Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive455

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Tony1[edit]

Resolved: Comments restored and formatted, all involved advised to continue with a cool head, bringing issues to the attention of administrators. LaraLove|Talk 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) comments [1]? I feel that only an Admin can sort this out. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Tony1 of this discussion and advised him to keep it cool and bring such situations to administrators' attention rather than cause talk page disruption. LaraLove|Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The refactoring at issue: : first removal, restoration, second removal. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) shouldn't have just removed Tony's comments - twice. Gimmetrow 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've rasied this issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Tony1 (which is what I most likely should have done). But this latest comment from Tony1 worries me [2] when in no way have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You accused me of lacking "good faith" in total disregard to the outrageous behaviour of someone else, who has stripped away my contributions to the discourse twice: that's good faith is it. I repeat my accusation of POV on your part. Tony (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I never accused anyone of not assuming good faith nor have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't "just remove" his comments. This is an over-simplification of events. User:Tony1 refactored my comments[3] which I reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and advice I was previously given some time agao at WP:WQA. I explained the reason for reversion in the following post.[4] When another editor again refactored my edits with User:Tony1's comments I again reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and the WP:WQA advice, again explaining the reason why.[5]. Why should it be OK for him to refactor my comments, making the converastion unclear and not OK for me to return my comments to the way they should have been left? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It sure looks like you removed the comments. It's OK to object to interspersed comments. Although they are commonly used, Tony's indenting there is confusing and he might have noted the comment splitting. You think Tony is messing with your comments, and by removing them, Tony thinks you're messing with his comments, a vicious cycle. One way out of this cycle is to move the comments as a group to a location after yours. Another is to ask Tony to move them. Maybe do one of those next time. Gimmetrow 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I could have refactored his comments but that seems inappropriate and since he was the one who made the mistake it's really his responsibility to fix it. It's not as if I just deleted his comments forever. I did explain, civily, why his edits were reverted. It would have taken him a lot less time and been far more productive to re-add his comments properly than it has been to complain for the last two days, in which time he has been bullying, threatening, aggressive and not assuming good faith. If you were to make the same mistake I'd probably do exactly as you've suggested because you're being civil but Tony1's attitude has been such that there is no incentive to do the same for him. One only has to look at his response to Bidgee for simmply suggesting he assume good faith to see an example of that attitude. I have no doubt now, having watched his posts over the past few days, that had I done as you suggested he still would have complained so I feel comfortable in the course of action that I took. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, thank you for retrieving those links. I've left a message for AussieLegend notifying him/her of this discussion and also warning to refrain from reverting comments of others.

Tony, can you please provide some diffs of the POV pushing you refer to? LaraLove|Talk 14:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV is the comment directly below my entry in a new section, which s/he is now attempting to recast as "reminding both of you of assuming good faith". I don't see that, given the words, the location and the timing. This page is hardening my attitude towards these people. Tony (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see that. I'd like to recommend that you remain calm though, so this can be settled in a polite and positive fashion. Synergy 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, this is silly. AussieLegend deleted Tony's valid comments, which in my opinion is vandalism and not acceptable. Removing obvious personal attacks and archiving tendentious off-topic comments is fine, but simply removing valid comments because they're interspersed with earlier comments is aggressive overreaction. From other talk pages, I've noticed that the best way is to refactor such comments by repeating the original post italicised, while adding the new comments. I've done that, hope that suits all concerned and normal hostilities discussion can be resumed in a more amicable way. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Which didn't give him the right to be uncivil, and assume bad faith to me. I never pushed a POV nor have I refactored. I feel that Tony1 owes me an apology for the unfounded accusations (Also see the edit summary)[6][7]. Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What Tony1 did is a breach of etiquette listed at Wikipedia:Etiquette and, from my (albeit limited) experience at WP:WQA, what I did isn't considered vandalism. I find your accusation that returning my comments to the way they should be in order to avoid confusion is vandalism to be offensive. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Judging from AussieLegend's comments above, and here, he is quite agreeable to Tony's edits being restored, provided they are separated out from his original comments, rather than interrupting them. And judging from this comment of Tony's, he would also find a restoration of this form acceptable, but he is unwilling to perform that restoration himself. Perhap's I'm being overoptimistic, but it seems to me that if some other editor were to restore Tony's edits in the form that both editors apparently would find acceptable, that might go at least some way towards resolving the dispute. I am willing to volunteer my services to do this, provided there are no objections from any of the parties concerned.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave's already done it and I'm quite OK with the changes. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
David, I agree that such would be helpful.
I've got discussions going on with the involved parties on their respective talk pages. It seems to me that everyone involved has made at least one error in judgment here. It's a heated discussion with some failures of AGF throughout, a bit of confusion and some misunderstanding. No formal warnings have been issued, just some casual reminders, as we all have misunderstands and lose our cool sometimes. I think everyone here was acting on some level of good intention, so I recommend that everyone take a break from this, perhaps for the rest of the weekend, cool off and regain poise. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in the following week. LaraLove|Talk 16:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that your conclusions and what you've suggested is quite reasonable. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
See WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable – "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" and WP:TALK#Others' comments "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." You will note that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" do not include "he messed up the formatting of my comment", on the contrary they specifically include "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution..." However, that advises using a template, and it would have been better had Tony done that, or repeat your original post italicised. Glad you find the latter acceptable, and agree that there's been a breakdown of good faith here. Don't see any reason that can't be resolved with the acceptance that there was error on the part of both parties. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

168.208.215.220 mostly vandalizes[edit]

Resolved: Last edit from IP was on July 14. Added shared IP notice. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know if I'm barking up the right tree here... but I was correcting some vandalism to a page today by this IP address, and I noticed it had gone uncorrected for nearly two weeks. So I started looking in the IP's history and noticed there is a pattern of vandalism. Occasionally they do a valid edit, but about 3/4 of them are vandalism, mostly of the "Darren is awesome!!!!" type.

So I don't know if you guys ban editing from IP addresses or not (this one seems to be the gateway for an entire company as far as I can tell), but here's a heads-up.

Here are the bad edits from the past three months:

On the other hand, here are the seemingly non-malicious edits from the IP from the past three months:

--Plumpy (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's kindof the wrong tree. We only block IPs when they are actively vandalizing. But if this IP is actively vandalizing after a final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. –xeno (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Since their last edit was July 14, I'm tagging this resolved, feel free to drop by my talk page in the future if you have questions about stuff like this. By the way, you were right, it is a shared company IP. Thank you for your diligence and future efforts in cleaning up vandalism. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with rollbacks and restorations from user Inclusionist[edit]

Resolved: Discussion continues elsewhere regarding possible mergers. –xeno (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. They seem to have made quite a few pointy edits that undoubtably would be seen not only as controversial but disruptive. They have made systematic changes to templates, userboxes, project pages and finally merged all three in some fashion. If someone could help us get much of it restored and rolled back would be appreciated; also page move protects may be in order. Unsure if semi-protect would help since they seem to be an established editor. Banjeboi 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and has no place on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I agree with Protonk.
User:Benjiboi please WP:AGF to say that I don't approve of the work of these fine organizations is absurd. I find this sentence particularly offensive because it is so untrue: Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. Look at my username and my user page. How are these pointy edits? What point am I trying to make, please WP:AGF.
User:Benjiboi, I am deeply troubled that you did not discuss your concerns on the talk page or with me personally before you posted here.
I explained in detail my changes in detail on the talk page. I want these pages to flourish, that is why I took the best parts of all of the pages and combined them into one. Inclusionist (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that AN/I might not be the best venue. It should be easy enough for non-admins involved in those projects to restore them to whatever they were before the bold moves. What puzzles me, is why, before taking six hours to do this huge merger, didn't you ask people if they thought it was a good idea? Seems like a huge waste of effort should you encounter resistance (as you have). –xeno (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Inclusionist has greatly disrupted and made massive changes against three wikiprojects for which there was likely little or no support. I'm quite active at ARS and was stunned to see our project essentially hijacked in this merging/ deleting/changing spree. If this isn't an incident I guess I'm unclear what would be. Banjeboi 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. As creator of WP:WICU, I've had to restore the talk page and undo other very unwelcome edits by this user. I believe he should be blocked, at least temporarily. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
How is deleting and redirecting our projects member list[8] a content dispute? Banjeboi 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Blocking wouldn't really be in line with the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. His changes, while apparently unwanted, were done in good faith. If there's any deleted stuff that needs admin restoring, let me know. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't actually delete any significant content, like self proclaimed deletionist User:Realkyhick.
Benjiboi, are you going to apologize for saying this:"Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion?" Obviously I have the best interest of inclusionists and this project in mind, do you?
Again, User:Benjiboi, I am deeply troubled that you did not discuss your concerns on the talk page or with me personally before you posted here. Is this tactic the way you usually reach consensus? Does it work?
BTW, the first person to dispute these changes was blocked indefinetely as a sock. Inclusionist (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Who brought the issue up first has no bearing on the propriety of the issue. Furthermore, stop attacking editors in a sinister fashion a la "I didn't actually delete any significant content, like self proclaimed deletionist User:Realkyhick". Your feelings about another editor's wikistance do not pertain to the matter at hand. Don't inflame this issue more than it already is. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

outdent. Hmm, you're "deeply troubled" that I "did not discuss your concerns" yet you felt no issue with merging three projects - likely to be met with exactly this reaction - with no discussion at all. Thanks to your efforts the ARS talk page, which was pretty functional no has discussions from all three projects. This seems to fly in the face of BRD as well, which I'm unclear if that applies to projects as well as articles. In any case there certainly wasn't any discussion and I know the ARS page is quite active so even the smallest note about "Gee, should we simply merge these three project" would have certainly got a response. Sorry I see this as awfully disruptive and pointy. Banjeboi 20:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If Inclusionist had the "best interests" of these projects truly at heart, he would have discussed his proposed actions for a substantial period of time before he took them, so as to gather a consensus among those involved. Instead, he posted reasons why WP:WICU should be merged into the other projects, then — only a very brief time later — redirected the talk page to that of WP:ARS without warning. When I posted a {{uw-v4im}} on his talk page, he posted one on mine with my forged sig. It is obvious that he is trying to hijack WICU and ARS for his own purposes and otherwise acting in bad faith. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone is here with WP:Inclusionists but they've seemingly wiped out that project altogether. Banjeboi 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Click on their link or see this. Banjeboi 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I really would like an admin to rollback or undue the mess that is now the ARS talkpage. It was pretty clean[9] before this disruption. Banjeboi 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, The only uninvolved editor, User:Xenocidic, thought this was the wrong place for this dispute, so did Protonk, why not try and talk about your concerns on the talk page. I would have happily reverted the changes myself if you weren't so agressive and went right to ANI.
Benjiboi, you fired the first volley, by posting this ANI. With no previous discussion and no comments.
I didn't go to ANI and argue that these changes should be made. I posted my changes on the talk page, and was very careful not to delete any content. As I meticulously explained on the talk page, I merged the four articles together, bringing the best of all three articles together.
I vowed to correct all mistakes on the talk page. I want to work together with all incusionists to help save articles. This ANI and the piety template wars, etc just waste everyones time. No one is discussing the content changes, instead they are posturing, throwing template warnings, selectively enforcing wikipolicy, etc.
Why have three articles whose purpose is the same duplicated on wikipedia?
Benjiboi, You called my changes vandalism, which is a personal attack on me, and violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Should I quote Wikipedia:Vandalism? In this ANI, you stated things which are completely false on there face, and patently absurd:"Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion"
Again, Benjiboi, do you usually reach consensus by going first to ANI?
Protonk said himself: "I don't think that he approached the merger with the intent to do mischief. ", and yes Protonk, it matters if Benjiboi first sentence in this ANI section is patently false. this entire ANI's tone is set up with a lie.
Lets be realistic, I have been around wikipedia long enough (3 years) to know how it works:
  1. There is going to be no apologies from Benjiboi for his false statment, and
  2. Realkyhick and Protonk will continue to defend that false statment,
  3. Just like there is going to be no warnings on Realkyhick page for adding the same template I cut and copied on his page and then got warned about by Protonk.
  4. In addition, Protonk will continue to defend the indefinitely banned sock, who started the whole argument and set the tone.
LOL Inclusionist (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've undone, as best as I could, the talk page. It seems that this merger is opposed by all the related projects, except WP:Inclusionists, and there wasn't a post on that project's talk page since 2007. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Trusting you guys are now in the (hopefully civil and productive) discussion phase of BRD, can I tag this resolved? –xeno (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    Most likely. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually Inclusionist is still reverting; could you also look at their changing our project page here I don't want to violate 3RR and these changes aren't particularly welcome either. And to Inclusionist, I came here because your work pretty much rendered the ARS Talkpage a messy chaos of several projects' discussion. It had been quite clean and functional up until today. When I looked at the other projects' pages ... they all redirected to ARS. I do appreciate bold but the changes you made, the merges, the redirects all need a bit more diplomacy. If I haven't used enough of that myself I apologize - even if I feel this has been disruptive you may have some valid points about these projects working together more. Banjeboi 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        Yes, I noticed that, but before I got around to talking with him about it, he reverted himself. So... if you guys need anything further, let me know. =) –xeno (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson[edit]

Resolved: The removal of contents from one's own talk page is supported by written policy, using rollback to do it has been supported by consensus for some time now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is the place to discuss this matter; if not, my apologies. I have concerns about the behaviour of the user S. Dean Jameson (talk · contribs), with whom I was recently in a dispute over the article Ashanti (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). S. Dean Jameson removed my comments on his talk page regarding the issue using the rollback feature [10] [11], in violation of the instructions at Wikipedia:Rollback feature to only use rollback in response to nonproductive edits. When I voiced my concerns about his behaviour, he again removed my comments from his talk page, writing "if you took this to ANI, you'd get laughed off the board". [12] I don't think this is conduct becoming of a user who has been entrusted with the rollback feature. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. His removal of your comment can be taken as an assumption that he has read it. –xeno (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My concern regards his misuse of the rollback feature, not the removal of my comments from his talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the restrictions on use of the rollback feature are intended to prevent people from edit-warring with it. However, since S. Dean Jameson is fully within his rights to remove your comments (and in fact you were acting inappropriately when you restored the comments) there is no potential for abuse. I see no problems with using the rollback feature this way. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Rollback feature states: "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism." An editor who removes legitimate comments on their talk page by using rollback is essentially indicating that they feel those comments are as nonproductive as vandalism. I don't feel that this is acceptable.
I should also note that I did not restore the original comments that S. Dean Jameson had removed; I responded to comments he left on my talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. While it may not be exactly polite, I don't think it's an abuse of the rollback feature. –xeno (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, such a ludicrously strict interpretation of the rules is seen as Wikilawyering. We know what the rule says, but it would be a travesty to censure a good faith user on such an absurd technicality. He did not in any way violate the spirit of the rule on what the rollback feature can be used for. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I thought the "spirit" of the rule was to prevent legitimate edits by good faith editors being marked in edit histories and on Special:Recentchanges as nonproductive. Why should user talk pages be exempt from this? 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally vouch for S. Dean and feel any use by him of the rollback feature is in good faith. Beam 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. While I don't suggest editors do either, removing comments from one's own talk page (and using rollback to do it) are both ok. The former is supported by written policy, the latter is supported only by current consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So if he had used the "undo" function and spent an extra second and a half, this thread wouldn't exist? Sigh. Rollback causes so many discussions, issues, investigations... for nothing. Tan ǀ 39 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Tan, which is to say, I think rollback should only be used to revert vandalism (which is what the policy says), but the consensus for use on a rollbacker's own talk page is otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I know. I wasn't commenting to you; I was making a general observation that rollback is treated like it's a big deal, when it's really not. Tan ǀ 39 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I knew you weren't commenting back to me and I think we agree again: If rollback was indeed only used to revert vandalism (as the policy says) it would be much less of a big deal, since any admin can take it away from an editor (I should add that I'm not talking about User:S. Dean Jameson, who acted within policy and consensus in good faith). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I should clarify that the main reason I believe that this was a misuse of the rollback feature is because, in the context of edit histories and Special:Recentchanges, rollback has the effect of indicating to other editors that one or more "blatantly nonproductive" edits have been undone. I don't understand why the use of rollback on user talk pages should be treated differently when it has the same effect. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism but there is an unwritten consensus about a rollbacker's talk page, which you didn't know about and couldn't read in the policy because it's not there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand now. If this consensus was an established part of the relevant project pages rather than in its current unwritten (and essentially invisible) form, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem—there would be less editors assuming that all user talk page comments removed via rollback are nonproductive, and less editors feeling affronted by their user talk page comments being rolled back. As it stands, I think there definitely needs to be a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature about this. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Only as background, this consensus stems from long before rollback was being given to non-admins, when some trusted admins got into the habit of using rollback on their own talk pages. It's never been recommended or encouraged, though. Hence, after rollback was given to some non-admins, every now and then someone would ask, "Hey! How come rollbacker (or admin) X can rollback non-vandal comments on their talk page!" It would get talked about here and at AN and thus came the consensus as unwritten policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Per your suggestion, I've made a slight addition to the misuse section. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as desired. –xeno (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I feel like I should comment here. I had told the IP user that I didn't want him posting on my talkpage, he posted there anyway, and I rolled it back. Since it appears that many people consider this impolite, I will not do so in the future. I'll simply use the undo feature, and be done with it, as I try my best to work within the framework of collaboration and politesse, even when I don't particularly enjoy working with a particular individual. Sometimes I fall short of that, and this may have been one of those cases. While I don't feel I misused the rollbacker tool (and this has been supported by those above), I apologize for any frustration or anger this caused to the IP when I rolled back his comments on my talkpage. S. Dean Jameson 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've updated WP:Rollback to reflect the consensus above, in the hopes that it will forestall future such issues. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    The reason I put it in the "When not to use" because while it's not presently prohibited, it's still in the realm of "probably shouldn't use it" (WP:CIVIL concerns). –xeno (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio at Thiagarajar College of Engineering[edit]

Resolved: removed copyrighted text, warned user, and semi-protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Content of website of this college gets copypasted by dynamic IPs into this article time and time again. Please compare this [13] and this [14] etc. Whole text of this article violates copyrights of www.tce.edu I think Semiprotection would help fot a while. M0RD00R (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive block?[edit]

Resolved: Endorsed block - premature thread.

User:Jkliajmi was blocked indefinitely yesterday, after editing a series of articles about EU agencies (see Special:Contributions/Jkliajmi). The reason invoked for the block was "blatant vandalism". Well, is this really blatant vandalism? Jkliajmi is claiming to have acted in good faith... I must admit that blocking him indefinitely seems rather excessive to me. WP:BITE here? --Edcolins (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that posting this here what WP:BITEs rather than taking it up with the administrator directly firsthand. JBsupreme (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Ed, this is a little premature. There's an as-yet unanswered {{unblock}} template on the user's page, and no one has asked the blocking admin, User:Sandstein, about it (and he hasn't been notified of this thread). IMHO, best to nip this thread in the bud, and deal with this the way we normally deal with unblock requests. I'll go take a look, if someone else hasn't already. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. May be a little premature to post here, sorry... But if somebody could review the matter (one unblock request has already been declined), so that we do not loose a potentially knowledgable new user (User:Jkliajmi), I'd be happy.. --Edcolins (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the situation, made a comment on the user's talk page, and left a note for Sandstein. I have some questions for the user I'd like answered before I unblock. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Blocking admin here. I strongly oppose an unblock. Edcolins, I think you have been trolled by Jkliajmi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The user has in very rapid sequence changed the official abbreviations (if any) for a dozen or more EU institutions to Newspeak-style monikers that he seems to have outright made up. Then he provided bogus references for these changes. For instance, he added the supposed short name "Euro lang" to the lead sentence of Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, and provided "http://www.ogmios.org/234.htm" as a reference. That website indeed makes reference to something called "Eurolang", but (as is obvious from context) that refers to something else, the "Eurolang" news agency (http://www.eurolang.net). All other "Euro-" contributions follow a similar pattern.
This is systematic, large-scale, but non-obvious and therefore particularly harmful vandalism. I am having difficulty to believe that someone is that incompetent that he would make good faith mistakes at this rate and to this extent. The concerns voiced by Ed Johnston on the user's talk page of this being either a "Carol Spears" situation and/or a return of a banned editor are also worthy of consideration.  Sandstein  18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of a previous block history, I guess a topic ban wouldn't be a sufficient alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It would, if we had any indication that the user is inclined or capable of observing it, or indeed of contributing positively in any way. Based on his other contributions so far (which mostly seem to involve pushing some sort of POV with respect to Taiwan and/or geopolitical classifications), I doubt it. Topic bans can be useful for editors that are capable of contributing positively except where their particular ethno-nationalist (or other) blind spot is concerned. I don't think this user fits the bill. But if an admin urgently wants to topic-ban, unblock and babysit him, I'll not stand in the way.  Sandstein  18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've already commented on the user's Talk page, and support continuing the indef block. The blocking admin's suggestion that this is subtle but clever vandalism is quite believable. It is hard to intuit any good-faith motivation for such a massive burst of illogical changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I looked at the second unblock request and it has put me off - it's hard to see any good coming out of unblocking him for any alternative remedy. Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism[edit]

Resolved: See below.

According to a friend of mine from college who works on the Report, Steven Colbert has discovered that any article he mentions on Wikipedia is immediately locked. Consequently, they are going to do a bit on Monday where he reads a list of articles to see how many viewers can get to them before they are locked. Appearently the joke is to say that each thing is not really that thing, but really something else. For example, aardvark is not really an animal, its a hard coating on the outside of a tree. They continue revising the script right up until they tape the show so the list may change by Monday evening, but as of now it is as follows:

Just thought you guys should have a heads up. -Anon colbert watcher (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Funny guy. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the list--we don't protect articles preemptively, but we'll keep an eye on the Report. --jonny-mt 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
We have protected articles pre-emptively for Colbert in the past. I fielded a specific request from Jimbo prior to one of his appearances to lock a few. [15] for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ya get the feeling Colbert is not taking wikipedia seriously? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Phil, while I think your preemptive protection back then was right, I also have to agree with Jonny now. While this anon's warning is good to have, any action before "air" (that is to say, taping) could be used against us. It's kind of a live grenade, in fact. Anything we do or do not do proactively, as well as anything vandals might do proactively, could rebound. I think letting it go and keeping our eyes open is not only the safest, but least show-worthy thing we could do. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What is the wikipedia policy, if any, regarding action to take, if any, when there is knowledge of impending vandalism? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:IAR? I suggest someone watch the show and report back here. John Reaves 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
maybe we should bite back. whatever words Colbert ends up using on his show, let's work them into his article - for instance, if he mentions 'aardvark', I think we should edit in some scandalous information about his pet aardvark Humphrey. that'll teach him to mess with wikipedia... ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
lol I completey agre. The only way to fight and exortation of violence is to vgiorously violate WP:BLP as oftne as we can :D
w/re: Bugs's quesiton, if there is soid proof of impending vadliams, (as opposed to a threat by a user or forum), i think that an admin might watch out for that article. we dont want to wind up locking down a whole article just because omeone MIGHT mention it and oter people MIGHT come and vandalism it; we want to respond to actual evidnece of malfeasance force. Smith Jones (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Fuck that guy is funny. I suggest we let the articles go haywire for a couple days till they get bored, then we revert back to the good version and carry on. Lets not feed the really funny trolls. And to the fella who suggested Colbert was not taking Wikipedia seriously, I suggest that he only mocks serious subjects. Chillum 04:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there are enough administrators who are also Colbert fans that they will react accordingly when they have to. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And subjects that take themselves seriously while having major failings that he can use to show hypocrisy. Like Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the show is taped ahead of time, I doubt there's much to worry about. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to float an idea that popped into mind: why not use this opportunity to give reversion flagging a trial run? All we need is the devs to turn it on temporarily (it's already installed and in use on the German Wikipedia), and then an admin to go flag the current versions as stable, and set stable versions to display for those articles. Then people can vandalize to their hearts' content, and it won't show up to the general public. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a nice idea. Enable it as a trial run for a couple of days, then turn it off again. It would be a nice test in any case, but timing it to coincide with a predictable vandalism burst would be icing on the cake. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A couple of days? The Harding thing went on for like 2 weeks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Turning on a major mediawiki extension because a new user's friend might work for Colbert and they might do a bit about Wikipedia on Monday is over doing it. A trial run of flagrev may be warranted but not because there might be vandalism in the future, that's already a given. —[DeadEyeArrowTalkContribs] 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protecting these at around 11pm on Monday, and leaving the protection for 24 hours would not be unreasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that the vandal-patrol is up to the task regardless of how much he dishes out. If we semi-protect preemptively, Colbert wins. What we should do is keep an eye on the articles, and only semi-protect if it gets bad, just like any other page. J.delanoygabsadds 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Because then he'll say, "Look, we got them to react just on rumors!" Leave the pages alone until or if something actually happens. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Colbert is not our enemy. He is not encouraged by how successful vandalism is. He's encouraged by whether people laugh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And if any Colbert-driven vandalisms are dispassionately reverted just like they were any other vandalism, then there's a good chance the humor factor goes away... and so does Colbert. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Why... would... we... want that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. We love Colbert. We welcome his vandalisms. It will help reinforce the wikipedia motto, "any moron can edit". He could be our poster child for that motto. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I do love Colbert. He's funny. The vast majority of his viewers get the joke, and recognize that nothing he says "in character" is seriously intended. I have no doubt that he does not support vandalizing Wikipedia. My understanding is that he loves us and thinks we're a great resource. And he draws lots of attention to us. That he does it on his own terms - as a comedian who plays a specific role - is not a problem, nor is it his fault that a tiny minority of his viewers are either oblivious to the joke or complete assholes who want to cause trouble. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points. In any case, he'll be watched. Bring 'im on! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the only page I see in that list that would be a huge problem is John McCain, and that has been semi-ed since March. J.delanoygabsadds 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't underestimate how far-reaching our article on Hoisin sauce is. —[DeadEyeArrowTalkContribs] 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um has no one thought to question whether the anonymous friend of a supposed Colbert employee is really a reliable source here? This could just be a joke to make us protect a bunch of pages out of paranoia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or to see how much time and effort will be put into discussing the matter. Perhaps Wikipedia's shameful inability to get anything done without pages of discussion and disagreement, frequently resulting in no consensus to do anything, has become public knowledge. Either way, I'm saddened that I no longer have Comedy Central. It's been over a year since I've seen an episode of The Colbert Report... and I used to watch every episode. :( That said, I'd just protect the BLPs that aren't already protected. The rest should follow the protection policy. LaraLove|Talk 14:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You are on the internet Lara, I am sure there is some way to watch the episodes hehe. Chillum 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
They have 'em all online now. :) krimpet 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
O!! My life is now complete. The void in my heart has been filled, and the hunger of my starving soul for humor that only Stephen Colbert can satisfy has been relieved! You never fail me Krimpet. *snuggles* XD LaraLove|Talk 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
He should have done it before the creation of Huggle. If this is true, I don't see it being a big deal. --CWY2190(talkcontributions) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be better for him to guide his viewers to this thread instead. That is to show how wiki admins get their [WP:TEA] while taking a break. It would be an opportunity for admins and viewers to share some of it here together. Colbert's viewers can have some temporary fun (for a couple of minutes - hours would still be ok) "messing up" with any article they'd choose. One condition... viewers have to undo all their fun edits once the party is over; and this is to let our respected readers have some fun as well. Wikipedia invites. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a regular Report watcher, so I think I'll watchlist a couple of those pages on the list just in case Stephen pulls something. We have no undeniable evidence though, so we probably shouldn't prot them until it gets really bad. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious if this is considered resolved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. I think we've decided there's no need to pp it at this point, so it's taken care of. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Dollar Food Vandal[edit]

The Bottom Dollar Food article has been the traget of a persistant ip vandal. Now that the page has been semi protected the vandal has moved onto vandalizing the user and talk pages of any editor who has previously undone the vandalism. This is teh list of ip's that have made the same edits to the article or have vandalized other editors pages after reverting vandalism by them:

Most of the ip's have been blocked for the moment but the user is persistant in returning and carrying on his attacks on other editors who have undone his work. Assistance with this is appreciated as I am tired of reverting mine and others talk and user pages constantly. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend they be semi-protected, the vandal will soon lose interest. --neon white talk 17:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Neon white, the page you are looking for is WP:RPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive image tagging[edit]

This post is in reference to recent mass tagging of images for deletion by User:OsamaK. I've tried to talk it over with him here but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).

The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, this one. The subject died 201 years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about this one? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. Biruitorul Talk 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... It has been discussed so many times before. See HERE, for instance. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely disruptive, these images are clearly PD, regardless of their lack of sourcing. Someone with automation tools needs to undo these tags, which should never have been placed. Losing all these images will be detrimental to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
How to discus while you undoing my edits?--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, I have to undo all of your undoing. Stop now!--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The first couple I checked, I don't think it's disruptive, I think it's a fair cop. No matter the age of an image, it still needs a proper source, and those items didn't have one. No image comes from thin air. Maybe threatening to delete in 7 days is a bit much, but the rules are what they are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, George Dawe will rise from the dead to sue Jimbo and Wikipedia over Image:Aleksey Arakcheyev.jpg. You are free to believe this, but please don't flood my talk page with this useless clutter and loud deletion threats. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not likely, but you still need to provide a source. I've been told this many times about images regardless of their age. Maybe it came from a website, maybe from a book; but wherever, it did not come from thin air, it had to come from someplace. You need to provide a source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't need a source in that sense. You do need enough information (author or publication) to verify public domain status, though, and being really old isn't enough. If someone was born in 1840, took a photo in the U.S. at the age of 10, never published it, and died at the age of 100, we have an 1850 photo that's copyrighted until 2010. --NE2 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, but really, how likely is that? At some point (pre-1900?) we ought to err on the side of assuming PD. Requesting source information is fine, but threatening to delete within a week when they've sat there for 4-5 years with no problems is rather counterproductive. Biruitorul Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, I stopped arguing with these guys after they deleted the equivalent of Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 058.jpg because "the uploader needs to prove that it is a rembrandt" and not the work of a modern forger. I suddenly realized that browsing the web archives for a website where I had found the image years ago was not worth the effort: they will still find something to torment me with, say, that the attribution of Rembrandt paintings is highly uncertain, or that a reproduction may not reflect the original color scheme quite faithfully, or something else. In short, I can't prove that it is a rembrandt to someone who is determined to expose what a cheat I am. Let them have their way. I still firmly believe that the activity aimed at sourcing=deleting obvious (and in many cases hard-to-find) PD-art stuff is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
extreme view. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a copyright extremist. I (and many others) just read Wikipedia image policies and try to apply it. Simply, because it is our interest. Well, if Mr. Biruitorul ,or anyone else, think that image source policy has to change, I'll discus, and I may agree for better image hosting, but it is not my job! I think currently policy is fair enough. It is ugly to say: "a troll", "extreme view" or "Definitely disruptive". It is not my mistake when I try to apply Wikipedia policy.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I never accused you of trolling. Biruitorul Talk 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, you did not.--OsamaK 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that documentations tell us to note you by default. It is easier to skip you and others, and tag image page only. Once, I had a problem in Wikimedia Commons, I filled some inactive user talk pages with these notes, which makes my browsing so slower. I taught about skipping all user talk pages. After few days, an user undid all of my edits and my hard work lost! For that reason, I note all users. Read this documentation for more.--OsamaK 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If an image is so old it's OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY in the public domain (say, photos of people that weren't alive at any time when a copyright would still be valid), no source for the image is needed. It's trivial. Doesn't matter where it come from, no matter how or when it's public domain. Tagging countless images we have a perfect right to use to be deleted based upon stubborn kneejerk adherence to a policy just adds countless hours of work for people to go through and try to fix them all for no good reason, assuming they get caught before deletion. Blind adherence to a pointless policy when someone knows that it's considered bad behavior is not even an attempt at good faith anymore, it's just being stubborn. If OsamaK wants to help Wikipedia he'll voluntarily stop doing these things. If not I think he should be temporarily blocked so he gets the idea that what he's doing is wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

you cannot say that yourself. you cannot even block me for a minute or less. you cannot reexplain the clear policy to be compatible with your view. People in everywhere delete unsourced images since image policy created; here, in Arabic Wikipedia, and in Wikimedia Commons (at least). Please be civil.--OsamaK 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from seperate section below[edit]

Ed Fitzgerald doesn't stop removing my image tags without discussion or even change the default edit summary. I asked him three times (one, two, three) to stop doing that, and he didn't respond and still redoing. last moment he undid Image:AR Sevier Ambrose.jpg and Image:Apelles.jpg. I want someone note him to stop doing that for last time until the end of discussion above.--OsamaK 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookin' at his contribs, that looks unhealthily like stalking. It's only in the last 50 or so edits, so it's not a major problem right now, but I'll go have a word with him. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this section up into the main thread from a seperate section below. The problem is that this editor is tagging obviously PD images because they are in technical violation of a absolutist reading of policy, and if they are not untagged, they will be deleted, at a detriment to the project. The editor has had this explained to him, and continues in his actions, so no edit summary is necessary on each seperate revert which, because I do not have automation, I am doing by hand. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a copy-paste edit summary, then; it'd be rather easy to hit tab after editing then paste it in. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, will do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is just one side. I'm talk about losing my time without discussion! We have a week to get a solution.--OsamaK 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to wait a whole week if a solution is presented before then. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There's been discussion -- just look above. Your actions may be in strict adherence to a dogmatic reading of policy, but they're not helpful to ther project. You really should stop and help to undo the tagging you've done so far. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But there is no one! He is removing my long time tagging, he is ignoring and breaking above discussion! He is explaining the policy as his personally view to it and trying to impose it on others? Note: I stop tagging ages ago!--OsamaK 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You say you stopped tagging ages ago but, actually, I see that you reverted Ed's removal of your tags about an hour ago: [16]. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean ages. Last new tag was this one, on 19:30, 21 July 200.--OsamaK 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh man. You're losing your time, I noted you many and many times, I stopped tagging last 36 hours at least: I'll undo all of your undoing.. If any admin wants to take an action, (s)he should review his edit first. This is a stupid game.--OsamaK 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a stupid and disruptive game and you're playing it. Consensus here is clearly against you, and yet you continue to waste the time of a number of editors by reverting. Since you seem to be unable or uninterested in discussing the issues (as opposed to complaining about other's actions), and you've now upped the ante by using Twinkle, the only solution may be for an admin to block you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 :). I asked you many and many times to stop it. I'm not here for playing. You will not put the ball in my court, I have more comments there than you, Can not I discus? So, in your view, you can undo all of my edits with invalid reason, but I cannot restore them. Are you kidding? --OsamaK 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In the beginning the images were as they were, then you came along and tagged them for deletion. People objected to that, began a discussion and removed your tags, returning the images to their original condition and that's how they should stay while the discussion continues. if the discussion goes against you, the images are in the condition they need to be in, if the discussion goes for you, you can revert the untagging which you have been doing anyway, so it's no additional work for you. This is the reasonable and proper procedure to follow. You seem to want to have the discussion continue while the timer ticks down on the images and they get deleted, meaning they would have to them go to deletion review, more work for everybody.

So, yes, the answer to your question is all of your tagging edits should indeed be undone, pending the outcome of the discussion -- which, incidentally, is clearly going against you -- after which they can be restored if that's the consensus. Please use your script and remove your tags, and avoid the necessity for others to do it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Comment by alnokta[edit]

Jello,

Can we please get over with this issue? I don't see any harmful behavior by Osama here. he is just following the current policy, whether you like it or not. you should be thanking him for applying the policy not blame him. any image needs a source, how hard is that? if you don't like the tagging, provide sources, search the web and provide sources. or the other way around, go change the image policy regarding sources for public domain images. stop the game of reverting please.--Alnokta (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

fair enough :)--OsamaK 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:IAR. Yes, sources for images are crucial. But when a picture is obviously PD, we do ourselves a disservice by deleting it and not simply requesting a source. There's no legal benefit to be derived (since no one is going to sue), and no ethical one either (since the copyright has almost certainly expired). Biruitorul Talk 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please read WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean?--OsamaK 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's an essay, not policy. And anyway, since strict interpretation of the source requirement is in this narrow instance (obviously PD images) a hindrance to improving/maintaining Wikipedia, we can safely ignore it. Biruitorul Talk 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. but the question is: Who governs successfully of politics? Anyways, I think we're in a loop!--OsamaK 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant edit warring[edit]

OsamaK has now reinserted a tag on Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg for the sixth time since July 17. Argue respectfulness towards WP:3RR all you want but this is blatant revert/edit warring. If it wasn't disruptive before, it most definitely is now. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so unfair. Let me be honest, before undoing the tag there, I reread WP:3RR to check if my restore is legal or not (Is 3rd or 4th illegal?). The policy says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts". For that reason, I restored it last time.--OsamaK 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since it's under discussion here, and it's obviously controversial, I'd strongly recommend not tagging at all until the issue is resolved. You're essentially telling everyone here trying to discuss the matter that it doesn't matter what they say, you'll continue to edit in a manner considered disruptive by some here. And that's a problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It is simple as 1-2-3. Stop undoing, Stop tagging; I stopped tagging since 19 July (Lazy to check), but Ed doesn't care about that. There is no stopping unilaterally, and if so, this is unfair.--OsamaK 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not unfair. If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I conceded that you did not breach 3RR but I do consider your reversions on the above mentioned image as constituting an edit war. 3RR does not need to be breached to constitute an edit war. And also, I think it's very condescending to other involved users to continually argue semantics about how you stopped tagging 3 days ago when you're still restoring the tags that were removed after you. There is no difference between adding a tag for the first time and hitting the "undo" button after someone removes your tag. You need to stop re-adding those tags until someone here starts agreeing with you. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, We're in loop. It is unfair, because I didn't start it. and what about Alnokta, who agrees with me? I believe that there is no AIR with copyrights issues, and then, no one should restore my edits before ending of discus because he is ignoring rules (Wow!), they even want to block me as a troll, becuase they ignore rules!--OsamaK 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We're only in a loop because you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your actions. Under your theory, your tags would remain in place while discussion takes place, until, finally, the clock ticks down and the images are deleted -- this is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the proper procedure, since your tagging is conroversial, is for the original status quo ante (meaning the images in untagged condition) to be preserved while the discussion proceeds. If the discussion goes in your favor, then you can reapply the tags, and the images will be deleted. In fact, though, with one exception, the discussion is going against both your actions and the necessity or advisability of your tags. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Breaking tagging every time, everywhere is a well known story. Dear Ed. If you really want to change, open an issue, write a 'bata' policy and it may applied.--OsamaK 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
With the Tschaikovsky picture, it's indeed possible that a 20-year-old photographer in the 1890s could have been alive late enough to renew the copyright. For the Sterret picture, though, it's not physically possible for a copyright to be in force. Hence, tagging it is disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that in his latest round of mass reversions (using Twinkle), the editor has accused those who are removing his unwarranted tags of breeching WP:POINT. Of course, no "point" is being made here. What is happening is that editors are attempting to prevent useful images from being lost to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't using Twinkle, it was using my own script. Anyways (let me skip POINT issue), Let us have a cup of tea in #wikipedia-en. Could you come there?--OsamaK 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC):
I don't do IRC. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps my view will be discounted because I take a relatively liberal position of the use of NFCC in interpreting the rules--while accepting them, of course--but it does seem to me that Osama is not in the right of it here, and is taking an over-literal view of things--as is easy to do when using any sort of automated tool. In any case, to insist on large scale tagging over multiple objections is disruptive, and should not be continued until there is some consensus that it is being done appropriately. DGG (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding your option. Wikimedia policies are illustrating each others. In Wikimedia Commons, we delete all unsourced image no care if it is (PD-old, PD-art, etc..); Everyone knows that. Are we taking an over-literal view of things? No for sure! Another point: Our policy says clearly about source for all images, and we must apply it to be compatible with Wikimedia Commons' one, do you believe that problem when bots uploaded many PDs from English Wikipedia without source? That's illegal in both policies.
Finally, I think we had a long discussion there about this issue, and we may have to deep think about wider discussion to review image policy, I think some people there cannot understand it well.--OsamaK 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I Think we've hit the crux of the problem here: you're applying Commons' methods to Wikipedia, which you should see by now is not going to work. If you want a wider discussion on that, go to Wikipedia talk:NFCC. In the meantime, please stop your tagging as it is disruptive on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. I just give an example for the answer of a question from DGG. Please, read my reply again. Another point, you have to understand that these images are NOT NFCC and we cannot discs them in your former link, note that not I who started the long discussion there. Last point, I have frieze my tagged since 19 July.--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that a strict and dogmatic reading of policy is overriding both rational decision making and what's best for the project. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to be a repository for policy, policy exists to make Wikipedia better, and if it's not doing that, then rational consideration of the situation needs to prevail. If an edit, of any kind, is not helping the project, then it's hurting the project. The project would be diminished by losing the use of those images, which are clearly public domain, and therefore enforcing the strict letter of the law is detrimental and should not be done. We are not here to enforce policy, we are here to make an encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Images lock like Public Domain, but for more trusting, more verifiability, and better academic usage policy requests sources, this is not a bad read of it! I want to note all people there, that Biruitorul has a very great contributions for fixing sources. Just take a look for these as examples: Image:Bellayguillaume.jpg and Image:AnthonyWayne.jpeg. We're all believe that sources is well needed, let's try to fix all of them rather than long boring discussion, that will improves trusting of our wiki (That anyone can edit!).--OsamaK 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like there's only one solution that will make OsamaK happy. Delete every PD image from Commons and Wikipedia, and let him relocate and find all of them, and replace them. He won't of course, leaving us with a dearth of objects, and the continued insistence that PD needs attribution. It doesn't, per the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision quoted ad nauseum in prior similar situations. This is simply a copyright activist gaming our rules to make a point. He should be charged with personally replacing every single image he tags and succeeds in deleting, and if he refuses, banned from the project to preclude further disruption. ThuranX (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not really :), And we should do the thing makes project better, not OsamaK happy! An image + clear source + correct licenses = Good information, Kept; That's making me happy, making the project better. I'm very clear from first, and you're trying to put the ball in my court, and showing me as a troll. You still revolve around a single wrong point, called "Ignore all rules, always".--OsamaK 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I havent' called you a troll at all, but that I managed to SHOW you as one makes me feel like an amazing success to hear you admit it without any prompting from me! However, this notion that every image is not really PD because of titanic counterfeiting conspiracies whose sole aim is to discredit Wikipedia is asinine. Unless you've got proof that most PD images are actually copyrighted counterfeis, I think you really should find other goals in life, maybe not on Wikipedia, because the amount of blatant and disgusting BAD faith you are heaping upon every uploader to the project is a serious issue, as is your constant disruptions to wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you talking like that? Stop your bad offend to me! I'm a volunteer here .. Come Together "v-o-l-u-n-t-e-e-r" easy, no? People who want to help wikipedia of real, don't attack such as yours! You're unable to rating my volunteering. It is enough to me to be civil (You're not) and away of personal attacks (You're not too). Timeout. I (And others) lose my (And their) time here. Sorry to say that, they do not you have plans to rectify the situation on the ground.--OsamaK 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
WHy are you talking like that? Half in broken english, half in american slang like 'rectify the situation on the ground'? I am able to 'rating your volunteering'. It's lousy. You violate AGF all over with these taggings. As noted below, you tagged self-made images fully released per the GFDL just because you didn't find a three word phrase, even though the meaning of those three words was already in the text for that image. I think you lack a full command of the language, and that inability to read english fluently leads you to tag a lot of images that don't need tagging. ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OsamaK's bot-like or bot-using tagging or images is IMHO annoying. User:Tuxraider reloaded uploaded a pic. Although he had tagged it as created himself and released under the GFDL, Osama threatened to delete it and templated Tux's talk page because he hadn't needlessly also added a mere three words or something to effectively say what the tag already said- that he made it himself. As a new editor, such automatised behaviour would seem unfriendly, nit-picking and does not reflect well on Osama. If someone just left a brief message rather than a template, it would be much friendlier but of course that would take too much time which is being spent on such gripping activites of taking policy so literally and retentively. Sticky Parkin 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
{{GFDL}} means nothing about the creator. You have to add the creator when you putting an image under GFDL terms.--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just really starting to get ticked off by his incessant claims of I stopped tagging on July 19 (or variations on that statement) when he is still very cleary tagging PD images for deletion. Why do you bother saying you stopped tagging? This last image was tagged today. It's really frustrating trying to have some sort of a constructive discussion with you when you're talking to everyone in here like they're complete idiots. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I tag it as no-source?--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I also wonder why sometimes User:OsamaK's comments are idiomatic English (or very close to it), and other times they look very much like they were written in another language and passed through a mechanical translator. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I need a second cup of coffee this morning but I fail to see what your point is with this last statement. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's primarily an observation more than a point, but the wierdness of some of the language does make it difficult at times to figure out what is being said. And, I have to say, I do generally have a bit of a problem with people editing English Wikipedia without sufficient command of English to do so. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, and the editor does seem to focus primarily on image-work, but it's something of a sore point for me, so perhaps I'm more sensitive to it than others. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. I can't say you're wrong in your thinking but, If I may, I'd like to suggest to keep focus on the issue at hand (OsamaK's controversial image tagging) rather than letting the community lose sight by branching out into general complaints and grievances against OsamaK. In the end, we're discussing the editor's actions, not the editor, right? SWik78 (talkcontribs) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of topic.--OsamaK 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should stop and another one be started somewhere else (everybody knows where; policy talk page). Your stances vis-à-vis policy application are clearly polarized and obviously you cannot solve that here. My opinion is that all parties stop doing what they have been doing and discuss the issue in a constructive manner at the policy talk page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that before. Someones are still thinking that my edits are illegal in their own view.--OsamaK 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually your tagging is being described as disruptive, not "illegal" -- in fact, the point has been made repeatedly that the problem with your tagging is that it's been done with an extremely narrow and dogmatic view of policy without taking into account the specific circumstances of images that are patently public domain. Therefore while your tags are "legal" in the sense that you can quote chapter and verse from policy to support them, they are harmful to the project because they will result in the loss of useful and available images.

More to the point, multiple editors in this thread have objected to your actions, while you are pretty much alone in your defense of your actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good that you had said that but I don't think people describe your tagging as illegal. Anyway, please discuss it in a constructive manner there but the tagging/reverting cycle should stop and not just temporarily. After all, we are not in a rush to tag/untag all of the disputed images. Discussions come first and, of course, they have to stay on topic as per SWik78. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional images ready for tagging by User:OsamaK[edit]

I'd like to point out that the editor in question has about 400 other images lined up and ready to be tagged, and that keeping things in the status quo ante should apply to these images as well, not just the ones that have been under discussion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Ready for reviewing.--OsamaK 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you review the images you tag? Then why is it that I just fixed two images that you tagged in which the uploader had used the non-free FUR but neglected to add the non-free fair use license? To an editor like yourself doing bulk image work, it should have been obvious what the problem was, and fixing them would take just about as much time as tagging them and posting notices. So why didn't you? (I'm referring to this and this.) It's really very rude to tag an image that you can easily and in good conscience fix, and detrimental to the project as well, since you take the chance that the uploader won't see your notice in time and the image will be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Lest anyone think this is an ancillary issue, it's not. Both this case and the larger one of bulk tagging clearly PD images for deletion shows a lack of good editorial judgment and a preference for rote activities over rational evaluation of what's best for the encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Talking with you is useless. Did you have a quick checking of tagging page? Tell me if it is including ANY un-free images.--OsamaK 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
After seeing [17] and [18], I agree also that OsamaK should not be tagging images, as he is obviously getting the tags wrong. Those two images were very easy to save, and instead he got them tagged for deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is uploader job, all these images was uploaded on 24-hours or less. That's meaning: the uploader will definitely see the note. The images was without a copyright tag, and I added {{nld}}, tell me if I did a mistake should let me not be tagging images.--OsamaK 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that fixing images is any one person's job - after all, the encyclopedia is a collective project. Yes, there are situations where the uploader is the only person who can provide the information needed, but there are others -- and the two images I mentioned above are clearly cases of them -- where it is absolutely clear, without a doubt what the uploader intended, and in that circumstance any editor can make the correction, just as any editor can correct a typographical error or a broken link. You, as the person who noticed the problem, have an obligation to fix the problem if you are going to do anything at all about it, not just to tag it and foist the problem on somebody else. (If, indeed, they see the notice in time.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we just block him? He is fully aware that his actions are extremely disruptive, and frankly, violate WP:POINT and WP:COMMON because he knows full well that he could fix some of those, but won't, and as such, there's no good reason for him to be allowed to continue. ThuranX (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If he'll agree to stop tagging PD images, and instead work to help uploaders fix them, and fix obviously repairable image problems himself, then there's no real need for a block, I would say. If he won't agree to that, then I don't see any other solution, really. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't agreed in four days, why would he start now? BLOCK. ThuranX (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Another piece of rudeness: this edit summary, in Arabic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just shut up, talking with you over for ever. You're not exist. As long as you're not civil.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Block for this is obvious. He's continuing to tag, continuing to edit in opposition to consensus and wide community disapproval. ThuranX (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Osama, you said you've already stopped it and agreed to go discuss it at the policy talk page. There's clear consensus here that you stop tagging and discuss. It doesn't seem that you are stopping as I understand from links Enric provided. You are also dismissing calls for fixing some instead of tagging them. This is not how stuff should be done. Discussion is above any questionable action. So you better stop and take this issue to the policy talk page for serious discussions. Failing to do that would lead to a block.
Ed, the Arabic edit summary translates to "time is gold" and yes that is a bit uncalled for but you would better have avoided focusing on the issue of English. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK Mr. FayssalF. You may could be our Jack ;). Just a minor note: I have not started this issue here. So, I'll not moved it.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I ran it through Google Translator and got the meaning -- but I disagree somewhat that it's not relevant. Sure, there's a policy issue, and that can be discussed at the proper place, but there's also an issue of an editor's behavior, and it seems to be that it's all of a piece: tagging an image instead of doing an easy fix, tagging PD images about which there's little or no copyright concern (whatever their source) and posting an edit summary in a language which the majority of editors cannot read. Taken together, they indicate a lack of judgment about what the right thing to do is, and a certain rudeness that is either deliberate or the result of lack of understanding or cultural differences. Either way, they don't indicate that this editor should be doing that kind of work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a friendly warning for OsamaK. I will leave a stronger warning if he carries on with tagging PD images. As for language, it can indeed be a worry. In my work I often see businesses lose time and make wrong decisions because of small interpretation and translation mistakes made by highly educated people. Good faith users should never be put down (or put out) over how they write English on talk pages but there is nothing untowards about noting that an editor's use of English may be slowing down or thwarting communication. I should also say that OsamaK's take on image policy may not only be swayed by linguistics, but by cultural background. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I hope to skip the level of stronger warning. Thanks for you advice.--OsamaK 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear: Does that mean you agree not to restore any of the removed tags, or tag any other PD images while this discussion is ongoing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So long as OsamaK is only tagging images that in fact have no source, then his actions are correct and he shouldn't have to stop. If he's making errors, though, that's another matter. Kelly hi! 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree, and your opinion is clearly not the consensus of the participants in this discussion. Dogmatic insistence on following policy to the letter is not the best course of action in this situation, but whether or not it is or not, he should hold off on any further tagging of this type while the discussion is ongoing, since reverting the tags put the images at risk. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ed, the best way to prevent these images from being "at risk" is simply to provide the required sourcing information. It doesn't matter what "consensus" is among the handful of participants here. For one thing, local consensus does not override the larger consensus of site policy. If you want to change the policy, make a proposal at the policy pages. For another, consensus cannot override legal issues such as copyright. See WP:CON#Exceptions for what I'm talking about. Kelly hi! 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, except some of those images have been up for years, and some of the uploaders are no longer active, or are semi-active. So, we'll just snap our fingers and like magic the sourcing information will be provided? No, a good proportion of those images once tagged are doing to be deleted, and you know it.

As for changing policy -- this is not essentially a policy issues, it's a question of how policy is enforced. Is it enforced like an automaton without any consideration of circumstance or effect, or is it enforced rationally with what's best of the project in mind? Clearly, both you and OsamaK are in the former camp. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that something can be in good faith and arguably correct under policy and still be disruptive. Correct or not, these edits are clearly controversial. And you shouldn't do something that is controversial on a mass-automated edit level, even if you think that you are correct under the policy because it is disruptive. Now is the time for discussion, and I think it is imprudent to encourage OsamaK to continue as he has without addressing concerns. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's sensible. With something like image sourcing, though, I believe it's more than "arguably correct", the policies are basically there in black and white that the images must be sourced. Not a lot of room for interpretation, though I'm open to any dissenting views. Kelly hi! 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
How can you possibly be "open" to dissent, when you're flat out saying that there's nothing to discuss and nothing to be done? Please, your pose is killing me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ed, please don't put words in my mouth. Kelly hi! 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, please don't deny the essence of what you've said below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)Alright, let's stop. I think we can both agree this is getting us nowhere. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Kelly[edit]

If I could, I'd like to make a couple of points:

  1. Regarding tagging images for deletion that are easily fixed - yes, absolutely this should be done whenever possible. I wish we could tag images without sources in a way that did not place them in the deletion queue. There used to be a tag for this (it was called "PD-no-source" or something like that), but the template was deleted after a community discussion because Wikipedia policy is that images must have a source or face deletion.
  2. It's an unfortunate fact of wiki-life that many (most?) image uploaders will not address questions of copyright/sourcing until and unless the image is facing deletion. Not a condemnation, it's just that are probably more interesting things they would like to do than jump through the legal/policy hoops.
  3. Osama is correct that images need a source, regardless of how "obvious" it may seem that they are public domain. There are several reasons for this...the primary one is not that we going to get sued for using an old photograph. First, just because something is old or was obviously made before 1923 does not automatically mean that it is public domain. The key fact is that copyright is established when a work is published, not when it was made. I have run across photos from the American Civil War that were still under copyright, because they were put away in a family album somewhere after being taken, only to be published by the heirs decades later. It's even more problematic with paintings. First, you don't know a painting is old just because the subject of the painting is long dead. People are still making paintings of Jesus Christ and Elvis Presley, even though they've been dead a long time. If someone made a painting in 1803 and put it a private home, and in 2008 the great-great-great-grandaughter of the painter displayed to the public (i.e. "published" it) for the first time, the painting would be copyrighted.
  4. Why is this important? Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for free information and media that anyone can modify and use for any purpose. If someone complains to Wikipedia that we are violating their copyright, it is very easy for us to instantly remove the offending work. However, if someone trusts our statements about copyright, and re-uses our content in a published book, it's not very easy for them to rectify the problem after the book has been published, and they would likely face a financial liability because of our error. This would damage our credibility as a free media resource.

Just a few thoughts I had. But please, could everyone calm down and assume some good faith? I think we can all agree that OsamaK is not trying to destroy the encyclopedia by deleting good content. And we can also all agree that people who upload images they sincerely believe are public domain, but lack all the sourcing details, are not criminally-minded copyright violators intent on stealing copyrighted work. I'm not sure why the rhetoric gets so heated over images, but I'm sure a path can be found that satisfies both policy and the community's etiquetee norms. Kelly hi! 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though a "pending source" disclaimer tag for these unsourced PD images could be helpful. As I said on OsamaK's talk page and as Kelly said above, these images should have source information since PD is indeed swayed by date of first publication, not creation. It is also true that most of these images are clearly in the public domain and it would be disruptive to embark on a mass deletion until a consensus is reached over how this will be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a thing: fair view, Kelly.--OsamaK 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, it's not that images should have a source specified - they must have a source specified. This ultimately traces back to WP:C and WP:V, two of the five pillars, and is outlined more specifically in WP:IUP (in boldface right at the beginning) and WP:CITE#IMAGE. The policy that OsamaK has been following is WP:CSD criteria I4, which says that images with unknown source will be deleted after seven days, regardless of when uploaded. This is why the old disclaimer tag was deleted before. Perhaps OsamaK could go about this more diplomatically, but his actions are solidly based in longstanding policy. It's wrong to condemn him - we wouldn't sanction someone who spent their time tagging articles on bands for speedy deletion under CSD A7.
For those that are calling for OsamaK to be blocked, we don't block good-faith contributors who are following policy without even the benefit of a Request for Comment - I urge anyone who has a grievance to follow dispute resolution. (This would be appropriate if, as stated, OsamaK is tagging images erroneously - not just for correctly tagging images with no source.) Also, I think it's unjust to warn image taggers for what they're doing, when we're not similarly warning people who don't include required information on their image uploads, or who refuse to go back and fix this information when asked to do so. In those cases, the taggers are following policy, the uploaders are not. Kelly hi! 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I was aware of the word choice between should and must. I never said OsamaK was "tagging the images erroneously." This is an implementation worry and weak implementations against consensus can be disruptive, hence the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand, Gwen, thank you. But a few people upset about a policy does not a consensus make. My sole point is that OsamaK shouldn't be warned if his actions are within policy, which I believe they may be. Kelly hi! 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The pith is, following policy to the letter, whilst skirting common sense, can be highly disruptive. Most of these images are not copyright violations, yet they should indeed be sourced. Mass deletion would clearly be disruptive unless an overwhelming consensus for this action shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, you are clearly not an "uninvolved editor" except in the most restricted sense that you haven't participated in this particular discussion until this point. What you have, in fact, managed to do, is to take a situation that seemed to be moving not to a resolution, but to a place where some profitable discussion could take place, and thrown a whole lot of fuel on the fire, and then fanned the flames.

Your actions are regrettable, since they obscure what is the main point here: images which are valuable to the project, and almost entirely certainly in the public domain, were in danger of being lost because an editor chose to follow by rote the dictates of policy as if it was handed down on tablets of stone, instead of using his own rational facilities to evaluate the circumstances and adjust his behavior accordingly. You may think that robotic following of policy without the slightest consideration is laudable, but I don't, and I'm