an arbitrator and checkuser, so what he says goes". I'm not going to comment further on this, since like I said, I'm not 100% aware of the situation. WaltonOne 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Wake up, both of you! Rambutan asked how he would know the other editor was acting in good faith. I told him he should assume good faith. Especially, I remarked, if the alternative was to edit war with one of the most trusted members of the community. Doesn't anybody read any more? Assuming that you both can, but cannot be bothered to read what I say, at least both read up on one of Wikipedia's most basic policies! --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important to note, there are many socks and banned users that have a particular MO. Administrators orignially/or other wise closeley involved in the orignial case often can recognize this. I have been involved with many socks, and have been accused of some pretty crazy things because of my blocking. It was not that i was doing something wrong, it just had to another editor, unfamiliar with the sock/abuse at hand, it would appear strange. Just be careful when throwing accusations of admin abuse in cases you do not completley understand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I do have difficulty seeing where the explanation that he was reverting a banned user isn't sufficient basis for an assumption of good faith on Blnguyen's part. Particularly given that he provided the name of the user (it's in the edit summaries, and you can verify at User:Kuntan that he's banned) and that the edits were from an open proxy (blocked as soon as we find them, and favourite toys for spammers and vandals).
What was so urgent about the matter that you needed to edit war with Blnguyen instead of granting him a minimum assumption of good faith and seeking clarification of the points that you didn't understand? If you thought he was making an error, why didn't you come to WP:AN/I to seek review? When is edit warring ever a good solution to a problem? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with TenOfAllTrades. Assume good faith, eschew edit warring. However, I think Tony's comment about "edit warring with one of the most trusted members of the community" is off-base. One can't always know if one is edit warring with a new user, an established user, an admin or a "got just about all the special bits that there are to get" user. It shouldn't matter. No matter who the other person was, the solution was not a series of edit-warring reversions. The block was justified. It's over now, right? So, get over it and sin no more.
--Richard 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize to Rambutan for having once reverted his post here. User:Zscout370 had just done so, I'd seen that Rambutan had been reverting for a banned user, and the use of vandal templates for Blnguyen and Ryulong didn't look promising. However, I should not have been so quick to draw the conclusion that I drew from this confluence of observations.Proabivouac 01:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia is gaining some clout

Now that Wikipedia is gaining some clout, it appears some photo archives have started bending over backwards to provide us free photos. (I refer to the two cases of PersonalityPhotos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Photoculture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)). Both of these users are struggling with our image tagging system. Personalityphotos has promised us hundreds of free photos, photoculture thousands. Surely we should put in some kind of streamlined process (maybe a direct contact to the Foundation) for photo archives willing to open their doors to us? -N 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. Have them email the address at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright, tell us what license they want to choose and WP:OTRS will help them not only choose the license but also tag the images appropriately. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just explain to them how to do it. (how to release things to the public domain here or whatever). We also need to make sure those users are acting with the photo archive's permission. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit skeptical of their claim to hold copyright on the images they're putting at Marilyn Monroe. Who took that nice 1953 promotional picture of the actress? How did the copyright pass to the Howard Frank Archives? There's no explanation. Haukur 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The user's explanation at WP:PUI was that studios routinely threw away photos once they were done with them, negatives and all. Apparently the throwaways eventually came into his possession. The editors at WP:PUI accepted his explanation. -N 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Who owns the rights does need to be confirmed. I suppose run this one through OTRS, and let them figure if these users own the copyrights. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not a copyright expert, but it's not because you throw something away that you release the copyright on it. It probably just means that you don't want it published at all (anymore). If I find sketches in the bin of David Hockney, or negatives in the trash can of Carl De Keyser, it doesn't mean that I suddenly have the copyright to them. Perhaps I misunderstood what user N meant, but this looks very dubious... Fram 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Let me quote the original statement, and you can be the judge: "Our images come in several categories. We have the negatives to most of the images in our inventory. In other cases we have the "Master Negatives" or in the case of other images the in-camera chromes from which they are printed. In some cases we have the only known original prints of the images. Until 1990 most studios discarded rather than archived massive amounts of imgaes literaly in the garbage. Thus most images taken during that period are lost to history except in cases where collectors like howard Frank through family contacts and friends acquired many of them. Being that we have the onl;y images in many of these cases we do claim copyright ownership of them. We have selectively uploaded imgaes of which we are sure of the provenance." The studios threw the material out, but not into the trash. Apparently they gave it away to archives. Asking for the specifics of the legal agreements is stretching the point. If someone gives you a photoshoot, film roll and all, and tells you it is yours, how is that not a transfer of ownership? -N 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
          • It is not. Copyright transfer requires a written statement. Also, ownership of physical copies has nothing to do with ownership of the copyright. In this case, copyright for images that were published in the 50ies and 60ies and had not had their copyright renewed should have expired. Images that were not published would still have copyright (and for quite a while - yes, this is weird, but so is copyright law). --Stephan Schulz 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with Fram that possession of the sole hard copy of an item looks like a dubious claim to copyright ownership. If The New York Times offices burned down, all their computer files were destroyed, and their printing press went up in smoke, destroying every copy of today's newspaper except one that miraculously came into my possession would I own the copyright? I really doubt that. Copyright is intellectual property, not tangible property. Run this by the Foundation counsel (it's qualified legal opinion that counts, not my hunches), but I don't think it'll pass the sniff test. DurovaCharge! 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Well somebody better point that WP:PUI discussion out to the right people then, because as it stands nobody is opposing it. -N 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't believe that's correct in regard to expiration. No images published after 1950 could have expired unless they slipped into the public domain by some other defect, like omitting copyright notice. Renewal was not required before 28 years, and the 1976 statute became effective in 1978. You are right about transfer though, 17 USC section 202 says: "Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object". Cool Hand Luke 08:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Media law was a required course in my graduate school program. I wouldn't presume to advise anyone other than myself based upon that, but it gives me a reasonably good sense for spotting situations that really deserve the input of an attorney. There are multiple issues here, not the least of which would be what level of risk the Foundation prefers to assume. DurovaCharge! 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We need to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. If you read the rest of Personalityphotos statements, you'll find that they routinely provide these images to news, literary, and broadcast sources and have never had any copyright troubles leveled at them. They were careful to mention that there are issues of trademark involved with downstream use of the images. To me Personalityphotos sounds like a person very well educated in copyright and trademark law. It wouldn't be a bad idea at all to run this past an expert counsel, but please lets be careful not to antagonize these kind people who are trying very hard to make a valuable gift to us. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Apologies if my post appeared overly strong. You're quite right; the generous impulse deserves our gratitude. Let's pass the question to the Foundation and be gracious. DurovaCharge! 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Hee hee, I wouldn't be surprised if the original studios didn't buy back photos from him. Also, maybe someone should email User:Mikegodwin. -N 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        • ....and here comes the lawyer (above).
        • I mentioned this discussion on personality photo's user page and at WP:PUI. If anyone wants to go and heap praise and encouragement after my notice please do so. I agree that the copyright status of the images is problematic and should be reviewed by counsel. The image bank appears to be for real, well-intentioned, and on the level. Their assurances are good enough for major media outlets. Essentially they are a mini-Corbus and it's great that they want to help us. However, that doesn't mean the photos automatically satisfy Wikipedia's concerns. The archive collects images from a lot of sources, often without clear chain of copyright ownership. There is no way to perfect a copyright you don't have. What they do instead is to set up a notice-and-takedown procedure comparable to the one Wikipedia uses under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I'm not sure of Wikimedia Foundation's legal status but it's hard to imagine a photo archive falls under the DMCA safe harbors. So it's really just a liability avoidance and legal defense strategy. They make it hard for people to claim they own the copyright, and flatly claim that the image use is okay and that there is no liability. It could well be a case that the images are infringing, but the only person who has standing to complain is dead and forgotten. I can imagine this system working, and being very profitable for a private photo archive, and a calculated risk for publishers, without any litigation ever happening. It's clearly good enough for others. But is it good enough for us? Given the legal complexities it might help to get an opinion, or at least guidance, from a lawyer who can take the time to look into the specifics. Wikidemo 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Tell them to contact us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. -- ReyBrujo 03:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It would truly be wonderful to acquire rights to these images, but I think the copyright status is far from clear, despite the donor's best intentions. I'm not comforted by the fact that they have set up a strict process for infringement claims, placing the burden on the challenger rather than allowing for the fact that their ownership of negatives does not equal ownership of underlying copyrights. I think we should tread carefully here, preferably with an opinion letter written by an attorney who has thoroughly investigated the donor's copyright assertions. -- But|seriously|folks  08:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Huge backlog of non-free images needs clearing

We have a raging huge backlog of non-free images that need to be deleted. See Category:Images with no fair use rationale. All of the per-day categories in there that are older than a week, of which there are many, should have their images examined and deleted if no valid fair use rationale is present (or if you're feeling generous and the image is vitally important, write up a fair use rationale yourself and remove the template). This is an important backlog that needs taking care of because it strikes at the very core of what makes Wikipedia so special: that it is a freely redistributable free content encyclopedia, and all of these unnecessary non-free images are hindering that. --Cyde Weys 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll clear July 3. Remember, folks, it is up to you to remove the image redlink. Keegantalk 04:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. --Cyde Weys 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, there is a list here specifically of album images that need rationales, that Wikiproject albums are trying to add rationales for before they get deleted.
Every redlink on that page is an image they wanted to add a rationale to, but that some admin has deleted in the last 24 hours instead. They're also working on this list of albums at Cat:disputed fair use with no rationales. As you can see from the history of that second list, they're making heroic progress but there's still a way to go.
Similar efforts have been made for book covers, and could easily be made for logos, film covers, and other standard uses - most of the images in those classes (and several others) do have a legitimate use. For example, see this breakdown of dfu by image type from a few days ago (warning, large). I don't have a similar breakdown for the daily no fair use rationale category; but lists of particular types of images , similar to the albums lists, could be created with a little patience, using the "list join" and "list intersection" operators of AWB.
The aim here should be compliance, not deletion for its own sake. So please, consider helping these efforts to clear this backlog constructively, for appropriate sorts of images, by adding rationales. Just deleting willy-nilly is to stab heartlessly at what these efforts are trying to do. Jheald 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding fair use rationales when appropriate would be much more constructive than simply deleting vital images. Unfortunately, there seems to be much more people more interested in the latter. Jogers (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If the uploader didn't care to write a fair use rational, why should we care? We can't think for the uploader and we gave them ample chances to do something. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Try thinking about the larger picture: if keeping the images benefits (the users of) Wikipedia, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot by deleting them. We should really only be deleting the images that are unnecessary, and spending some time on the rest to make sure that they're compliant with the law. Mike Peel 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of the images that are going to be deleted were uploaded a long time ago. Even if the fair use rationale was already required it was quite uncommon for images like album covers until recently. I'm not sure what you mean by "ample chances". You mean the single message from BetacommandBot after it tagged hundreds of thousands images without fair use rationale? Many of the notified uploaders weren't active anymore when they received it. Some were too confused to do anything. There are few editors who do care. Jogers (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has access to the categories of images with no rationale, or with disputed rationales (which usually also means no rationale). There was a one-month delay in June during which time a dedicated group could go through and fix these images. This group does seem to (finally) be working on it, but as Betacommand keeps pointing out there is a hard deadline next year; we can't delay indefinitely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a hard deadline next year, and where did it come from? I haven't heard of that before (I'm new to this page, and this issue). Mike Peel 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's from the Foundation's Licensing Policy Resolution. Take a look at the last bullet point under item 6. If you could go through the images subject by subject and let the wikiprojects do a sweep first, the whole thing could move faster. Tell the novel people for example that you'll be hitting all their templated images between August 1 and September 1 and they have until then, or the movie posters between September 1 and October 1. If they do their job, you'll have a lot fewer images to process because they'll sort through the good ones and add rationales. They might even do you the favor of flagging images they consider improper or impossible to add a rationale. In that case you can truly say that someone has tried, and then the decision to delete can be a lot faster. Wikidemo 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't the novels people (for example) go through right now? It's not like the nonfree image issue is a tightly-guarded secret. Everyone who has images should already be going through and fixing them. I personally would not oppose another, short, moratorium on deletion (perhaps until August 1). But like I said, we can't put if off forever, and I think Betacommand's statistics about the number of images are compelling that we can't delay much longer if we hope to meet the deadline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a few but I'm not comfortable deleting album images while serious efforts are underway to clarify their fair use. Haukur 10:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately many album articles are created just to eliminate red links and both the editor and the uploader of the cover walk away from the article after completing the stub. I do try to place a fair use instead of deleting album covers, but it gets very tedious after a while. When you walk in on 20 album covers for some obscure artist uploaded two years ago and never touched again, it's hard to rationalize the time necessary to put rationales on all of them. --Spike Wilbury talk 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What would be an example of a good fair-use rationale for an album cover? "Necessary to support critical commentary on the imagery used", for example? If this has already been done to death elsewhere, maybe someone could give me a link to the examples/discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, there is no valid fair use rationale for Image:SgtPeppersLonelyHeartsClubBandAlbumCover.PNG, even though there's a good discussion of the album cover at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and there's even a List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, but the latter uses Image:Pepper's.jpg, which has an extensive fair use rationale. I'd suggest deleting the first image and using the second one everywhere. There's also a decent fair use rationale for Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg, which could also be used in Paul is dead since there is a discussion of the album cover there, but it isn't used. But a FUR would have to be added to the image page to be used there. Corvus cornix 18:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The album cover Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg has been held out as having an adequate rationale. Interesting....the uploader attempted to add a fair use rationale to the Sgt. Pepper album but they did it in the edit summary and the image summary, a typical case of someone trying but not quite succeeding. These are duplicate images so of course one should be deleted, but which one? The one without the rationale is far better scan quality than the one with rationale. Wikidemo 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Use the lower quality image. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Is there a preference for bad images? Wikidemo 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Not bad quality (Eagle 101 misspoke), but lower resolution. --Cyde Weys 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And a very bad example it is, too. It refers to critical commentary on the album, but not the cover, which in the case of this cover is actually perfectly possible, since the cover itself has been discussed in various contexts. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely incorrect. It is acceptable on Wikipedia to use album covers to identify albums, in the context of critical commentary about the album. There need not be critical commentary about the album cover itself. Also, there is not an automatic preference for the lower quality or resolution image. Images must be of no greater resolution than necessary, but once they are reasonable this is not a contest to see who can use the smallest picture. The better of the two pictures is slightly larger, but also much better for sharpness and contrast. One of the articles contains a discussion of famous people pictured on the album, for which a slightly larger or more clear image than usual is called for. Wikidemo 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo you can't use an album cover to identify an album for reasons given at WT:FAIR. I'd rather this particular conversation take place there. (its in the section about the suggestions), but it boils down to the fact that not all album covers are unique. Some albums have more then one, therefore one picture does not identify the album. Also I challenge anyone to identify 3 random albums out of 10 random albums based on its cover if the text were removed from the album cover. It can't be done. I'm not saying delete all albums, but there must be more justification then identification. Though I guess you can justify identification on a popular album. Something like the beetles or the like. (please reply at WT:FAIR if you wish to reply thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We can discuss the matter there, but what you are arguing is a position that's generally not accepted and goes against the way images are currently used across Wikipedia. If you're going to announce an opinion as policy in a forum like this, it will confuse people. Hence, a statement like that should not stand unchallenged. Wikidemo 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, whenever you care to reply there. :) Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 04:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What? We're deleting album covers now? I knew it was gonna happen one day but what bullshit. The fair-use rationale for one album cover is the same as for another. Why can't we just boilerplate it? Have you seen any encyclopedia of music or any Sunday paper with album reviews which doesn't use album covers?! Doubtful. Do they have to prepare a wordy rationale for each cover they use? No. Before anybody starts quoting Foundation policy at me, is the Foundation mandating or doing the deletion or is it more fun for some folks to delete stuff than create? --kingboyk 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The components of a rationale that are the same from one to the next can and should be standardized. I agree that it would be a mistake and not serve policy to require spare verbiage in cases that are not unique. Speaking of spare verbiage, though, you might want to take a deep breath....the conversation gets hot enough as it is, so calm language is usually best. Wikidemo 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Penguin Guide to Jazz, Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Trouser Press Record Guide, Grove Dictionary of Jazz (as I recall), and Music Hound Guide to R & B do not use album cover images (I think there are exceptions in the Rolling Stone book, for instance using a Ray Charles album cover in place of a photograph of Ray). I have a country music encyclopedia (can't remember the title) which generally does not use album cover images. Having said all that, I personally think it's OK to add an album cover image to an article about that album. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we're not. Album covers can (typically) be used in articles about the album. But they need a fair use rationle for administrative purposes WilyD 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope that people are ignoring this appeal to "clear" images and are adding fair use rationales to them instead. Deleting huge numbers of images without looking at whether they actually belong here is not helpful to the project. A large number of these are valid, including most of the album covers. — Omegatron 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearing a backlog doesn't automaticaly mean deleting everyting in it. Anyway a huge number of the tagged images (including a fair number of album covers) are not used in a way even remotely complying with our policy and there is nothing for that except deletion. I just spent most of my Wikipedia "workday" deleting tonnes of "promotional" photos of still living people, bands and even the ocational building that had no rationale or even source info. Even if we leave all the albumcovers and logos alone there are still tonnes of images in those categories that need deletion, and a fair number of albumcovers need to be deleted too because they are simply not used to illustrate the album in it's article, but rater to decorate discography lists or serve as portrait images for the artist and so on... --Sherool (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Political Donations

I've started to see a lot of the bio pages I monitor have political donations added to them, and then removed as 'not relevant, they're just an actor' and such. Now, I was of the opinion that if they *do* something (ie, if an actor appears in a tv spot, on the road, a singer does a jingle, etc, then that becomes relevant, but when it's just 'Adam Sandler gave money to Giuliani.' it's not. This is of course only my instincts on this. Do we have a guideline that outlines when political donations are and or not relevant to articles? I know this is a long shot, but it's probably going to come up a bit in the next year and a half. --Thespian 09:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember that we are an encyclopedia. When a celeb (of any sort) starts also becoming a political activist or politician (e.g. Jane Fonda, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger), then in may be worth having a general mention like "had generally contributed to Party XXX and its candidates before becoming an activist/politican" - but only if that can be sourced to a reliable source, preferrably a biographic source, rather than to a Wikipedian's original research of their contribution history.
For current contributions, sourcing is mostly going to be either 1) the primary source of required disclosure of contributions, or 2) press releases by those with a partisan political interest. Neither type of source is evidence of encyclopedic notability. Remembering that we are an encyclopedia, I'd say that absent some solid reason in a particular case to consider the contribution of enduring encyclopedic value, we shouldn't be mentioning it. GRBerry 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The information is verifiable through reliable sources, is it not? It isn't in violation of WP:BLP? I'd say that presumptively that makes it fair game, although it could be an excellent area for general discussion about how the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV should apply. To offer a purely hypothetical example, suppose Adam Sandler donated a six figure sum to the Republican party. That seems a lot more noteworthy to me than a $100 donation or any Republican "get out the vote" calls he might have made when he was eighteen. I don't know where the threshold for notability should apply, though, which makes me wonder what consensus would develop. DurovaCharge! 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the New York Times is running an online feature on campaign contributions (here), and because of the nature of the disclosure currently required, seems to be within about a couple weeks accuracy. So the sourcing isn't a problem. People are using that, and NewsMeat's Celebrity Endorsements (here, which has always lined up with the NYT for current, and has them going back to 1990 or so that can be corroborated in other places, so it's an accurate db for this) to back it up. I'm not actually concerned about the sourcing at all. But if you look at Adam Sandler and Barry Manilow, there's *nothing* to say about this except 'They gave the maximum amount allowed by law for personal donations to the candidate.'. Which is a little over $2k, and isn't really of any note, aside from maybe that Manilow gave it to 5 candidates (all dems but for Ron Paul). But we're not talking about anything significant. --Thespian 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested

I've just blocked User:Ramzk001 who is almost certainly User:albertbrown80 and user:funnypop12 (for his/her usual blanking spree sans dialogue). I also indef blocked AlbertBrown and FunnyPop - they aren't really socks, but more like "abandoned accounts" - from all evidence, FunnyPop just moved on to new accounts, and didn't use them as disruptive socks or such. Although these seems like common sense to me, I just wanted to run it by some eyes to make sure I didn't overlook anything. Cheers, WilyD 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Their apparent refusal to engage in any substantial discussion, along with the use of at least three accounts, doesn't look so good. I think I tried to point this person in the right direction, at some point, but they did a stellar job of ignoring my pleas -- not sure what we should do about that, though. We need to try and get them to understand consensus as an operational concept, if we can. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
After all the hard work hammering out consensus on Muhammad images, this? Recommend checkuser and user conduct WP:RFC. A lot of editors who had deep and reasonable differences of opinion have done great work as Wikipedians to come together at this topic. The site doesn't need someone running roughshod over WP:OWN, WP:VANDAL and WP:NPOV. Although I respect what I gather to be this editor's perspective and motivation, that doesn't set this person above policy. DurovaCharge! 19:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you WilyD.
Though Albertbrown80's first edit was indeed evasion of Funnypop12's last block, it is possible that he didn't notice this. This individual does not hot edit-war or double-sock, but pops back in to repeat the same edit ad infinitum, which is not only removal of the images, but also the section Muhammad#Christian and Western views of Muhammad (though I would agree that it could use some trimming.) There have been a number of disruptive anti-depiction SPAs, but no one else does this particular combination. If someone wants to checkuser, be my guest (though I suspect it may be declined as an obvious disruptive sock) but it's not really necessary, because the user identifies himself unambiguously when he repeats his edit. The only thing I'd really be curious to see is what other usernames he might have - I have my suspicions, but without a substantial corpus of text to work with, it's hard to verify (worse, his language usage appears to be inauthentic/may be deliberately mangled to thwart identification.) It's very difficult to believe that anyone would remain attached to Wikipedia for so long if he weren't also involved in something besides this one edit. On User:Funnypop12, he wrote, "I am Basit. My field is Engineering, Science and techonology, history, archeology and religion," which is quite a tall claim for anyone, and even more so relative to his contributions. There is a person Basit who uses the handle Funnypop12, and I'm pretty certain this isn't him, anymore than his real name is "Albert Brown."Proabivouac 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bother with a checkuser because the connection is so obvious. I agree that the motive for constantly changing accounts isn't obvious - it may be to hide the block log, or try to start with a fresh reputation, but it may be just that he constantly forgets his password, and needs to sign up again. I'm content to assume it's the later, since the multiple accounts doesn't give him any editing advantage - but just to be safe, I indef blocked the old accounts. The Basit line might just mean "field of interest", not "field of study" - I'd says I'm interested in geography and astronomy as an editor, but also some historical biographies, sport, politics and physics to a lesser extent, although I've only received formal training in a few. In any event, if FunnyPop eventually decides to participate in dialogue - great. If not ... it'll be unfortunate, but sometimes these things happen. WilyD 02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Move edit history


Please, move the edit history of [4] to Waziristan War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, delete the copy/paste move, and then move the article properly. MSJapan 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The copy and paste violations were deleted, I left the article at the original name. I suggest getting consensus on the talk page before renaming the article. Keegantalk 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notice getting removed without explanation

I have nominated the article La Toya Jackson - Life at Balleys for deletion twice now. Both times, an IP address has removed it without providing any explanation. See [5]. Rhythmnation2004 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can remove a prod. Take it to AFD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The template reads You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. The IP can object if they like, and you can take it to AfD if you like. WODUP 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User and talk pages on C:CSD

Resolved: Or seems to be, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some user and talk pages on C:CSD that shouldn't be in the category. Bug? — Malcolm (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcluded {{db}} tags from White/Cool/whatever Cat's userboxes. Those were deleted, I don't know why some userpages are still showing up - probably just lag. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I juist removed User:NymphadoraTonks from the category by doing a null edit. Od Mishehu 04:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Can some admin please request the user who placed the tag on User:Cool Cat/CVU2-1 that such tags be placed in <noinclude> tags if the page is transcluded on non-speedy pages? I would if not for the fact that I don't have access to the history of the page. Od Mishehu 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat's various dramas, CVU creation, massive signature re-edit, etc have generated quite a bit of 'churn' and made extra work for others. Most unfortunate. - CHAIRBOY () 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be over, but I still think a message should be left for the user who tagged the page for deletion, as I mentioned above. Od Mishehu 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That user was made aware. This is a fairly common oversight, unfortunately, and it is bound to happen again. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested history merge to WP:AFD

This was requested on Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but I'm not sure if it is worth the effort:

Note: Talk page histories predating 00:03, 21 September 2004 seem to be missing? 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this really worth it? Doing this would require temporary deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, a very high-visibility page with thousands of edits to it. Many people may wonder what happpened to it and (while we normally should not worry about performance) I seem to remember an incident a while back when a page with tons of edits was deleted and crashed the server. I will cross-post this to WP:AN for more opinions. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, nobody do this. You are quite right, Z-man: while deleting a high-edit page is no big deal, undeleting it puts enormous strain on the servers. I see no reason to do this. Chick Bowen 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that anyone who cares enough to look at VfDs from 2004 will be able to look at those archives. --bainer (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest enlisting the services of Ed Poor to undertake this task. hbdragon88 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move that lost history

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Civic Opera House was moved to Civic Opera House (Chicago) in a way that lost the page history. The page should actually be at Civic Opera House, which formerly redirected to CCOH, unless there is a dab page to indicate ambiguity. Please move the article and history to Civic Opera House. Otherwise, please move the proper history to COH(C).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Note that since Civic Opera House (Chicago) had only three revisions, you could have redirected it to Chicago Civic Opera House directly. In any case, I have moved the history to Civic Opera House (Chicago), now feel free to move it to the correct place (I noticed there were some other history revisions in other redirects, so you may need to make a requested move in order to have the article moved to an old redirect. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Article history now lost


The situation with the article was: Waziristan War was redirecting to Waziristan conflict (2004-2006) as it does now. From the redirect I created a totally new article, and the Waziristan conflict (2004-2006) remained as it was (with it's user history). A user sent me:

Can you go to WP:AN and request that an admin merge the edit histories of Waziristan War and Waziristan conflict (2004–2006)? GFDL requires traceability for edits and your copy/paste move from conflict to war breaks that traceability. In the future, if you wish to move an article, please follow the instructions at WP:MOVE or post a request at WP:RM.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Without fully understanding the situation, I asked on WP:AN to merge the histories, but now I realize that it was not needed as the edit history remains on Waziristan conflict (2004-2006) and some sections of that article I only copied to Wazristan War, making the illusion of a move.

So, now the edit history of my edits on Waziristan War are lost, can you make me have it? Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should try going to WP:SPLICE. Will (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Limited unblock of thekohser, better known as MyWikiBiz

I've unblocked one of Gregory Kohs's accounts for the limited purpose of requesting arbitration. He believes that I made improper statements at a community unban discussion last February Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive3#Unblock_of_Thekohser.3F. He's welcome to make a case against me if the Committee will hear it. DurovaCharge! 07:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg Kohs has taken no steps toward starting arbitration so I've reinstated his ban. Although his talk page claims he was too busy to pursue it, he had made no expression to that effect before I unblocked him and he found plenty of time to pursue his complaints at an offsite forum. So I've concluded he doesn't actually want to arbitrate. I've informed him that if he ever changes his mind he can contact an arbitration clerk by e-mail. DurovaCharge! 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentle Reminder

Category:Disputed non-free images has a very long backlog (over a month). Any and all help in reducing this would be greatly appreciated I am sure :) GDonato (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but maybe you could ask User:Misza13 as she has an authorised bot on her main account I think which makes thousands of deletions everyday, its working right now, see here. Rlest 13:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please take your time clearing the backlog and doing it right please. —— Eagle101Need help? 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
See lengthy discussion above, at #Huge backlog of non-free images needs clearing. Please think very carefully before deleting types of images that people are making active efforts to rescue. Jheald 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Like album covers used in articles about albums they illustrate. See the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim and the list of album covers without fair use rationale. Jogers (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well all I'm saying here is be careful with the scripts, don't go too crazy with WP:TWINKLE and whatnot. ;) Just make sure that you are deleting appropriate images. As far as the album covers, if someone wants another fair use image, all they need do is go to some music website and pick it up, or just ask the deleting admin to undelete so they may provide a rational. There has been over a month to justify these. I am open to the idea of delaying the deletion of some of the categories. Perhaps from one week to a 3 week wait, that gives anyone thats interested more then enough time. A small group of people thats organized should be able to keep up with the bot (which is doing 500-1000 images a day, no more like it was doing before. Perhaps a per-wikiproject effort can be made. we have had a month to figure this out so if any organization is to take place, lets get the ball rolling now. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a bot with an admin bit? I thought those were not allowed. Corvus cornix 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in helping work with some of these image backlogs, but doesn't really know the ins and outs, drop me a note on my Talk or find me on IRC (same username) - I'd be more than happy to help more admins learn how to work in this endlessly understaffed area. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IP editor removing short-cut for Wikipedia:Userboxes

I've just registered an account and I was trying to find the page for userboxes, but searching for it redirects to Userbar. I thought it used to have a disambiguation link to Wikipedia:Userboxes, but an IP editor keeps removing it from that page. Does this need to be protected? I think it's a popular page for people to search for, and if this IP keeps removing the link people won't be able to find it. Loopgains 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused what redirect page you are talking about. Both userbox and userboxes have been protected redirects to userbar since Dec 2006. What is this "short-cut" to which you are referring?-Andrew c [talk] 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a page only gets protected if too many people are vandalising it, or repeatedly editing conflicting views. If it is only one editor he just gets blocked, in the worst cases, if he won't stop. That's not the case here though, it's just someone who misunderstood the policy page, maybe he only read the "in a nutshell" box. When you read the whole page Wikipedia:Avoid self-references does not state that all self-references should be deleted. Username has a disambiguation link to Wikipedia:Username for example. And there is even a self reference on Wikipedia:Avoid self-references itself.
Andrew he is talking about the redirect disambiguation link sorry, which is at the top of Userbar. Jackaranga 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. I guess that's what "disambiguation link" means ;)-Andrew c [talk] 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my neologism, on a side note I just found out that the page Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms actually exists too :p Jackaranga 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A Thought For Harry Potter Material

I suggest that an admin at least semi-protect Harry Potter material through the weekend to prevent vanalism. While just glancing at recent changes with users hidden I noticed a couple of quickly reverted, but still ip vanalisms. Just a thought. have a great weekend. --Rocksanddirt 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Could I put in a plea for any admin with the interest and time to spare to consider stopping by WP:SSP from time to time? It tends to backlog pretty quickly, and many of the cases are somewhat time-consuming. It gets a little lonely there, and those of us who frequent it could use the company. :) MastCell Talk 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dormant August 2005 ED trolls

Please block Girlvinyl (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Encydra (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Encydra2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), users whose edits consisted only of trolling and legal warring on the now-deleted Encyclopædia Dramatica article. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are they still editing? Being disruptive? Why block? If they were SPA's of the ED issue and now it's over, who cares? --Rocksanddirt 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
MONGO cares. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the matter when it was presented at WP:AIV last night. All three accounts seemed dormant/never used since 2005. I suggested the request be bought here for admin review.
If MONGO would provide a reasonable criteria for blocking then it could be further considered, although I am now of the opinion it would have been less energy to have blocked them in the first case. However, I wouldn't want to start a precedent of blocking dormant accounts simply on request. LessHeard vanU 13:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator restoring trolling

Please continue discussing at the relevant thread at WP:ANI. This is a needless duplicate. —Kurykh 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

—Kurykh, (and Chaser) thank you for your defense of "a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message" as being approriate for Wikipedia. I would think after the 'Ryan Essjay' catastrophe and all the other problems like the dead wrestler that Wikipedia would be more interested in restoring it's severly damaged reputation than in hijinks, but jokes and stunts and defense of such actions are apparently more important! Wise choice sir! I'm logging off for the night. Bmedley Sutler 05:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wtf!?! I changed the look of my new message box in my monobook.css to avoid being tricked by these fake message boxes, and this one looks just like my custom one. This is basically hacking the interface to trick people into clicking a link, I cannot think of a single website that would allow it. How it mimicked my custom new message box I am not sure. Until(1 == 2) 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear users, the use of the prank newmessage box is not new, and is still unresolved. Do I think that the two of you are wrong? No, I agree with you. The ultimate point is that this situation arose from another dispute which was crossposted here. The use of the message bar is separate from the dispute between users. In other words, this is not the place for this debate. Requests for comment is much more appropriate for resolving a particular situation once the twine has been untangled. There is no need for administrator intervention in regards to that particular topic as there is nothing that an administrator alone can do. The thread was closed as no discussion of policy merit can come about in this forum. Keegantalk 06:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That box simply uses the ".usermessage" class, as does the real new-message box. There's no "hacking" involved. Just look at the source. --Edokter (Talk) 11:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no general consensus on fake new message boxes, but there is consensus that personal attacks are not allowed, and if someone called me a sucker I would think it was intended as a personal attack. Usually the new message boxes point to something neutraql like Practical joke. If they point to obscene, offensive, of otherwise inappropriate content they certainly can and should be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NN character articles

Could someone have a look at this page and the whole slew of character stubs that User:Badgirlsfan is creating? S/he has already been informed on their talk page that they would be better off creating a list of characters page, but is still creating identical stubs at a rapid rate. Might be worth a bigger nudge before s/he wastes any more of their time. ELIMINATORJR TALK 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am redirecting to the tv show main page, I have started with the most recent ones in his history, if someone can start by the other end, we can meet in the middle. Jackaranga 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it, though you're well ahead of me. ELIMINATORJR TALK 16:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Think that was all of them. Jackaranga 16:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Matildaluvr15. I've given a Uw-create3, and all their articles are being tagged for speedy, though there's a big backlog at CAT:CSD and I doubt they'll take muh notice until their articles are actually whacked. ELIMINATORJR TALK 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied all the articles as A1 (no context). Now to see whether he heeds your warning. Will (aka Wimt) 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly readding nonfree images to Infoboxes

I hope someone here can help explain the policy on non-free images to someone else. (talk · contribs) has been reverting a free image in the infobox at Siouxsie Sioux and replacing it with a non-free album cover. This editor is also placing a non-free album cover in the infobox at Siouxsie & the Banshees. Their rationale is: "every artist page on wikipedia has got discography with pictures sleeves. if you start this policy here, I'm afraid you'd have to erase all the discography pictures pages on the site." This rationale for using non-free album art to depict what an artist looks like sounds incorrect to me.