Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive244

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

Noticeboard archives


Sources for Mona Lisa?[edit]

User:Madmedea tags reproductions of Renaissance paintings as "unsourced", floods the uploaders' talk pages with loud threats to delete them, etc. Here's an example. Does he/she really think that the heirs of Andrei Rublev or Leonardo da Vinci will launch a suit against Wikipedia? Please investigate what's going on. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright has expired on the originals, and the photograph is ineligible for copyright, is that not so?Ploutarchos 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
"Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." --Ghirla-трёп- 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then just revert Madmedea or ask him to revert himself. Has he seen this dicussion? I doubt he'll object. Do you want me to do it?Ploutarchos 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It so happens that he/she reverted me and restored her threat to delete the reproduction within two days. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It is necessary to provide source URLs, Madmedea's edits are not inappropriate. For more information, please see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. --Iamunknown 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible to remember "source URLs" for images uploaded in 2004 (see the diff above). Even if I provide URL, what's the use of it? How does the presence of a source URL effect the copyright status of a Mona Lisa reproduction? The commons essay you refer to was started less than two weeks ago and cannot be the basis for deleting images uploaded three years earlier. Furthermore, it does not mention the word "source" or otherwise sanction Madmedea's activities. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec w/Nick) The Commons "essay" points out something that we have long neglected and need to now realize: that we cannot simply upload digital reproductions of two-dimensional works without attribution. If that means that it cannot be the basis for deleting images, then what can?
The copyright status of any work depends upon the country in which the work was produced; if the photograph were taken in the United Kingdom, for example, where the threshold of originality required for a copyright is much lower and is, in fact, based upon the "sweat of brow" doctrine, a slavish photograph of a painting would be copyrighted; in the United States it would not, as established by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. By knowing the source we can beging to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under. I personally do not generally tag PD-old or PD-art images with no source when they were created in 2004, but that does not preclude others from doing so. --Iamunknown 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that images should include a source, but for images that are clearly public domain such as these, a source isn't necessary and we're just being subjected to needless process wonkery. It's at this point we invoke WP:IAR, ignoring the blurb about needing to find a source for images uploaded 4 years ago - this nonsense will disrupt or prevent our ability to create and distribute our little encyclopedia, so we just ignore it. -- Nick t 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
These images are not clearly public domain. --Iamunknown 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What's not public domain about [1] ? -- Nick t 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Where was the photograph taken? --Iamunknown 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Under US law if the image is proved to be a slavish copy of a PD work it is itself PD, no mattter where it was taken or who took it. it might possibly not be PD in the UK, but wikipedia follows US law on copyright. DES (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Can copyrights in the United States expire (or, in this case, not exist) when they are still active in other countries? I was under the impression that they could not. I, however, am not a laywer. --Iamunknown 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DES, AFAIK Wikimedia operates servers in .us, .nl and .kr , and therefore probably needs to follow international law. Even if that wasn't the case, documents might still be protected under the berne convention. --Kim Bruning 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) IANAL, hence the caveats.
Maybe we can solve this by adjusting the server software so that images with this specific problem are hosted and served only from the US server. 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
US law is fairly clear on these points, and i can find sources for you if you like, IANAL either, but I have had a good deal to do with copyright for some years, including over on Distributed Proofreaders, where I am a content provider and project manager, tasks for which some copyright knowledge is required. The Berne convention requires that works of nationals of foreign counteries (that are members, but that is prectically everwhere these days) get the same protection in the US as do the works of US nationals. It also sets some minimum standards (Life plus 30 is the absolute floor for new copyrights, IIRC) and forbids requiring "formalities" of foreign copyright holders -- this was largely aimed at the former US rule that without a copyright notice, all rights were lost, and at former US registration requirements. But Berne does not in any way expand US copyright law, and there have indeed been cases where US courts have held works PD in the US that are in copyright elsewhere. And there have been cases of foreign works that are now PD in their countries of origin (including th UK) but are still in copyright here. As to the foreign serves, i can'r aay, but it was my strong impression that the Foundation considered that for legal purposes wikipedia was located in the US state of Florida, and must obey Florida and US federal law, and that particualrly on copyright it need not conform to the laws of other jurisdictions. DES (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Finding URLs for images uploaded years ago is impracticable, as URLs don't normally live that long. Would you delete a Titian reproduction just because you can't find an URL featuring a reproduction that matches it to a T? I don't see how an URL may give one food "to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under". If an URL points to a French website, it does not mean that the reproduction was created in France and should fall within the scope of French laws. Basically, this road leads us nowhere. So far there have been no legal threats involving PD-art images. Of course we can try to be holier than Christ, but then it's more reasonable to delete all "unsourced" PD-art images en masse, than to bother all the hard-working editors who may have uploaded thousands of PD-art images, especially ro Commons. It seems that now, when fair-use problems are more or less resolved, our copyright defenders are in search of a new field of boundless activity, which may keep them busy for months if not years, at the expense of time and energy of those wikipedians who prefer to contribute new articles, rather than browse for the so-called "source URLs". --Ghirla-трёп- 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a source affects the copyright status one iota. Perhaps someone can explain. (I guess the argument is that adding a source helps us to verify copyright status, yes/no?)

I am not an expert, but my understanding is that it is pretty clear that a slavish copy of the Mona Lisa does not attract copyright in the US, following Bridgeman v. Corel (I believe there is also some debate about that conclusion). But are you saying now that we need to check the copyright status of all of our images in every jurisdiction in the world? ("This image is subject to copyright in X and Y, but available under fair use in Z; it is public domain in A and B"?) So we delete images that are copyright in Tuvalu or Andorra, even if they are public domain everywhere else? Are we proposing to delete user's photos of images of buildings in France because the architect has copyright in that jurisdiction?

Anyway, this indiscriminate spamming of long-term editors with aggressively-worded template messages is simply awful. Where is the Wikipedia (not Commons) policy (not essay) page which mandates the deletion of all images without a source? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the relevant Commons page was not an essay. Can you recommend otherwise? Regardless, you may be looking for Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Iamunknown 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So who got asked to source the oldest image? I'll see your Mona Lisa and raise you the 14thC manuscript Prose Edda. Also uploaded in 2004. What do I win? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:0511.jpg Ancient Maya art c. 600 - 900 AD, also uploaded in 2004. Sorry you don't win; I don't expect this to either. Any Ancient Egpytian copyright violations spotted yet? -- Infrogmation 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, neither of those are clearly slavish reproductions. Then again, I am not familiar with case law surrounding copyrights of Rollout photography. --Iamunknown 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, get it? Ancient Egyptian? Slavish? --Masamage 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Image:0511.jpg is copyrighted by "Justin Kerr". See [2] (even though the colors look somewhat differenet, see the bottom right corner of the images and you'll seethe Kerr number 0511 on both) ... perfect example illustrating why sourcing is important even though it is a pain in the neck. Abecedare 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, United States museums claim copyright on reproductions of now-public domain works, and they are wrong (per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). But I do not think that Bridgeman applies to this image; it does not appear to be a slavish reproduction in the manner described in Bridgeman. --Iamunknown 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right. Image:0511.jpg is claimed to be copyrighted, but that claim is not necessarily defensible under US law. I think it is only prudent that we don't delete such images from wikipedia till a consensus is reached as to how expansively Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is to be interpreted on wikipedia. Perhaps Village Pump will be a better venue for this debate than ANI. Abecedare 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the text of Bridgeman (but I should); I would imagine off-hand, however, that it does not specifically address rollout photography and, as such, we should consider such photography non-free (unless it is freely licensed) until case law concerns itself with such photography. I would hope that others would agree; in general, however, further discussion is definitely necessary at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (with ads at the VP). --Iamunknown 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the noticeboard is low-traffic and suffers from bias. It is frequented by those who apriori consider all our image database as "suspect" and are seldom interested in the improvement of our articles. I would rather discuss the matter at a more sympathetic and high-traffic venue. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I would add that Image:0511.jpg has a tag which states it is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Since it's a vase it is manifestly not a 2-d work of art and nor as it happens is the image a simple photograph of the item in question. The image is a two-dimensional representation of a painting on a three-dimensional surface and has been produced by some technique or other. No idea what this means for copyright in terms of Corel though! The Land 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Corel only applies to 2-d works of art not photos of 3-d... there are actually quite a few images that are currently tagged PD-art which are ineligible for this reason, I'm collecting them here Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#May 14 - hopefully a less inflammatory tag than no sources! Loathe to add Image:0511.jpg myself after my debacle here...Madmedea 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created {{ImageRound-Nosource}} and {{PD-Roundart}} for #-d works of art, without and with sources speciied, respectively. DES (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Broader discussion: Tagging centuries old images as "no source"[edit]

Discussion needs to be broadened as it dealing with very much more than the Mona Lisa. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg notes it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519. I would consider that as mentioning a source. Madmedea list that as "no source". Such images of art have been tagged to be deleted withing 48 hours. Some of these artworks were created over a thousand years ago. Some have been illustrating articles here at Wikipedia for 3 or 4 years. Some were uploaded by users who are no longer regulars and are unlikely to reply to the notice within 48 hours. Clearly we need to decide if Madmedea's actions are the appropriate approach within less time than that. Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping useful images that very clearly are public domain and have no risk of causing any potential copyright problem. -- Infrogmation 23:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive URLs[edit]

If I uploaded the rare reproduction of an ancient icon and indicated the source URL, will the image be deleted after that URL is no longer working? Will the reproduction of a Titian painting pointing to a dead URL be considered "sourced" or "unsourced"? --Ghirla-трёп- 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon who was viewing the image and upon some copyright questions that are currently unanswered. Hopefully they would first look at the Wayback Machine. --Iamunknown 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the analogy with the Unreferenced articles is valid. Sources for the images are important and simplify verification of the author of the image, that it was not altered to push editors POV etc. On the other hand we do not delete unreferenced articles of 2004, instead we source them. I think the same approach can go for the old PD-art images without URL. Put {{unreferenced}} on it and try to reference it. For the attributions of the reproductions of art we do not need the exact source. I think references to other reproductions of the same painting are sufficient. Alex Bakharev 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking about the Rublev's Theotokas of Vladimir painting we have higher resolution on commons Image:Rublev3.jpg. Since the source of the commons' reproduction is given it can be used for validation of the image here Alex Bakharev 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Although, as Wikipedia is not a collection of images WP:NOT, if the image is available at the Commons then it could be used instead. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to say - I am not an admin! I am not deleting anyone's photos, I am simply tagging them as lacking sources. An admin will review the image and decide if it needs deleting, not me. Even if the original source cannot be found, if the image is in the public domain a link to a current source would seem fine to me - or even noting which gallery/library the object is in, as it allows verification. Please this debate should be about sources not copyright. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter whether you are an admin or no. There is no lack of admin volunteers to run a bot and delete all tagged images en masse, as was the case with Betacommand and PD-USSR images. Once the image is tagged, you may expect it to be arbitrarily deleted any minute (at least, in my experience). --Ghirla-трёп- 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On close inspection Image:Rublev3.jpg and Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg are not two photographs of the same painting (not only are the colors and paint erosions different, but look at the virgins left eye and the fold of cloth under her right ear). So either Rublev drew the same subject more than once (very likely!), or Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg is a more recent "student copy" of the original - which would make its copyright status suspect. Abecedare 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I am sure it is the same icon just photographed at different times. Icons were objects of the religious ceremonies not an object of art. There were candles and oi lamps burning in inches from the paintwork. There were golden "icon-settings" (oklads) nailed to it. Thus every few years an artisan "bogomaz" would put a new layer of paint over the icon. They usually were trying to keep the painting the same but if you have 50-100 layers of paint over the original paint work it looks quite differently from the originals. In the 19th century people discover that you can "clear out" ancient icons: remove all the paint layers but the original one. They were astonished by the bright fresh look of the result. Still usually clearing out icons destroys part of the painting completely. The two images show just the difference. The icon as it was confiscated from the church (with tens of layers of paint over the original) and the cleared out original (with some damage due to the process). Alex Bakharev 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My response[edit]

  • Now someone has had the courtesy to notify me of this debate I would like to comment. Images require source AND copyright tags. One or the other is not enough. This is clearly stated on the official wikipedia policy regarding images - WP:IUP#Rules of thumb. I know its a pain but without a source an image is basically like an unreferenced fact in an article - ok we all know what the Mona Lisa looks like but for other images without a source how can a user check its authenticity? The message left on user talk page is automatically generated from the {{nosource}} tag, I didn't write it. I did start leaving an extra message to try and make the purpose of the tagging in PD cases a little clearer. Please, Wikipedia has policies for a reason - tagging a problem for admin attention is not a crime and in line with everyone's rights as a Wikipedia editor. You may find it annoying but the policies exist for a reason. It will be up to an administrator to decide if any image gets deleted. Madmedea 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd actually suggest instead of just tagging images, you help try and find sources, if your so concerned about them, in saying that, sources aren't useful for these images, I've just confirmed a few points with a fellow admin and the source is actually useless, we actually need to know under which countries jurisdiction the images were uploaded, not the source for the image nor the actual jurisdiction under which the image was created. If your in England & Wales and upload a reproduction, you would likely be breaking the law, whereas if you upload the image in the USA, you would most likely be protected by the precedent set by the Bridgeman v Corel case. -- Nick t 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I honestly wasn't worried about copyright, just sources, hence the source tag! Without one it undermines WP as an encyclopaedia as everything should be referenced. I didn't mean to cause a row by just tagging some images for problems. Still miffed that my edits have been mass reverted though! Madmedea 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Where have you seen an encyclopaedia where "everything is referenced"? Only monographs (i.e., original research publications) require thorough referencing. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I spend a lot of my time finding sources, uploading things to Wikimedia Commons etc. Many of the uploaders of the images I've tagged have been able to provide their sources when reminded. I didn't think this would a problem! What is the point of policy if its not followed? Madmedea 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's easier for me to upload a new image of a well-known painting with a fresh URL than to browse all over the web to retrieve an URL from which it was downloaded years ago. But what's the point of these exercises in formal adherence to the rules? Last time I checked WP:POINT it said that "WP is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (These are arguably not defects.)" --Ghirla-трёп- 07:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What this problem reveals is a serious need to clarify what is acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia.
    1. Must all free content be able to be published under the GFDL? If so, we cannot use non-multilicensed CC works.
    2. Must we only obey United States copyright law? If so, I think (but really do not know, so don't take this a legal advice at all) United States citizens can upload slavish reproductions of anything out of copyright in the United States (while it may be in copyright in other countries)
      Surely the category in question would not be citizenship, but location. A non-American in the United States is subject to U.S. copyright law. A U.S. citizen in France is subject to French copyright law. Beyond that, the issue of location of uploader should only be important to the uploader. Perhaps it is a copyright violation (I have no idea) to upload a slavish reproduction of an old painting in France, and the person who does that would be violating the law. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia, by hosting that image, is violating the law, since, as I understand it, wikipedia is subject only to U.S. law. So any such image should be fine for wikipedia, although I suppose those outside the United States might want to be careful of uploading such images for their own sake. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    3. Do we accept works where the copyright holder (or former copyright holder) is not clear but are arguably in the public domain due to age?
      Of course we should. Who on earth cares who the former copyright holder of something which is clearly out of copyright is? john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That doesn't even mention serious GFDL-related issues surrounding merging (which I think are much more difficult to decide than image-related issues). --Iamunknown 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the current nosource tag sucks, why not change the text around a bit, or make a newer , usefuller tag? Everyone would use it for this kind of image then! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Madmedea 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder how useful the source is. If we know that an image is a slavish reproduction of a work currently out of copyright, then it's public domain. The source of it seems basically irrelevant if there's no actual possibility for it to be copyrighted. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that an image is a slavish reproduction if we don't know its provenance? If you uploaded an image of the Mona Lisa with subtly altered colours and composure, I am not at all confident that I would recognise it as a derivative work. Hence the need for provenance information. The problem here isn't that the demand for source is onerous, but that it is not onerous enough - we should be demanding a source, AND demanding that that source be a reputable library or archive that can be trusted to provide good-faith "slavish" reproductions. Hesperian 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Subtly altered colors does not give something in the public domain a new copyright. Question is irrelevent. Something in the public domain is public domain regardless of source. Period. DreamGuy 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You'd want to be pretty darn sure of that. This is not something we can afford to get wrong. Everyone else on this page has been talking about the necessity of "slavish reproduction", and all of a sudden you are claiming that I can lighten and crop the image and it will still be PD. Where do you get that idea? Hesperian 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
See derivative work: "Although a derivative work author usually has been authorized, through license, to incorporate the previous work into his derivation, he does not gain thereby a copyright in any preexisting material." ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The key word there is "pre-existing". All that is saying is that I don't gain copyright of the Mona Lisa just because I produce a lightened and cropped version of it. But if there is any intellectual property in my lightening and cropping, then I retain copyright over my derivative work.
Bridgeman v Corel provides an extremely broad scope for photographic originality - "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved".
I still contend that we shouldn't be claiming photographs as PD per Bridgeman v Corel unless we have shown due diligence in checking that the images really are slavish copies. Hesperian 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The definition of a derivative work is not limited in scope by Bridgeman v Corel. Although you are correct that anyone may assert creative authorship in any trivial modification of the original work. For our purposes, I agree that we must verify the authenticity and integrity of the reproduction of the original work. However, if a lightly modified version (that is, cleaned up in Photoshop or some-such) is presented as the original in a publication with no claim of authorship for the modification, I think we're in the clear. The distinguishing feature between derivative and transformative use is intent: if it is the image editors intent simply to better present the original work by selectively cropping it or adjusting the color/contrast/etc., then the result is definitely a derivative work that is covered under the original copyright. Further, if such modifications are contributed by a Wikipedia user, then we don't really have to worry about licensing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything you have said. But the issue at hand is images with no source, for which we don't know whether it was presented as the original in a publication, and for which we do not know the author's intent. You make a valid point though: if someone uploads an image without specifying the source, and someone else goes to the trouble of checking that the uploaded image is a faithful reproduction of the original, then having a source for the image would not be necessary. I hope that the proposed {{PDnosource}} tag comes with clear instructions that a editor should tag an image with it only after they have carefully checked that the uploaded image really is a faithful reproduction of the original, and not a (subtly or otherwise) altered version. Hesperian 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So long as the {{PDnosource}} tag allows for a reasonable amount of time to verify the backlogs (months, not days), I agree with your stance. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerning "subtly altered colors", etc.
  • Firstly, I have a habit of modifying colors in Photoshop before uploading reproductions of old paintings to Wikipedia. Could I claim copyright on those images?
  • Secondly, most images of paintings by Old masters were uploaded to Commons by commons:User:File Upload Bot (Eloquence). They are properly sourced but differ enormously (as regards colors and contrast) from paintings that actually hang in art museums (or from reproductions of those paintings that may be found on museum websites). Should they be deleted?
  • Secondly, museum version of paintings are also by no means "official" or definitive. Reproductions of the same painting from two museum websites may differ substantially. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and suggestions[edit]

It looks to me that Madmedea was working to apply procedures-- but those procedures were designed to protect Wikipedia from copyright violations. Applied in a context where this was not the specific concern, the result has been problematic. I would suggest:

1) Short term. Remove the "no source" tags from images for which there is no challenge to public domain status. An alternative template or text to the effect that "This public domain image should have better source information" and perhaps a related category would be good. However time is already ticking on useful public domain images used in articles to be deleted as "no source" images, so I suggest removing those tags be prioritized within the next day even if the final wording of a new template hasn't been decided on yet.

2) Intermediate term. I think we could use some policy for providing more information on public domain images, especially legacy images which may have been uploaded years ago by users who are no longer active. I'm thinking along the lines of a category added to the images requesting an expert second look, and that when the intermediate "source" of the digital copy of the public domain image cannot be identified it be acceptible for someone to add something, for example, confirming that it is indeed a 16th century work atttirbuted to Pieter Bruegel the Elder since it is listed on page so and so of a certain book.

Other thoughts and suggestions? -- Infrogmation 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible enough. john k 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Building off of Infrogmation's idea, we could create a template like {{PDnosource}} for instances like this. The current template applies to non-free images and doesn't really fit our use with sourcing PD images. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an elegant and practical solution. According to [3], any work of art created prior to 1887 is almost assuredly fair game. Of course there are possible complications that arise when dealing with derivative works, or with properly identifying the authenticity of public domain images. Tagging them with {{nosource}}, however, is a horrible idea based on a flawed and overly legalistic reading of policy. URLs fade, museums and private collectors often attempt to claim copyright when it is obviously expired, and many paintings are mistakenly attributed to artists based on circumstantial evidence. Still, whatever quirks we have to work out, paintings that are hundreds of years old are in the public domain regardless of flawed attribution, and Wikipedia sourcing policy is a means, not an end. {{PDnosource}} should take these considerations into account, and provide for several methods of verification. We should allow for citations that reference written scholarly works, museum catalogs, published biographies, and other content that might not appear on the internet. Until then, lets abide by common sense and not delete images that portray ancient works of art. (Although the 2d replication of a 3d vase is an interesting case and might be copyrighted.) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
I propose it contain the text: "We're claiming this is PD per Bridgeman v Corel, but we haven't actually bothered to check whether it is a slavish reproduction. It might be a subtly altered version, and we wouldn't know, because we don't know where it came from." Hesperian 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Subtly altered versions do not get new copyrights. Only significant changes get new copyrights... enough to be considered a new work of art completely. That's not going to apply to 99% of the images tagged as public domain. DreamGuy 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite certain you're wrong; discussion continues in the subsection above. Hesperian 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
All of this seems reasonable (except Hesperian's comment), but there should be some discussion of what constitutes a "source". If an image description clearly and fully identifies a work of art, and its current location, then I would argue that it has been sourced. Dsmdgold 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This all sounds good to me - if it hasn't been done already I'll untag the images I tagged - and sorry for causing such a hoo hah. I would just like to say that source has importance far beyond any copyright claims - by referencing where an image came from it gives a way of checking whether the image is what it says it is. We all know what the Mona Lisa looks like (altered or not), but do you know that an ancient manuscript or unfamiliar painting is what the uploader says it is without a way of checking via a source - or if that really is the 4th duke of marlborough? Just as articles need to be referenced, so do images for the purpose of verifiability WP:V, which is what started me on this in the first place and I would presume this is one of the reasons why both WP and the Commons ask for sources! Madmedea 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
All tags have been removed from images that are highly likely to be PD works of art. Madmedea 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} for use in cases where the art is clearly 2-D public domain, but the photo is uncreditied. Please consider using it in such cses in future. DES (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have a couple of suggestions for some possible modification; I've started discussion at Template talk:PD-Flatart-Nosource. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there somewhere where we could have a decent discussion about what these tags should look like, as this is obviously not the best place. I would like to discuss the tags that DES has created before they get used widely as, although a good start, I'm not sure they are quite what is needed as they mix copyright/source and the 3d one doesn't actually seem to fit with the law. Madmedea 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, found the right page myself, DES has already started the discussion - Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#New tags for images of art not fitting existing tags - I would really appreciate other contributors feedback on this.Madmedea 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Un-sourced statements[edit]

I removed[4] a bunch of un-sourced material from Verio, per this discussion, but User:Ronz keeps adding it back without any sources except a "fact tag" at the top of the article that has been there for days. I don't want to edit war with him over it. Do I have the right to remove un-sourced material from Wikipedia? -- Stbalbach 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the wikipedia verifiability article: Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[1] Pacingcar 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't know what to do, the user keeps reverting un-sourced material in direct violation of WP:V which I thought was one of the "non-negotiable" Wikipedia policies. -- Stbalbach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Since WP:CITE states: "if it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag ... and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time," I presume the source of contention between you is the definition of a reasonable time? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I wish they would ask, the user has not asked for time, they just revert and say "you don't personally like it" in the edit note. -- Stbalbach 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
When you post on AN/I, you should probably give the entire background of the "incident". This is nothing more than another episode in a long-winded content dispute between you and Ronz. In fact, on Talk:Verio, you previously argued for the inclusion of material without sources. You seem to be using AN/I as a sneaky way to backdoor the numerous results of the third opinions and other suggestions made on the talk page. Furthermore, as an admitted previous employee of the company, you might have a possible conflict of interest (and indeed, it seems like your edits attempt to shine a positive light on Verio's actions). If you really must, take this to a request for comment. Content disputes do not belong here. Alsandair 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But it's not really a content dispute since I wrote 90% article myself, as an ex-employee with an admitted grudge, and without any sources. You'd think yourself, Ronz and others would be arguing to remove it (or at least the stuff I wrote that is un-sourced), but instead your fighting to keep it. LOL. -- Stbalbach 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and notify Ronz that this discussion is taking place. MastCell Talk 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have no interest as to whether or not the information stays - I am just pointing out that you are inconsistent with your application of policy. Note that the bulk of Wikipedia is made up of uncited, uncontentious material (if we removed all of it, we'd probably be smaller than Britannica). That pretty much describes the information you took out. Finally, it doesn't matter how much of the article you wrote, this is still a content dispute, as defined by that term. Since numerous third opinions have failed to help, I suggest you file a request for comment. Alsandair 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. If it is uncontentious than you should have no trouble providing a source. There is no content dispute here Ronz despite what your trying to make of it. -- Stbalbach
I am not Ronz by the way, nor do I even know him. Alsandair 04:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy WP:V is very clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. I would like to remove the un-sourced material and need help from someone to do so. Can someone help me remove this un-sourced material? How far up the chain do I need to go to remove material that I wrote myself, as an admitted disgruntled ex-employee, that is un-sourced? -- Stbalbach 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote the material yourself has no bearing on anything - you seem to want to own the article. At least leave the uncontested information in to allow for somebody to come up with a source. I'm sure that after this lively discussion one will be happily forthcoming. Alsandair 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. I said I wrote it because you framed this as a "content dispute", how can there be a content dispute over something I wrote? If someone adds citations I would be thrilled. If someone asked for time to provide citations I would be thrilled. None of that has happened. Unless it does happen this material can be removed per WP:V. There does not need to be RfC for removing un-sourced material, WP:V is non-negotiable. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I insulted you, I certainly did not intend to do so. Again, the fact that you wrote the content does not matter. You want to remove content, others (chiefly Ronz, I guess) want to keep it. That's a dispute over whether or not to include content. I don't know how else to say it. And look, I'd be thrilled if someone added citations to all the unsourced material on Wikipedia, but because they don't, that doesn't mean I'm going to delete it. If I did, I'd have to destroy ninety percent of the encyclopedia. This is basically the the largest application of ignore all rules. It's what keeps Wikipedia feasible. If you delete the information on Verio, please make sure you apply the same standard to all the other articles you edit. Since you were previously advocating ignoring verifiability policy on the very same page, I severely doubt you'd do that. Alsandair 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR, debate over. You win. Look, the burden is on Ronz to provide a source if he wants to keep it. It is not my burden to start an RfC to remove un-sourced material -- this has nothing to do with content, it is a policy violation issue. WP:V is very clear. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability may be very clear, but you are not clear in your application of it. Using a double-standard to your advantage is not something that is appropriate. You seem to be dissatisfied with the article (having had your pro-Verio edits removed, particularly those to the external links), and are now suddenly an ardent enforcer of a policy you previously disregarded. You know just as well as I do that unsourced material must remain in Wikipedia, otherwise there will be no Wikipedia. Alsandair 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
unsourced material must remain in Wikipedia - uh, no. Seems like you'll say anything to avoid providing a source. -- Stbalbach 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Stbalbach are you disputing the truth of the material in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What I said is true. You know it, I know it, anyone who knows anything around here knows it. Please don't troll by disputing truths that, while not nice, are certainly not disputed. Once again, I'm asking you: would you be willing to go around and delete every single unsourced statement from Wikipedia? While quick to attack my character, you are slow to answer the important questions here. Alsandair 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some of it may be wrong - claims about being first, largest, dollar amounts, etc.. all hearsay "street talk" propaganda from Verio itself when it was going through an IPO and merger which has never been verified. Without a source it's questionable. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Stbalbach, you're making no sense. Above, you admit you wrote over ninety percent of the article. In the diff you provide you show us that you would now like to remove ninety percent (or even more) of the article. Are you saying that you deliberately included "hearsay street talk propaganda" that "may be wrong" in your original authorship? Alsandair 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Alsandair, policy clearly supports Stbalbach in this case. Please stop trying to characterize his position as "there will be no Wikipedia." If Stbalbach admits he was wrong, let him fix his mistake. Phony Saint 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, I know policy supports Stbalbach and frankly, I don't care whether or not the material is removed. I just don't think it's fair of him to only apply Wikipedia:Verifiability when it suits his purpose. I cannot see this situation as anything other than (1) Stbalbach writes an article on Verio, an isp he used to work for, (2) Stbalbach doesn't like how others have "edited his contributions mercilessly", and (3) he subsequently realizes that since he provided no sources when he wrote the article in the first place, he's got a sneaky way of circumnavigating all those third opinions that didn't work out in his favour. All that said, I'd support moving the contested info to the talk page, just not deleting practically the entire article. Is that a compromise we can all work with? Alsandair 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the controversial material[5] to the talk page with explanations [6]. -- Stbalbach 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks great to me...I sincerely apologise if this conversation became uncivil at times. Thank you for taking a level-headed approach to fixing the problem. Alsandair 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Stbalbach has left out a few important issues, besides the many obvious ones on the article talk page: I notified him of my concern that he was not attempting to reach a consensus [7]. He treated my attempts at dispute resolution as harrassment [8] [9].

I think this is a simple case of WP:OWN, then WP:POINT when Stbalbach lost control of the article.

I find it very disturbing that he uses his own questionable editing practices as justification for disrupting Wikipedia. --Ronz 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at GNAA[edit]

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) insists that even though Gay Nigger Association of America was deleted, and the deletion review kept it deleted, it should still be listed on the disambig page for GNAA. I asked for cited policy, and he said WP:IAR. I pointed to the MoS, which says "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles." Obviously, red-linked entries that currently have the potential to become articles are also allowed, but that is not the case here, either. Any input on the talk page or possible protection of the article is requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:34Z

  • I'll keep a watch on it and revert if anybody puts it back. Can't hurt to have more eyeballs on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like it was just unprotected after a month of protection due to revert warring; unfortunately, it looks like the problem hasn't gone away. I've protected it again. Krimpet (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I had nothing to do with the earlier controversy. I think edit dispute is more accurate than edit warring. There was tremendous confusion at the beginning dealing with this edit. Not quite sure why this should have created such a stir and suggest someone put a warning in the text. I am also baffled by the opposition to merely pointing out who this group are (which isnt the same at all as making an article about them). As long as readers and editors like myself dont know who GNAA is I would have thought the only way to stop the dispute is to permanently lock the article or place hiddent ext giving an explanation, SqueakBox 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're looking for the meaning of any and all acronyms, you want a site like, not an encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 19:16Z
      • And the rest of our readers? I thought we were here to disseminate knowledge and the reality is almost all our acronym pages are superb. Telling me (or anyone) not to use wikipedia is IMO misguided, especially in an area in which it excels. We musnt lose the point of why we are here, SqueakBox
  • Ah, SqueakBox, you may be mistaking information for knowledge. The number one source of knowledge about GNAA is the same as the number one source of demands to add that knowledge to Wikipedia, and the number one source of assertions that there is a demand for that knowledge: GNAA themselves. They should get themselves a website or something. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't link pages that don't exist and are not likely to exist from disambig pages, what do you hope to accomplish by doing so? The group simply is not encyclopedic because it has not verfiable sources, so no point in mentioning it at all. Also, Squeak was not edit warring, his edit war reverted to a vandalized version and he undid that, not actual edit warring was going on. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, keep deleted, indef block anyone who undeletes or restores. Life is sunny and simple sometimes :-D --Kim Bruning 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC) baleet balock badone

Yeah, the only controversy is whether to link to a redlinked German archaeology group. Moreschi Talk 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, link them, and create the page too. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I started to try that, and then came to the conclusion that they weren't notable :) Moreschi Talk 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If something doesn't have an article, they shouldn't be listed on a disambiguation page. My personal opinion. Couple that with the oh-so-exciting world of "GNAA-related wiki-mischief", and my position is only cemented further. EVula // talk // // 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Having second thoughts about a particular user.[edit]

I just gave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) eight spam warnings for spamming 8 different articles with external links to a website. The Admin report board for spamming pretty much says to wait until the guy violates again. So I told him "I'll consider all eight as one warning, don't spam again!!," but after abit of thinking, I think I might've goofed. Any opinions if I handled it correctly or should the guy be banned instantly seeing the accounts activity was just to spam links??

Also, another user ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) also spammed the Wangan Midnight article with just the link (and not the associated text). And both WHOIS lookups say they reside in Australia, in the same town.

WHOIS WHOIS 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's obviously the same user then the warnings on the first account count against all subsequent sock puppets. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've blocked the new IP for 48 hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Which one, the 203 or the 58? 02:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
From the block logs, it looks like J.smith blocked the 58. --LuigiManiac 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry from User:MarkStreet gets no response from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

Two days ago, a new sockpuppetry case has been discovered on Transnistria-related articles. More precisely, it has been determined that User:Buffadren was in fact a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street, as determined by checkuser here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren.

The administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, which keeps an eye on Transnistria-related pages has been notified, but replied that he doesn't see a problem because the accounts User:Mark us street and User:Buffadren were not used at the same time.

I do, however, see a problem in having a known puppeteer (User:Mark us street) changing identities at will and thus avoiding scrutiny from fellow editors, which is explicitly forbidden by existing Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Note that the various puppets all edited the exact same articles.

Furthermore, from the history of the various accounts it is quite obvious that User:Mark us street is avoids blocks and bans by successively changing his identity.

My question is: Is this situation normal? Can everybody change name once he/she was blocked, so that there's no trail? Then, why not switch to anon editing only? Dpotop 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

unless they use the sock to get around a block (use one while the other account is blocked) or use it to get around the 3RR, then yes, there is no policy violation. Nothing wrong. -Mask? 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors? Is this policy obsolete? Dpotop 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
We know its him, he's clearly not avoiding leaving a trail. Thats a nonstarter just from the checkuser trail. Also, thats not fully relevent or used. We let people start over all the time. This guys not starting over, because he keeps up his same antics, so just monitor it. No worries. -Mask? 08:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you saying that he does not infringe on Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors? Dpotop 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what im saying. -Mask? 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I understand that "Buffadren" did at the outset try to conceal the identity, so a case of "covering up his tracks" might be made. Also, there is a possible case of conflict of interest, when it comes to Buffadren trying to introduce links to a site that "MarkStreet" was connected with. But at the present moment a block for these reasons would be purely punitive. This case is at Arbcom and I suggest we should wait for Arbcom to decide on how to judge it. At the moment, the administrative priority is to keep the level of edit-warring down on Transnistria, nothing else. Fut.Perf. 08:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions:
  1. Where is the Transnistria case submitted to ArbCom, and what is being arbitered? I cannot find it on the ArbCom page. I believe I asked you this same question before, without obtaining an answer. Dpotop 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Does content arbitration suspend Wikipedia rules that apply to editors? Dpotop 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria.
  2. The Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions. Daniel 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have asked Buffadren for some clarifications regarding his relation to "Mark Street". So far, he seems to be still denying the identity and I find his answers evasive and deeply unsatisfactory. This makes a difference. Starting over with a new account is all fine and well, but falsely insisting to be two different people when challenged about it still constitutes abusive sockpuppetry, in the sense of creating a false show of support for one's position in a talkpage (even if that double support is not done simultaneously but at different times.) I will block Buffadren and ask Arbcom to endorse a ban if he doesn't come up with a better explanation soon. Fut.Perf. 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Angry Sun blatantly ignoring set guidelines[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute, not relevant to AN/I.--Jersey Devil 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently merged some enemy characters from the Mario series to List of Mario series enemies because they lack the notability, real world information, and sources that articles need. Angry Sun is a big fan of the series, so he thinks that I am cutting "major articles" and cites various opinions to back his argument. I gave him WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:NOT, but he has decided that I'm a vandal that needs to be stopped. He has decided to "change all of them back with a friend". Can someone speak to him? TTN 10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While Angry Sun (talk · contribs) certainly appears to have a loose grasp on Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, several of your edits ([10], [11], [12], [13]) appear to be in violation of WP:CIVIL. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Your complaint is a content dispute. We do not settle content disputes here on AN/I, please see WP:DISPUTE with regards to how to go about settling your dispute. With regards to these contributions provided by Kralizec ([14], [15], [16], [17]) they are completely unacceptable and are in fact violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I would suggest that you stop such comments immediately. This is officially a warning, further such comments might result in a block. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


User:Jazzman123 does not seem to use his account for much except trying to convince other users to leave wikipedia for his own wiki, and for discussing the business of that wiki. Don't know how bad that kind of thing is looked upon here.

He has made lots of edits to Christian-related articles. He appears to be Conservative on Conservapedia and his talk about it should really be restricted to Conservapedia, but I do think his asking of users to join Conservapedia could be constituted as spamming. I take it back: [18], [19], [20]. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


This user has added a {{sprotected}} tag to several articles on Colleges of the University of Sydney, including The Women's College, St. Paul's College, Sydney and St Andrew's College, Sydney. I do not think they are semi-protected and I do not think he is an administrator. I did an edit on the first when not logged in to check it. What should I do, if anything? --Bduke 10:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk about the use of the sprotect tags, and also on BLP. Sometimes new editors think adding protection templates actually is what protects a page, rather than are just put there to indicate that it's been protected. That's a pretty common mistake, and not a big deal unless he keeps it up after being notified. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you can check if a page is protected by adding ?action=protect to the end of its URL. (You can only change the information shown if you're an admin, but everyone can view the protection level.) --ais523 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved Resolvednot quite an WP:ANI issue yet. ··coelacan 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In hindsight, this issue would be better resolved between myself and Snegkrib - Tiswas(t) 12:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, probably. I have left a note with the user so that they know WP:V is not just your opinion. Hopefully they'll come around. ··coelacan 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved Resolvedblocked by Riana. ··coelacan 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A user named HelenRail repeatedly vandalized the article Let's Rock the House as well as my own user page, yet I am warned against personal attacks. The user was finally blocked and then registered the same day as HelenRail2, where they went on to perform the exact same vandalisms. I suggest an IP block. Rhythmnation2004 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Riana has blocked the user, but since we can't see the IP directly, we can't block it directly. The user has been autoblocked which will last for 24 hours. I will semi-protect the article and your userpage for a while to discourage a repetition of this nonsense. ··coelacan 12:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, you can probably get a faster response at WP:AIV in the future, and though WP:RFPP is the place "for" page protection, if you ask while you're reporting a vandal at WP:AIV, you might get protection thrown in. ··coelacan 12:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The warning you received about personal attacks had nothing to do with this user.
"Just because you're insecure about yourself, you feel like you need to suck up to the people on the Haven board. Don't you dare tell ME to grow up. Your comments on the message board are extremely annoying and immature. Everyone is fed up with your nonsense posts, and it's quite obvious you're 13 years old. Get a life."
That comment, which you left on User talk:J9306, and this edit summary are why you received a warning...and it was well deserved. --OnoremDil 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those comments are out of line. HelenRail was also vandalizing, but there's a problem on both sides here. ··coelacan 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments[edit]

I am seeking an admin to clarify policy regarding commenting on an involved editor's statements on the article's talk page. User:David Lyons has been rewriting and removing my comments as an involved editor in an RFC. The diffs are here: [25][26]

I have told the editor here [27] that the text at the top of the RFC is standard text and that deleting and rewriting involved editor's comments is not acceptable. Even if this wasn't an RFC I am sure the editor would have no right to remove and rewrite talk page comments. I have also urged the editor to stay calm in discussions, stop accusations and moderate his tone.

PS: If you would like to comment on the actual RFC itself I would also be most grateful. Sparkzilla 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Following advice from Jossi and Addhoc, I have simplified the RFC back to its simpler original form. Thank you for your comments. Sparkzilla 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Duraiappa stadium mass grave[edit]

Admininstration, please involve above article to resolve and fix things. Wikipedia is becoming too cheap place with highly POV issues.Lustead 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more than protection can be done to this kind of situations. Please have a break and sort out your issues at the talk page. If that wouldn't work than please follow other procedures. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlogged[edit]


AIV is particularly backlogged at the moment. Some admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! --ElKevbo 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Empty now. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Appears to be vandalism only account, User talk:Yorano suggest permablock. Pete.Hurd 17:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV would be a more appropriate place to report this. You'd probably get a quicker response, too. --ElKevbo 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page[edit]

Resolved ResolvedDemo article, userfied to Smee's space. ··coelacan 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee, a prolific editor with a history of complaints for tendentious editing, just recreated a page that is the subject of page protection so as to evade the page protection and avoid resolving the pending issues. By the numbers:

  1. Ongoing dispute at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports over what constitutes a "government report". Arguments going against Smee's inclusion of a cherry-picked 1979 document.
  2. Smee renames to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) and then simply Groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) after reinserting the disputed document (diff).
  3. I rename it back to (almost - my bad) the original, to Groups referred to as cults in government reports (diff) and restore the last version by User:Jossi as a last fairly undisputed starting point (diff} and then I ask to have the page protected ([28]) and it is.
  4. User:Anynobody asks to have the page unprotected and the disputed document reinserted by the unprotecting admin then it be protected again with the disputed document included (diff). Declined, see discussion here.
  5. Smee asks that the page be unprotected (diff).
  6. About two hours later, Smee creates a new page for Groups referred to as cult in government documents, evading the dispute, the page protection, and the dispute resolution process (diff). The disputed document is prominently featured.

I am sorry to have to come before this board again but this is extremely serious WP:DE and I am seriously at a loss as to how to deal with an editor that disrespects the process to this degree. Smee is an extremely experienced editor and knows that disputes are resolved, not evaded. --Justanother 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother - disruptive to the project, previously blocked for violating three policies
  1. Justanother (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), has an ongoing history of violating policy, and disrupting the project to make a point, or purely to remove information, much in the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, and this striking and most troubling history of policy violation, most notably WP:TROLL, and WP:NPA, have been documented by users including myself by also other than myself, at User:Orsini/Sandbox3 and User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3 in preparation for further action.
  2. User:Justanother has been blocked for what the Administrator noted as: Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA [29].
  3. As to my recent actions, they were obviously misperceived. I asked for feedback on a new version of the article in question, here. Then User:Milomedes asked for an example, and specifically referred to the model used at List of groups referred to as cults, here. The initial user who requested this example be provided, then commented that the example provided was sharp, with clean editing work, here. Thus, I was simply responding to this user's request that I provide an example as to the new model that I had suggested and asked for feedback on, on the talk page. Smee 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
okay, folks, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while
If it was a demo, the proper place for something like that is in a sandbox, not in article space. I have speedy deleted the article as a WP:POVFORK. I do not see any glaring reason for Justanother or Smee to be blocked today. Please continue to use article talk pages in a civil manner and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. ··coelacan 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At Smee's request, I've moved the article to a temporary sandbox at User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents so it doesn't reside in article space as a POV fork. Hopefully that resolves the issue. ··coelacan 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I acknowledge that this could have been construed as a "fork", however, that was not my intention. My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page. After polite input from User:coelacan, I will make these sorts of examples in the future as subpages in userspace, instead. However, User:Justanother's actions were highly inappropriate in this matter, as is noted on his talk page. Smee 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Granted Smee should've tagged the proposal article as such to avoid confusion on the part of anyone who stumbled onto it through a search or some way other than the message on Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government reports#Feedback on new formatting idea as you did coelacan. However Justanother, unlike yourself, HAS been editing on the talk page both before and after Smee made the above linked request.before (diff) after diff after diff2 after dif 3.
I'm not saying you should have done anything different than you did, based on what the post says, and the lack of identifying itself as a proposal you'd of been wrong not to speedy delete the page. I am saying Justanother did (or should have) known the nature of the page. Anynobody 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing clarification. Smee 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This issue is far from resolved[edit]

I do not think that this issue is resolved. A user that creates a fork bypassing page protection on May 12 23:02 Diff (diff after page move) and three minutes later on May 12 23:05, replaces the protected article with the forked article in a template used by hundreds of pages. Diff with an edit summary "fix link" and without discussing this "swap" with anyone, and after doing that, which is an obvious violation of POV fork to avoid page protection, rather than show contrition and apologize, choses to defend his/her actions with a counterattack designed to poisoning the well. In his/her defense the user claims that "My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page.", when his/her actions show quite differently. This issue will be resolved when this user receives strong advise as to do not engage in that type of behavior in the future, do not respond to ANI notices with attacks on the filer, politely address the concerns expressed, and apologizes to his fellow editors for the offending behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • That was not my intention. As stated above, I was responding to a request on the talk page to provide an example. I was advised about this, and acknowledged the advice, and the next time, I did provide an example in my user space, and am getting some positive feedback on it with amicable discussion on talk pages. As I have already stated, I will not create this type of example-page in main-space again, but rather in user space, and engage in discussion on talk pages, and that is exactly what I am currently doing. Smee 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Diff, taking into account advice that has been provided, and engaging in positive feedback/discussion progress on talk pages with similar issue in a subsequent situation. Smee 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Amicable discussion? Not your intention? Positive feedback? Can you explain then why you did [this] saying that you were "fixing a link" to your fork, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I received a positive comment from Diff an editor that has not been heavily involved in that particular page, but was a long-time editor and expert on the past discussions at LOGRTAC. Smee 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
And that was enough for you to replace the article with your fork behind everybody's back, without informing anyone of that and despite the page protection that was approved on the basis editwarring? Do you really believe that that type of behavior is acceptable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I had thought that the opinion of a relatively un-involved editor that was much more experienced than I with regard to the history of these type of list articles was important, and that we should begin to utilize the page. There was NO, "behind everybody's back", for it was discussed on the talk page, as can be seen from my previous statements, above. In any event, what's done is done, I will do my absolute best to avoid anything that looks like a "fork" in the future, without discussion on the article's talk page - and that is exactly what is going on now at the talk page for Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - positive feedback and discussion on a potential idea for a new page that I have used as an example in my user space. Smee 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every answer. You changed your forked article 3 minutes after you created the fork. Your discussion with that editor was five hours later as per your diff. Yes, what is done is done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that I have correctly heeded the advice given to me by User:Coelacan, I will not create pages that could be construed as "forks", unless this has been heavily discussed on talk pages and agreed to by all as a page move, and I am now correctly having a polite discussion in a separate matter with other editors about a provided example in my userspace, at the talk page Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - which shows positive application of User:Coelacan's polite advice and correction. Smee 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
No, that is not the point. The point is that you attacked the editor that called you on that violation, and then lied in this noticeboard about the reasons for your actions. You should be strongly cautioned not only on your behavior on these articles, but your behaviour on this noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I was pointing out the issues relating to the history of the "tendentious" editor that reported me, yes. I did not lie as to my intentions for creating the page. My intention was not to create a "fork", NO ONE said anything to me about this before this report, and if anyone had brought this up politely on a talk page, that would have been a different matter entirely. And the fact remains that User:Coelacan intervened politely, gave me some very good advice and counsel, and I have reformed my actions after the fact because of this advice. Smee 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I am not addressing the fork issue that could have been an honest mistake, I am discussing what you did after you created the fork, and your behavior in this noticeboard. You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I should have provided this as well: DIFF OF USER ASKING FOR EXAMPLE TO BE PROVIDED. This is where the user asked for an example to be provided, and that is what I was responding to. And please, use more polite language. Sarcastic language like: Was that another honest mistake, Smee?, is highly inappropriate and not conducive to a constructive and polite discussion. Smee 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

<<outdent>> You keep skirting the issue, but I have said enough already. Other admins will hopefully comment and provide further advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. I have acknowledged above that the page may have been misconstrued as a "fork".
  2. I wish that someone had brought this politely to my attention on a talk page, and I would have moved the page accordingly to my user space and asked myself that the mainspace version be deleted.
  3. I appreciate the polite advice provided by User:Coelacan.
  4. I have begun to employ User:Coelacan's advice, with polite and positive feedback from others, at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media. I have also refined my actions a bit and received some other postive discussion and worked with a different editor since this issue, at Talk:Scientology in popular culture.

Smee 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

From what I can tell, this was a rather egregious attempt to sneak around a protected page, compounded by a less than honest recounting of events afterwards. Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi would you please show some diffs regarding this statement:

You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When discussing another editor's behavior it's always helpful for everyone if the actual events can be seen by all. Anynobody 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the diffs have been provided above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. jossi diff 1 = A non existent page in the article namespace.
  2. jossi diff 2 = A newly created subpage in Smee's userspace.
  3. jossi diff 3 Smee making a spelling erroran error in a cult template.

I was assuming there was other information, but I must say these don't exactly show intentional wrong doing on their own let alone when compared to the diffs Smee provided. Anynobody 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on a second, Anynobody. You're overlooking something. User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents used to be Groups referred to as cult in government documents, until I moved it into Smee's userspace. And that third diff wasn't a "spelling error", nor has Smee, to my knowledge, suggested it was. It was a change of the template to point to Smee's new page instead of the established page. ··coelacan 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I failed to see that page. Still I doubt the action was intentionally calculated to avoid the blocked page, so I'm guessing it was a spelling/grammar error correction attempt. (Groups <plural> referred to as cults <plural> means calling Hare Krishna a cults). Anynobody 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

what else is there to do?[edit]

Okay, jossi or Jayjg or anyone: I told Smee yesterday to be very careful not to do anything like this agsin.[30] Smee assured me that it would not happen again. Assuming it doesn't, what else should be done? Should Smee be blocked for this? Should we just leave the conversation as is now, and let the archive bots record the minutes of this meeting? Smee's been told in no uncertain terms to be careful not to misstep in any way that would look like a WP:POVFORK. Is that sufficient? ··coelacan 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I will avoid replying or posting further to the ANI page, as per a helpful outreach by User:Bishonen to myself and Anynobody, Justanother, and Lsi john. And as far as this particular matter is concerned, User:coelacan is correct, I will abide by the advice/suggestions/warnings User:coelacan has put forth, and not misstep in any way that would look like a WP:POVFORK. Smee 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The running Justanother/Smee ANI battle was getting out of hand IMO. I have posted an attempt at dealing with it below, in a separate thread currently at the bottom of the page[31] for greater visibility. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

It is indeed sufficient, Coelacan. Blocking should not be used punitively, and Smee has agreed to be more careful with her actions, and with the way she behaved in this noticeboard. What was done was done, lessons have been learnt, and now is it time to let it heal. The community is strong enough to let people learn from their mistake and recover any loss of dignity by demonstrating with their actions that they are capable of changing for the best. We should all thank Bishonen for the valiant intervention to set in place some ground rules so that users do not harm themselves any further. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's. Thank you to Coelacan and to Bishonen for their instructive yet polite actions in this matter. Yours, Smee 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Offensive, racial and political aggresive comments[edit]

User alidoostzadeh has used very offensive and aggresive language in his last comments and response to comments by other users of different POV in the discussion for dispute related to Persian Gulf' name here. He lokks going to do some trolling and turn the talk related to the page to be political and racial. In sequence of appearing, sentences like:

  • Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides... making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names
  • we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians
  • the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism
  • we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud (plaintiff explanation: Kings of Saudi) =zero votes. As-Sabbah (plaintiff explanation: rulers of Kuwait) =zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes.
  • I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq.

It is clear that I, ralhazzaa, didn't involve in the bad part of discussion as he is trolling me and mentioning me many times in his comments, and neither the user Ahwaz showed such violant, aggressive and racial response to him and his culture. I need someone to take an action. Ralhazzaa 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE. You turned the discussion into ethnic politics by saying " Everyone know very clearly that it banned in Iran ...I heard once that people in Al-Ahwaz are abused for talking in Arabic, their mother tounge!...let's avoid an Iraqi MP lived 80% of his life in Iran and get his Iraqi passport last year, and neglect Ahwazi over-reactions for Iran policy... etc" And that's what instigated all the political mumbo jumbo from both sides.--Mardavich 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this was a reply on the discussion which sources are more reliable Arabic or Iranian. It is directed against the governments not against the particular wiki editors. Well, there were wars in the regions not long time ago. There is almost Civil war-levelled sectarian violence in Iraq just now. There are violent clashes in Khuzestan. With all these taken into account we should expect the discussions on the relevant topics to be sometimes heated. It is unavoidable. User:Ali doostzadeh is a great Iranian editor that produces a lot of content, usually he is quite level headed, I like his work. Ahwaz brings much needed Iranian-Arab perspective to the discussions, Ralhazzaa is a very good editor too. We deal with very controversial topics and heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again. I do not think any administrative actions necessary at this stage. Alex Bakharev 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not intend to report this, but since Ralhazzaa raised the issue it would have been good to at least warned alidoostzadeh about his extraordinary response to a simple comment I made that Ahwazi Arabs use the term "Arabian Gulf". This user made a series of offensive anti-Arab comments and personal attacks on me, including accusations that I am a Sunni extremist, a Ba'athist, a pan-Arabist, anti-Shi'ite, an Iraqi Saddam supporter, etc. He also said I had no right to have an opinion on the matter as I am not an elected official. His intention was to use various basless racial, political and religious accusations against me in order to refute my argument. It seems that admins like Alex Bakharev believe this is appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia and refuse to even warn editors when they engage in unprovoked racial and political smears. It proves to me that a main determining factor in enforcing Wikipedia rules is the ethnicity and religion of the users concerned.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I just went through that debate, and while I agree with Alex Bakharev that heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again, Wikipedia is not a forum, so both of you should have stopped. You know what they say, it takes two to tango. You're also exaggerating, alidoostzadeh said you're not a spokesman of Arabs, not that you don't a right to your opinion.--AlexanderPar 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not a neutral voice here. I want an admin to answer my points below, which have been backed up by diffs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like admins to tell me whether the following statements by Ali Doost Zadeh are acceptable:

Racial smears

  • Unlike Arabs who are going around and making genocides (fortunately the pan-arabist dream ended with the beheading os Saddam but he comitted genocides against shi'ites,turkomens,kurds), making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilian[32] (racist slurs intended to portray all Arabs as terrorists)
  • don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians, given the horrendous record in the world and destruction of the name of Islam with sick ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism[33] (again, a racist attack on Arabs claiming Arabs are all terrorists)
  • fat and immoral Shaykhs of UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi, and etc [34] (a racist attack on Arab tribal leaders)
  • if you guys attack Iranians and play innocent infront of wiki community, I can go off topic as well and I believe the record of the other side is much more bleak with regards to outside issues. [35] (Ali threatens to use Wikipedia as a platform for his anti-Arab opinions if users "attack" Iranians, although there has been no attack, only a point made about the Arabian Gulf)

Personal attacks

  • Arab Shi'ites elected MP's in Iraq democratically and are the majority and for the most part do not share racist feelings towards Iranians. That is why Sunni Arabs like yourself call them :Majoos, Ajam and etc.. but they are technically Arabs and native Arab speakers. [36] (an attempt to portray me as a racist, when I have not used these racial smears against Shi'ites)
  • you are a sunni iraqi [37] (I am not, but the idea is to invent an identity for me in order to rally people against me)
  • you call the persecuted people by genocidal ba'athist as Ajams, not just khuzestani Arabs. And heck you are anti-Shi'ite [38] (Again, I made no such racial smears. This is an attempt to portray me as a Ba'athist and an anti-Shi'ite)
  • You made the racist attacks first [39] (I made no racist attacks)
  • you have been supporting pan-arabism in Iranian articles for a while and I called you by your political name [40] (I have never supported any pan-Arabism in Iranian articles - this is a deliberate attempt to undermine me to win an argument)

I would like an admin to tell me why this is acceptable and why Ali is not even getting a warning, let alone a block for his racial smears and personal attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately misquoting alidoostzadeh, using diff links don't reflect the final comment. From what I see, alidoostzadeh edits and re-edits his comments over and over to make himself clear, perhaps because English is not his first language. For example, he changed "Arabs" to "Sunni Arabs political groups and governments" in a matter of seconds to clarify that by Arabs he meant Arab governments. But you're being dishonest and using the old diff links instead of his final comment which is visible on the page, in order to score a point against him. --AlexanderPar 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
He initially referred to all Arabs and later chaned this to Sunni Arabs (not seconds, more like an hour or so), it is still a racial smear. If admins are interested in stopping these attacks - which are not the first I have faced - then they can judge the matter for themselves. I am asking for a proper review of attacks on me. I gave Ali opportunities to apologise and withdraw his allegations, but he refused. This matter has now been reported to this noticeboard by another user and I am unhappy with the dismissing of racial and personal smears by one admin. There is no defence to Ali's outbursts and diatribes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You're still misquoting him. Criticizing "Sunni Arab political groups and governments" is not a "racial smear". You’re being too sensitive. You shouldn't have been discussing politics in the first place, it takes two to tango. --AlexanderPar 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not good enough. Ali changed his wording after I told him to stop his unprovoked ad hominem attacks. Moreover, I was not the one launching into long political speeches - I simply made the remark that Ahwazi Arabs used the term Arabian Gulf, which resulted in a string of abuse against me, against Sunnis, against Arab tribal leaders, etc, which went on for about 3,000 words in the Persian Gulf talk page. There are also other personal attacks and racial smears that I want admins to address. I am sure that if I made such racial and personal on Iranians and Iranian Wikipedians, Ali would have no hesitation about going here to complain and I would be blocked. As it is, I offered him chances to withdraw his remarks and apologise. He refused and another editor decided to make a complaint. I don't see why I have to suffer these attacks every time I edit Wikipedia and am sick of the protection given to those who make these smears.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, if he changed his wording following a reminder not to use ad hominem argumentation, the user in question is amenable to reason in such matters. Given that, I suspect Alex' warn-and-watch is sufficient to mark it as resolved.Hornplease 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
He changed the wording from Arab to Sunni Arab, but the rant was still racist. He made no attempt to withdraw his personal attacks. Admins appear to condone or perhaps uphold such racist attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticizing political groups is not racist. Specially if they have comitted genocide. You brought u persecuted ahwazi arabs (and right now in the Persian Gulf article you brought it again ) and so I had to mention real persecuted Iranians by Saddam and persecuted Shi'ites in Iraq. Using terms like persecuted in a discussion that does not have any relavence to it, is emotional. Either you have scientific articles discussing the issue Persian Gulf or else do not make a political debate. --alidoostzadeh 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I also changed my wording mainly because I was refering to political groups and not average people. The discussion all of the sudden turned political. I believe if one side criticizes a political group (he started the political discussion), then other political groups can be criticized. The user has made racial smears by posting sites that have maps that have ethnically cleansed groups of Iranian. He has been doing it for a while now. He has also been insulting me before hand by spelling my name multuple times : Ali Doost Zadeh instead of Ali Doostzadeh. I can bring various diffs with this regard. I am back into the discussion of persian Gulf and I am discussion matters calmly. My log is clean despite being involved in many discussions (some very heated) but ultimately resolved. Check some of the discussions I have made a consensus work. Two good examples are Nizami and Safavid, where a very complex situation requiring expertise knowledge and also constant calm was needed to solve the dispute. It's been months and year and some of the consensus pages I have worked on have still stayed. In the end, everyone left satisfied. I thank the admins for reminding me and I will do my best to remain calm despite people like Ahwaz posting sites where maps are shown that have ethnically cleansed other groups. I will not fall for such attacks and hopefully will not end up with a bad wiki log record. --alidoostzadeh 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there was a call for warnings. I have given warnings to Ali and to Ahwaz. What else should be done before the situation can be marked as resolved? Alex Bakharev 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why am I warned when I am the victim of unprovoked racist attacks? Alex must provide reasons for warning me and where I have violated Wikipedia rules or retract his warning.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You started the political discussion, not me. You brought anti-Persian websites whose maps have ethnically cleansed Persians and Lurs form Khuzestan. So that is a clear example of racism which was started by you and user Ral-hazza. Such racist maps where a whole group of population is ethnically cleansed was initially brought by you guys through the links you brought to try to prove a point and you knew what you were doing eaxctly.. And note your comments here:How strange that you should call him anti-Iranian when he is an Iranian citizen and this article says he is a supporter of the current Iranian regime. But we now know that, according to Ali Doost Zadeh, it is sufficient to be a blogger quoted in a newspaper to merit an article in an encyclopaedia.[41] before Persian Gulf. This user is constantly insulting me by not spelling my last name correctly and the above is a personal attack, way before the current debate on Persian Gulf. He constantly brings websites that have ethnically cleansed whole groups of population. I can delve into details with this regard. My name is Ali Doostzadeh, but he is separating the Doost from the Zadeh and he has been doing it several times now. Such users are constantly trying provoke other users instead of enriching the discussion. In the Persian Gulf discussion, user Ralhazza for no reason mentions the Pahlavi dynasty right now in his last edit. For absolutely no reason, just to keep the political mumbo-jumbo going and keep on provoking. It had no relevant to the discussion. Someone should just look at his latest edit and see that he is trying to bait me:[42]. In the end, the Persian Gulf issue is an emotional issue. The idea behind the name Arabian Gulf is simply anti-Persian , and there is not a single mention of Arabian Gulf in any Arabic text before 1950's. It would be like calling the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of Canada, because Canadians might not like Mexico. Such a political action unfortunately should not spill to wikipedia, but it is hard to stay calm when you see this action. Unfortunately pan-arabism did not just end with a simple name change, our country suffered chemical weapons victims due to this continuation of this racism, which is also apparent with the sites al-ahwaz mentions which in their maps have ethnically cleansed native populations of the region. 1 million Iranians were killed during the Iran-Iraq war due to such racism. Anyways I am not here to upset respectable wikipedia users. I am discussing sources in the Persian Gulf issue, and these guys out of no where come supporting fringe separatist groups with ethnically cleansed maps of Iranians/Persians and making discussions that are not relevant. Check user Ralhazza's latest message which was full of insults and cheap points: [43]. Also Ahwaz should be asked to either spell my name correctly (Ali Doostzadeh) or not mention it. He has been doing it for a while unfortunately. Way before the current issue. I kept silent about it, but he knew what he was doing. Anyways I will let go of this and thank the admins for reminding me to stay calm and I will do so. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Since when is separating Doost from Zadeh a personal attack? I knew an Iranian with this name and he spelt it "Doost Zadeh". So what? As for the other allegations, I have not brought any "anti-Persian" websites into any discussion on the Persian Gulf. This is another smear that is not supported by any diffs. The "insults" Ali Dootszadeh quotes are not insults at all but enquiries into the notability of the subject of an article (Nasser Pourpirar), which admins had to intervene in due to libellous remarks made by Ali in the article which seriously violated WP:BLP.
I reject the claim that any talk of Arabian Gulf in the talk page is "anti-Persian". This is just another way of smearing other users and closing down discussions.
Again, Ali uses the Admin Noticeboard as a place to launch into a long political diatribe. How long will admins give this guy a licence to use Wikipedia as a platform for his rants and continue to make baseless accusations against other users?
I would like an explanation about what I am being warned about, since I have done absolutely nothing wrong.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, that is not how I spelled my name. But nice execuse, but zadeh is not the last name of any person and it has suffix. Lutfizadeh for example. Separating a person's name and saying it slowly is personal attack. And calling other people's writing rants shows that you are not here to discuss. The term Arabian Gulf is anti-Persian and due to hatred of Persians, it was coined by Gamal in the Arab world and I brought evidence for it. Bringing sites that have ethnically cleansed a group of people is also racist. Anyways I have understood the admins and I do not see any reason for defending myself here from a user who is trying to set bait. I would like to call the attention of admin to emotional words being used again by Hamid in the Persian Gulf page, while the discussion had nothing to do with it. --alidoostzadeh 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is Lofti Zadeh's website: [44] It clearly separates Zadeh. Doing so is not a personal attack. Again and again, Ali Dootszadeh tries to smear me and misrepresent me, now claiming that my use of "Doost Zadeh" is a personal attack when it is just another way of spelling his name. I challenge Ali to show where I have made a single racist comment or quoted from a racist website on the Persian Gulf talk page. It is outrageous that I am portrayed as a racist when I have been the victim of his personal attacks. I would like admins to examine how I am misrepresented by this user.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had some concern about doostzadeh as well. He seems to push POV and edit war. For example, keeping an article about a non-notable for POV reasons - "Never mind , such revisionists should be exposed." That article, by the way, has serious BLP issues as it is based on non-English apparent attack pages or non-English blogs, so I'll probably report it to the noticeboard. The guy isn't notable enough anyway, considering the lack of English sources and the lack of RS. But then again, this article was kept to "expose" him. The Behnam 15:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a right to mention a revisionist (making him known), he has 10 books and is mentioned in the media. Ask someone that reads Persian to translate it for you, obviously there are a lot of Iranians in wikipedia, and others can do it. "Seems" is not really evidence. If you have evidence that I mistranslated anything, then that is evidence. But unless you can read it, or ask someone who you trust to read it, then please do not simply accuse. And note the discussion is about Persian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, this is about you, doostzadeh. You decided to keep a non-notable to "expose" him; that is unacceptably POV editing. BTW, the "seems" sentence isn't evidence anyway. I provided one piece (so far) and that is in the diff I provided. What is it? Do you want me to get more? Hey, how about your behavior at Talk:Father of the Nation? The Behnam 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: User warned

I am presently being wikistalked by a user who, whenever somebody disagrees with me on anything, chimes in to state that he also disagrees and that I'm such a nasty person and so forth. While I'm tempted to simply ignore this as trolling, perhaps someone could inform him that this isn't acceptable behavior? [45]. >Radiant< 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop being such a nasty disagreeable person! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Real reply: Warned on the talk page. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    And now realized Radiant is not Ryulong. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's see. What part of that is an apology for your personal attack? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Im pretty sure he wasn't serious. -Mask? 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to some editors of Scientology articles[edit]

I wasn't going to take this report to ANI, where it'll quckly roll off anyway, but Smee has asked me to provide a public summary. The thread higher up on the page, "Tendentious editor disrespects...": [46], is only one of many recent expressions of hostility between Justanother and Smee. The battleground between them seems to be rapidly getting worse, fuller of landmines, and more personal. We see for instance, Smee, above, unfairly accusing Justanother of violating WP:TROLL (I believe Justanother to be a good-faith editor), and Justanother in his turn unreasonably calling Smee "a prolific editor with a history of complaints for tendentious editing" (Smee does have such a history, but the complaints have mainly been posted by Justanother himself...). Friends, Romans, countrymen, does this long-running battle require administrator intervention? (Preferred reply: no.) It's getting to the point of vexatious litigation, and of needlessly blocking up ANI. Two more editors, Anynobody and Lsi john, make occasional appearances in the drama, but mainly cheer from the wings. I have asked all four to agree to voluntarily withdraw from AN and ANI; to stop posting on each other's talkpages; and, after a third problem was pointed out to me by Justanother, to stop discussing, for the benefit of the gallery, their perceived enemies on their own talkpages. My more detailed suggestions and their responses can be seen on their pages, and at the thread "Hello" on mine. Several of their responses to me were quite heartening. Briefly, this is what the four have undertaken. Minor exceptions are not mentioned, and past actions are emphatically not the point here.

  • Justanother has agreed to stop posting to AN/ANI about Smee or Anynobody; to refrain from posting to their talk pages unless expressly invited to; and to avoid posting discussions about Smee and Anynobody on his own page "in the hopes that other editors and admins are watching". To take the first step, he immediately removed a quotation from Smee, which she didn't like to see there, from his userpage.
  • Lsi John will not file AN/ANI complaints " unless recommended and supported by a neutral admin". Obviously I would rather take this without the "unless", but I make allowances for a new editor's typical tendency to think admins infallible... anyway. LJ has not addressed my requests that relate to user talkpages, but urged me in a general way to pull him up short if I should see him interact inappropriately with other editors.
  • Smee will not definitely undertake any of the things I ask, but pledges to do her utmost to avoid posting on AN/ANI, and to take Justanother's and Lsi john's pages off her watchlist. She will however explicitly not "be silenced" in talkpage discussion of JA and LJ, which is a pity, as I think that one condition might have done much to cool tempers and promote a less poisoned climate between the four.
  • Anynobody rejects my suggestions, considering them irrelevant or even offensive to himself, as he never did anything wrong, and always had the best reasons and motives for pointing out bad behavior by "the other side". My proposal being of course entirely voluntary, he is entitled to take this stand.

I'm pleased to note that Justanother and Lsi john have explicitly not made their own compliance conditional on anybody else's reciprocal undertaking. I hope and believe this decision will work wonders for their stress levels and for other editors' confidence in their good faith. For any user interested in following coming developments, I provide some permanent links here, to wit: The thread above that this is about, "Tendentious editor disrespects...":[47]. This very thread you're reading: [48]. My original proposal: [49]. Justanother's responses: [50]. Lsi John's responses: [51]. Smee's responses: [52] (with a few comments from Anynobody). Anynobody's responses: [53].

Dear Gang of Four, if you feel you must comment below, I can't blame you, but I ask you to please begin as you mean to go on: keep it brief, don't comment on each other, don't reply to each other's points. I also appeal to other ANI editors to think twice before using this particular thread for criticism of the people involved.

Man. I'm a fine one to talk about keeping things brief. Sorry. And sorry for not posting this on some appropriate mediation page instead, but ANI visibility was requested by Smee, and I too think it a reasonable thing, in what I hope will amount to a "Goodbye to ANI" from some of its most prolific posters, and a way to avoid the indignity of a formal noticeboard page ban for some of the editors involved.

Bishonen | talk 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Clarification of misinterpretation[edit]

I really do appreciate Bishonen's | talk suggestion, but I think my polite refusal has caused some irritation based on the main section of this post. This is how I responded to the initial question:

Thank you for the idea Bishonen | talk, I agree that there is a situation that needs some kind of compromise. After reviewing my contributions and thinking carefully about this, the solution you've proposed doesn't seem to apply to me because I don't post to either editor's talk page unless it is absolutely necessary and the last WP:ANI post I started was to ask for enforcement of the latest sock of Barbara Schwarz.
You can review my contributions if you like:
my contributions to User:Talk pages and :my contributions to Wikipedia pages. Anynobody 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To conserve space here I'll simply refer anyone interested to my talk page for the rest of the conversation: there. Thank you, Anynobody 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Soulfly761 (talk · contribs): Is this Social Networking?[edit]

I stumbled upon both the userpage and usertalk of Soulfly761 (talk · contribs). Given this user has no edits out of personal space (and only 1 outside of his personal space), his usertalk is a list of World of Warcraft-related names and weblinks and his userpage, to me, is WP:NONSENSE, I suspect he us abusing WP as a social networking site-- but before any actions, I want some second opinion. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the links could easily be removed as spam. That's not what a user talk page is for. EVula // talk // // 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I removed the WoW stuff and left a warning. -Mask? 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd Canvassing[edit]

A new user, Free Software Knight appears to be attempting to get people to join the programming team for Gretl. (see here and here) While his edits are harmless, it seems a little odd to be headhunting on Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary anytime soon. They have good edits (here's onw, not the only one). I'll welcome them and ask them to knock off that particular behavior. ··coelacan 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


User: has repeatedly been warned about vandalism on talk page. Today, this edit was done. There have been four previous blocks, with the last on December 19 for a month's time. Another block may be in order. - Dozenist talk 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV (theoretically) gets faster blocks done and vandalism like that goes there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. - Dozenist talk 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This encryption key thing[edit]

I just protected AACS encryption key controversy in response to this protection request. The WP:RPFP request implied that the consensus was still to keep the key out of articles ("hard coded in the spam blacklist"), but I'm being told it isn't [54]. I've been avoiding this whole thing and have no intention of getting involved now. Someone deal with this please, people have been edit warring over it like mad in the past few hours. – Steel 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's posts on the Talk:AACS encryption key controversy. It's the consensus that it should be included in the article, and the page is whitelisted from the filter of the number. However, the number is not in the usual blacklist but in some special blacklist that for some problem conflicts with the whitelist. Also, there isn't much of an editwar other than the person requesting protection removing the number and reverting whenever anyone tries to replace it. ≈ Maurauth 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The key itself is hard coded into the spam blacklist. If you type it in, in it's standard form, your edit will be rejected by the software. Pro-key editors have asserted this is a software bug. There is no confirmation from the developers that such a bug exists. One pro-key editor asked to have the key whitelisted on en here. Another pro-key editor asked to have the item removed from the softlist here. The article circumvented our blacklist by including multiple '' characters in the text, which prevented the blacklist from tripping but merely made the number italic. I have no opinion about the key itself, but will not stand for editors circumventing site security. I see no evidence that the page is on some sort of "whitelist." Please note that more than one editor has removed this key persuant to the blacklisting. One might ask when Consensus has changed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The appropriate thread about whitelisting it is here. Due to the method that it was added to the spam filter, it seems that there is some difficulty with whitelisting it which is why circumvention tactics were having to be used on the article page, as far as I understand it. Wimt 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no meta admin commenting that he would whitelist the number there. The only meta admin commenting on that thread stated he was powerless to change the blacklisting. I may be missing a meta admin, but I do not see a "software bug" manifesting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Any en. admin can whitelist a page, at Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist. Prodego 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this was not the case because it was added to the wgSpamRegex by a developer rather than the standard spam blacklist. I have no idea about the technical details of this, but I'm lead to believe that it means that only a dev can whitelist it. Have I been misled? Wimt 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct, I am talking about regular whitelisting, which is not possible for this. Prodego talk 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The addition of the key to wgSpamRegex seems to have been a bad move not only due to it's questionable reasoning, but it's now causing technical difficulties. ≈ Maurauth 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Also; the developers implemented that deep coded block of the number to prevent WP:KEYSPAM not to prevent it's inevitable encyclopaedic inclusion into the artical of which it is the subject. The blacklist is there to prevent spam, not encyclopaedic content! If the special list used to prevent spamming of the number bypasses whitelisting then it should be removed and placed in the correct blacklist if prevention of 'KEYSPAM' is still a factor after inclusion of the key in its relevant article (which I highly doubt). ≈ Maurauth 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Where has a devloper said that? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The key is in the 'SPAM' part of 'spam-blacklist'. ≈ Maurauth 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You work with the tools you have. Are you saying you don't have a developer saying that they hard-coded that restriction in to prevent any posting of the key? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The only quote from the devs about it that I know of is here. It says it was added to the blacklist because of spam. Wimt 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that definitly shows that the inclusion of the number in the blacklist is due to the spamming of it. As the use of the number as the subject of an article is not WP:KEYSPAM, there shouldn't be any problem. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty simple really. If an item is in the spam blacklist, don't try to sneak it into articles. And don't talk about the blacklist being a "bug" unless you like people looking at you funny. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The way Hipo portrayed the issue is very obscure. Nobody said that the blacklist is a bug, they said that if it is on the blacklist, AND on the whitelist for that article, and that it cannot then be input into a whitelisted article, there must be a problem.
It's hardly sneaking it into an article when there is 200 or so lines about it on the talk page, a discussion on the whitelist article, the blacklist article and even on THIS page.
Also it was on the spam blacklist due to WP:KEYSPAM, not to prevent it from being inevitably and logically included into an article in which it is the subject. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh I definitely don't want any more people looking at me funny! Can you clarify that this means I was misinformed then, and adding it to the whitelist would have worked? Will (aka Wimt) 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Update Post unprotection by Steel the number was promptly readded into the article with '' to avoid the blacklist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Absurd though it seems to most of us, the rights owners have issued takedown notices to sites which publish the key, they assert ownership, and continuing to publish it ourselves despite knowing this - and knowing that special efforts have been made to prevent it on this site - is both irresponsible and disruptive. Foundation will give us a policy decision well before the publication deadline, in the mean time let's laugh at The Man rather than actively taunting him, shall we? Guy (Help!) 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If the foundation and its lawyers are going to issue a policy, let them. From what I've read, it looks like the community has been given the go ahead to treat this like any other content issue. --Alecmconroy 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The process for getting something removed from the hard-spam-blacklist is to ask a developer to remove it, not to circumvent the blacklist. Unless the developers or above have blessed this action, it's not even remotely appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to that argument. It certainly looks bad, and I could live with it as long as no one objected, but clearly, people do. I'd suggest people hold off on editing it and let me try to track down an answer. --Alecmconroy 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it seems that "consensus" is to risk being sued (presumably because it's someone else's money) because knowing the whole of the key is Really Really Important to understanding the controversy. Or something. Completely irresponsible. When we have "consensus" to include things that violate copyright, we remove them, because they violate copyright. Does it violate copyright? Who knows, but Digg were sufficiently persuaded that they honoured the DMCA takedown notices. Rights owner issues takedown notices, we then republish the content so everyone can see how controversial it is. Or maybe how big and brave we are. Way to go.
Also, I do not believe this is on the spam blacklist. I think it is in the sitewide regex filter, which exists to prevent posting of unacceptable content. I believe this is editable only be developers. Anyone feel like speculating on why developers would do something like that? Guy (Help!) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The devs did it because it was being spammed across multiple wikis (see the quote earlier). And it was entirely the right thing to do because many posts at Digg were encouraging the key to be posted on many random Wikipedia pages. I don't think that the fact that this was added to the spam filter should affect the decision whether to add this key now though. The important factors are the consensus of opinion versus the legal risk. And there is certainly a very sensible argument to act cautiously. Likewise, there's the counter argument that it has been on es wp for weeks (the Foundation were informed of this and chose not to act) with no consequence. I'm going to abstain myself because I've had enough of being embroiled in this. Will (aka Wimt) 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I posted on this topic before!

The unofficial position is that:

  • spamming of the Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named is not permitted.
  • Use of the Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named in an actual article about the key is currently up to the community to act as they see wisest.

Myself, I'm worried about a digg-like revolt if all use of the Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named is not permitted. Therefore, I suggest we just wait and see. If we get more instructions, we'll have all uses of the number in just a couple of places, and can easily comply.

I'm personally not sure if the DMCA was intended to be used this way, the chilling effect in this case is enormous.

--Kim Bruning 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything from Guy at RFAR, and Arbcom just rejected a case against TheBainer about protecting pages from having the AACS key inserted, etc. Circumventing the spam blacklist to insert an occasional editorially legitimate link is a well known past practice, maybe not as common now because of the new whitelist features. The links to Daniel Brandt's sites in his biography used to be inserted as text to get around the blacklist, iirc.

I think Kim Bruning's analysis above is correct. Consensus seems to have emerged on the AACS controversy page to include the key, and the key is in the article now. I'd prefer that the article be unprotected since I'd like to edit it. There's no point protecting it to stop the key from being inserted, since it's already there. It's also all over the internet like the Xenu story that Scientology tried to similarly suppress for a while, and the AACS lawyers (like Scientology) seem to have given up sending out notices. Since they haven't (and presumably won't) rescinded any notices, there will be a lingering cloud of FUD for a long time, but we should not let it paralyze our editing. We are not usurping the Foundation's authority by including the key--see the discussion in the rejected arb case. Obviously if the Foundation directs us to get rid of the key, we have to do so; but for now they seem to have deferred to the community and after much discussion it looks like we're publishing the key.

I don't know that the hex digits are really encyclopedic in the nontechnical article about the controversy, but I've requested (on the controversy discussion page) that a separate technical article be written at a level of detail similar to our article about SHA-1, that should (like the SHA-1 article) include all the relevant hex numbers needed to create a functioning implementation. The hex numbers would definitely be encyclopedic in an article like that. 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist entry was made during the spamming campaign, and rightly so. That's blown over now. If the Foundation wished to say "Absolutely under no circumstances is the full number to be placed on any page", I think they're probably capable of issuing such a statement. Instead, even when the Spanish Wikipedia included it, their response was a deafening "No comment". If in the future the Foundation takes an office action to remove the key, everyone will be expected to abide by that until they say otherwise. But a dev happening to hardcode something because it was the only way to stop the spam is hardly an office action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Locking my user page[edit]


Is it possible to have my user page fully protected from editing? I'm getting rather tired of the constant vandalism. Rhythmnation2004 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)