Misplaced Pages

How close to copyvio?

How close to the original does a text have to be in order to be copyvio? Stir of Echoes has a synopsis that is almost word for word the same as the IMDb synopsis, but a couple of words in each sentence seems to have been changed ('over' changed to 'because of' etc). Does this make it OK? Anchoress 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I removed it. —Centrx→talk • 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

user:tevus, Don King and BLP concerns

I stumbled across the Don King article a couple of days ago. It was, quite frankly, a BLP nightmare with many negative unsourced statements. Not having time to go through the article myself and come up with sources for everything, I reduced the article to a single sentence so that properly sourced information could be re-added to the article. Tevus reverted my edit, restoring all of the negative material. I cautioned him on his user talk page that such action was unacceptable, but he is of the opinion that page blanking of any kind is vandalism and should be reverted on sight. He has stated that he would be willing to listen to an admin's opinion on the matter, so it would probably be a good idea for someone to comment on his talk page before he happens to restore such material in the future and inadvertantly violate BLP policy. Thanks, Mexcellent 09:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the unsourced negativity has been removed, and I would suggest restubbing this further until reliable citations can be provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tevus has stated that he considers that to be vandalism and that he will revert it, so you might want to leave him a note on his talk page about it. He has stated that he will listen to an admin. Thanks, Mexcellent 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The index.php spam bot Part 2

Another index.php spambot has been creating pages (however, some won't show up in the contributions, as they were all deleted by
FreplySpang (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). The offending IP address is 85.234.150.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

The IP's blocked for 1 month, but it looks like we need to be more vigilant for pages created by IP addresses with /search/ in them. If an admin could salt them that would be appreciated. --SunStar Net 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much point in salting these pages, as they seem to be random talk pages. It is probably a good idea to watch out for funny items in the talk namespaces at Special:Newpages, though. Kusma (討論) 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma. I don't see any reason (yet, anyway) to expect this spambot to come back to the same pages. Digging through my deletion log, it looks like the only spam pages from that particular IP were User talk:FreplySpang/index.php and User talk:JoanneB/index.php. Oh look, no, on November 19 he also added User talk:GraemeL/search/ and User talk:SunStar Net/w/User talk:SunStar Net/search/. Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked him that time, but his deletion log doesn't show any other pages that this IP creat....wait a minute. Since when can anonymous IP users create new pages?

Edits that this IP has made to its user page show that it is a backslashing proxy. I'll mention it at WP:OP. FreplySpang 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous can create pages in the talk namespace (including User and Misplaced Pages). They can't just create articles. -- ReyBrujo 14:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Learn something new every day. Also, it appears that User:Drubbles and User:66.226.79.49 are related - they all focused on the same small group of spamlinks. FreplySpang 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube Links discussion (N^2)

A handful of editors and myself have been removing links from Misplaced Pages to the YouTube website. I think we’ve hit about 2000 or so articles so far.

A user has raised concern that the project doesn’t have enough "admin" oversight. (see my linklist talk page) The user in question is concerned with our methods. Basically what I’m doing (and I can’t speak for the other users) is running AWB with a find/replace function. For each link that comes up I look at the context of the link. If suspect its copyvio (music videos are the most often) I remove the link. If the context implies some reliability (Band’s profiles mostly) I leave the link. After that I keep an eye on my contributions list. If (Top) drops off the list I go see why. If I was reverted I look deeper into the situation, review the movie and make a comment on the talk page. Fortunately, (outside of the previously mentioned editor) happened only a half-dozen times that I’m aware of.

_{(I’ve been dancing around mentioning the user’s name, and I’m not really sure why. The user is Cindery.)}

I have encouraged Cindery to open a RFC (with a promises also to sign it), but Cindery politely refused... So I’m bringing the discussion here. I’d like to verify that I’m acting with the support of the community I had previously assumed I had. (I based that assumption on a post on WP:RS, a post here on WP:AN and several conversations on #wikipedia) ---J.S (t|c) 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. No issues. Carry on. JoshuaZ 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree (but I'm not an admin so who cares). There is too much to be reviewed to make it possible to do this without deleting the odd valid link here and there. As long as we are not saying that every link should go forever and are carefully considering them if restored this should be OK. Spartaz 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since one of the members of the "YouTube project" is Dmcdevit, an arbitrator, I'd say you're covered. Thatcher131 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"But I'm not an admin so who cares" - Actually, admins don't get extra consideration over us commoners. :P

I intentionally didn't want to mention Dmcdevit... didn't want to bias anyone's evaluation. (Let me coin a new phrase... "respect bias" :)) ---J.S (t|c) 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They do not make barnstars big and shiny enough to reward such heroic work. Carry on and may the face of Jimbo ever shine upon your edits. 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

I disagree ... they make barnstars the size of, well, barns. But I agree that the work is important and should continue. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think how the project is being conducted is a clear violation of copyright policy, which states "it is not the job of rank and file Wikipedians to police copyright violations," and that suspected cr vios should be mentioned on talkpages of articles, or reported to copyright problems. The possible YT exceptions, and the steps that need to be taken to affirm that content is licensed under GDFL, are not being explained; a source bias is merely being propagated--the links are being mass-deleted on the assumption that they are not GDFL, not proof that they aren't. I am especially concerned regarding the accusation of OR levelled at the user who verified a GDFL license. Please see discussion at NOR. I think there is a need for adjustment of this project--until last week, they were conducting the purge more slowly--by placing a template first in iffy cases. A new template should be used, which is less biased against YT, and which refers editors to policy pages and boards (where updating is needed re valid uses of YT at NOR, RS and V). Respect for talkpage discussions should also be in effect, when the cases are not clear cr vios, such as recent pop songs. Cindery 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the points. This has nothing to do with GFDL. We have a specific policy on external links, see here Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Also, the policy states "It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page." It says at least. It doesn't say you are forbidden from removing it yourself without discussion on your talk page. My understanding of the "police" thing is that it means we don't continually monitor articles very carefully to ensure there are no copyrights. This is important because if we do, we would be more responsible for copyright violations. However it is still important that we make resonable efforts to prevent copyright violations and when users identify problems, they are still expected to do something about them. As with all things, it's up to the contributors. Continually removing content without explaination or discussion is usually disruptive, especially if there is no legitimate reason to remove the content. But in this case, it appears the people involved in this project are making a resonable effort to ensure they only remove external links which violate copyright and they have amply explained. Note that wikipedia is by it's nature source biased. We only want high quality, reliable sources. We don't link to jewwatch, except when specifically discussing them for example. In this case, there is nothing specificly wrong with youtube, but a lot of it's content is circumspect. If you can show us a resonable number of examples where the links that were removed are not copyright violations, then perhaps we need to look in to this further but currently, your only concerns appear to be due to a misunderstanding of policy. Nil Einne 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the technicality they're using is a recent change to the EL guideline--they're not deleting under C (or looking at the links very carefully). Their edit summaries say, "EL--sites that don't provide licensing information." Instead of inquiring re the GDFL license, they are deleting on the assumtption that the Wiki publisher and the YT publisher are not the same, and that therefore the GDFL license is reasonably doubtful (and giving no info to editors about what to do about that, i.e., how to affirm GDFL license.) The problem with that is GDFL is not reasonably suspect--self-publishers publish on YT under public domain/want their work freely disseminated. So no, they are not making a reasonable effort to to ensure that they only remove links which violate copyright--they are mass deleting on the assumption that they're erring on the side of removing some legit links to get rid of a larger number of illegit links. That would still be fine, if they were deleting under C--but deleting under EL doesn't give anyone with an objection info about how to use YT for the benefit of Misplaced Pages--EL currently gives the erroneous information that YT is prohibited, period, in contradiction to C and V. The same people who changed EL two weeks ago are conducting the purge. (Dmcdevit and Barberio had a disagreement because Dmcdevit changed the EL guideline while it was protected, and wouldn't revert his edit and discuss--D claims he had consensus on the basis of three editors. Three editors against one doesn't seem to me to be adequate discussion or consensus to railroad a guideline change through for the purpose of immediately enforcing it as policy in mass deletions...) As long as they continue to do it/as long as the EL policy contradicts C and V, I will probably continue to monitor what they are doing--the egregious examples so far I would say are Barrington Hall, Brent Corrigan, and the International Fair Trade Association. In my opinion, Guy Goma was handled very badly, with no assumption of good faith and some newcomer biting. Unfortunately, I think the spirit of the project is unnecessarily hostile, and that as a "raising awareness" about copyvios initiative it's misguided--telling people en masse that YT is prohibited under EL is confusing and erroneous. Copyvios are prohibited under C. Cindery 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And regarding policy for doing something about copyvios, I think it is very clear that because some cases will be false alarms, and "if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL," deleting without discussion merely on "licensing information" is not appropriate. If there's some evidence--such as an url--that a YT link is a copyvio, the YT link could be pre-emptively deleted as a copyvio. (I think for recent songs/music vids, not even an url is needed.) But licensing "suspicion" is not reasonable doubt for pre-emptive deletion without discussion, and the procedures outlined in C aren't being followed. Perhaps there is a need for an accelerated removal process for music/vids songs?--that should be established at C. Making up a quickie technicality at EL and treating all the YT links as if they were music vids isn't just a hassle for the editors at pages with legit links, and a problem because the confusion might result in the loss of some good legit links, but because it doesn't do anything to enlighten anybody about how to use YT usefully, it just misinforms them that YT is prohibited on a licensing technicality, when it's not.

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Misplaced Pages. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page. Cindery 01:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian inappropriate edit war and revert on Israeli Apartheid

According to Misplaced Pages: "One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary." Why is Crzrussian, an administrator, abusing admn powers without presenting any discussion? Can someone please review? thanks.Kiyosaki 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the best cource of action is to politely notify the user of his/her error on his/her talk page. ---J.S (t|c) 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did do that.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate version: why is Kiyosaki, clearly well aware of policy, engaging in POV-pushing? . Note that Crzrussian is not the only person to revert these tendentious edits. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please review the edits/discusson in more detail, you will find that is not accurate. This was a revert of new contributions to the article that can be directly sourced, and as the lead stands its highly POV and needs some balancing with more facts about allegations, not endless Criticism. Please see the Discussion revolving around Heribert Adam, that is what Crzrussian rolled back without even reviewing. You have the entirely wrong issue under consideration regarding the Admn. revert. Please review again.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, given that you've been reverted on this article by 10 different editors in the past week alone, and during that period been blocked 3 times for 3RR there, perhaps you should examine the possibility that the problem lies with you. Since you appear to have a great deal of difficulty editing within policy, I would recommend proposing all changes on the Talk: page there first. Jayjg 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are quite controversial yourself, I'e been told. Please address the issue regarding the inappropriate use of admn. rollback without discussion, not personal attacks. You have an odd habit of not addressing issues put to you. Please address the Crzrussian edit war rollback.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of that text is to say, "if you're reverting, let the person know why." It's to avoid simply reverting the page without giving a reason. However, Kiyosaki, Crzrussian probably assumed (and he would be correct) that you knew the reason he was reverting you, because it had been spelt out before. -Patstuart 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is not what happened. He didn't let anyone know why. This was a brand new edit that he reverted without looking at it. He didn't tell anyone why and rollback to edit war, not handle spam. Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth I did I quick can of Crzrussian's last 100 edits and only saw 3 vandal reverts. 2 were legit and one was of himself. I don't think it's fair to categorize this as "ongoing abuse" ---J.S (t|c) 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Who called it ongoing? I didn't. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki has been editing disruptively at Allegations of Israeli apartheid since he arrived on October 22 as User:Kyosaki, and one of his first edits was to warn someone about 3RR, so he seems not to be a new user. What's wrong with his edits has been explained many times, so using rollback is appropriate. SlimVirgin 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is disruptive! I guess it depends on who is calling the other names and making personal attacks. SlimVirgin, kindly stop making personal attacks. You accused me also of violating WP:NOR and I read through that, and now ask you to prove your accusation. Come already, you have harassed me from Day 1 and my talk page proves it. SlimVirgin, doesn't support WP:RS on that article unless it's Criticism.Kiyosaki 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Nobody has focused on the rollback edit, and it's easy to see why. It was not correct and it violated WP:RS. Study it anyone, I ask and plead for someone else to do so. Thanks. Let's focus on editing, not personal attacks.Kiyosaki 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And how many "new users" can look at an edit summary and figure out that it was made using the admin rollback tool.? Kla'quot 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Search "revert" and you get to: Help:Reverting right away, Help:Reverting. Itsays "Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor, with an automatic edit summary of "Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y," which marks the edit as "minor."" From what I read Crzrussian's revert violates almost every "Don't" and it wasn't "Minor" Please someone who is not a part of the war, kindly look at this. Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue is basicicly closed. This isn't the place to complain about users anyway. ---J.S (t|c) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

Is that fair use image appropriate not only for that article but also for the Main Page? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a free image could be found, it's a white house dinner, so some goverment images should have been taken. Jaranda 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a White House Correspondents dinner. I don't think it's at the White House, and regardless I don't think the White House will be releasing any images of Stephen Colbert. This is a still image of a television broadcast; the fair use for this is rather strong. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at the White House: "The dinner and awards ceremony in the Washington Hilton ballroom honored...". This is a press affair. The people taking pictures are doing so for commercial media companies. —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WHy the hell do we still have that crap article? Undue weight. And Colbertcruft, which has caused problems enough in the past. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Users blocked

All users in Dublin, Ireland are now blocked. I tried to edit, but had to log in. Why? Greyduck2 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the message you get? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say this is my guess. CSCWEM really should not have blocked a /16 (65536 ip addresses, even if anon only) Prodego 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. Prodego 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This BT Internet range was temporarily blocked (with anon-only enabled) due to some severe vandalism issues, which have since been reported to the abuse department of the ISP. There are rare circumstances when such blocks are warranted and this was one of them. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Location of DCBOCES Proxy Servers and Related Schools

DCBOCES is a BOCES organization that provides resources useful to schools, such an internet access. DCBOCES (Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services) supports the following school districts:

• Arlington
• Beacon
• Dover
• Hyde Park
• Millbrook
• Pawling
• Pine Plains
• Poughkeepsie
• Red Hook
• Spackenkill
• Wappingers
• Webutuck

While each individual school has its own LAN network connecting computers therein, they have no proxy servers connecting the network with the internet. Nonetheless, each school is connected (by means of a WAN) to the DCBOCES servers in Poughkeepsie, where data is sent from the outside world to schools participating in BOCES. Basically, contacting the above school districts (since the students therein vandalize Misplaced Pages a lot) is pointless because several schools may be using one IP address in sequence, and exactly from which school the vandalism came is occasionally hard to track.

This is just so that this issue might be understood somewhat better. There's really nothing I can do about it, besides dissuade my fellow students from vandalizing. Nonetheless, if an admin wishes to contact DCBOCES about this issue (and encourage them not to block Misplaced Pages as a solution), that would be ideal, so that people would waste less time on Dutchess County vandalism, and concentrate on... other vandalism. (Although schools should be careful not to WP:BEANS their students.)

Pages relevant are User talk:207.241.244.1, User talk:207.241.242.1, User talk:207.241.243.20, and in general 207.241.240.0 - 207.241.255.255. See Arlington High School (LaGrange, New York) and Union Vale Middle School; the former has much vandalism. Thank you for reading, and I hope that you can take relevant action (if needed). Gracenotes § 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in WP:ABUSE. MER-C 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Countering vote spamming at CFD

I'm wondering what the best way of handling "vote spamming" at xFD. After proposing categories for deletion, I noticed that a user had contacted four other people with messages like this. Two of those contacted have "voted" as requested. Two others have not been on-line since the message has been left. My first impulse was to counter the arguments, which I did with one person who had already "voted" and another who had not. But this seems to make me just as guilty of spamming. I left a message with the spammer, and I also thought of removing the vote spams. I notice that Misplaced Pages:Vote stacking is inactive and did not become policy, so what is the policy? More important, what would be the best way to respond in a situation like this? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 04:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is Misplaced Pages:Spam. Vote stacking is a disruptive form of gaming the system, so if he does it again, block him. (Radiant) 09:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else get this troll email

LISTEN HERE I DON'T KNOW WHY I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED I HAVE NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS PEOPLE GO ON MY COMPUTER AND START SCREWING THINGS AROUND AND THEY WERE MESSING AROUND WITH YOUR PAGE I WORK WITH A VERY LARGE INTERNET COMPANY AND YOU HAVE THE FUCKING NERVE TO BLOCK ME LISTEN I WILL MAKE SURE NOTHING BAD HAPPENS TO YOUR WEBAPGE IF YOU UNBLOCK ME AND I WILL TAKE TIME OUT OF MY VERY FUCKING BUSY SCEDHULE TO HEPL TRACK DOWN ON VANDALISM I AM VERY PISSED OFF RIGHT NOW I WANT SOME FUCKING ANSWERS HERE OR I WILL RAISE HELL!!!

FROM A VERY PISSED OF MAN

Oswald King !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Total trolling, a vandalblocked account. Anyone get this email too... -- Tawker 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In light of this letter, I'd say he's completely penitent, and would be a valid contributer to Misplaced Pages. Granted, his only contributions were changes to articles to say "COCK-SUCKING MOTHER FUCKER", but, as he said, it was an unjust block (note subtle sarcasm). Seriously, if he's got an issue with the fact that his page was deleted, then he can grow up and take it up in a manner that doesn't involve threats. Patstuart

But if we don't unblock him something bad might happen to our webpage! --Ginkgo100 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking if he's unblocked he might set up us the bomb. (→Netscott) 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lulz, guys! Misplaced Pages is seriouzz buzeeness. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Guy (Help!) 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A new form of linkspam

User:80.227.102.46 is posting linkspam in edit summaries! Please roll back all contribs. I don't have a rollback button and I'm only now going to put the warning on his page, so I can't post at WP:AVI. Zora 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree they're at least intending to be disruptive. Though one has to wonder how effective they'll be. They're not actually hyperlinked, so I don't know if Google will pick them up. And I doubt many humans are going to cut-n-paste the URLs. --Interiot 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And peek in robots.txt, what do you see. User-agent: * Disallow: /w/ ... which in turn puts a little bit of a hamper on crawling that "History" thingy. This sounds like a really pointless form of linkspam. Ever wondered why you don't see bazillion different old revisions and diffs in Google results? It's not just because Google's clever crew drops that stuff manually. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably a malfunctioning bot. I have found similar ones, that insert as summary the same text they are adding. -- ReyBrujo 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cristina Odone

There has been an appeal here from Edward Lucas, Odone's husband for a neutral editor to review the article, I'm sure any input would be appreciated. Catchpole 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Snsudharsan (talk · contribs)

Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) has vandalized the page of Sudharsansn (talk · contribs), and by uploading his photo without Sudharsansn's consent, with the title of Ponnaya , which is an offensive term in Shinhala, meaning impotent. He/she is also trying to make confusion by creating a user page almost identical to the latter, who is contributing to Misplaced Pages constructively for quite a while. --16 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Was indef-blocked last night I believe. – Chacor 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, about 21 hours ago the user was blocked. Metros232 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The blocked user was determined to be a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k RaveenS 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also check

I strongly agree. I would also kindly request the admins to check is User:Kerr_Avon is also a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k because the profile has been active only since the initiation of the TfD w.r.to the Template deletion of the State Spondored terrorism article. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable fair use images

This one is starting to develop a serious backlog. It's slow work to clean out, so a few more eyes on this would be nice. Even if you are not comfortable dealing with the whole "promo photo of (semi)famous person" issue there are still a lot of "slam dunk" cases like photos of buildings, cars and "everyday items". Just remember to check the article to make sure the image is used in a "replacable" way (identify the subject rater than commentary on the work itself, subject is not itself copyrighted, subject still exist etc.), check for any reasonable objections on the talk page and finaly remove the image from the article (if you delete it). As I said quite a bit of work compared to no-source or orphanded fair use images and such, but if "everyone" processed at least a couple of images a day we should be eable to keep it under controll. --Sherool (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are going to be looking at very long backlogs on that one simply because of the amount of work involved per image although the number of images should reduce over time.Geni 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete all contributions?

An IP address has contacted me at my talk page and asked me to delete an entire contribution history. Do we do this? Durova 14:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Depends on what they are. Usually not. If there are libelous contributions those might get deleted/oversighted, otherwise I'd say not. Mackensen (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the contribution history, this appears to be a lot of work, with no real reason. Morwen - Talk 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Even if we would do this, we cannot know if the requester is the contributor of all these edits. An IP address can be used by multiple persons. --Ligulem 22:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion templates

Over at WP:RFI we've got an IP address whose sole participation at Misplaced Pages has been to add deletion templates to articles. As an IP this editor can't complete the process so there are 20 or so articles that have been tagged without explanation. Investigations have me busy - could someone lend a mop with the AFD side of this? Durova 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin out of control (edit stalking/unrealistic copyright requests)

Original complaint

I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than harrasement by another user. The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and User:Durin has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include:

• Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against Paramount Pictures because they resemble the Star Trek insignia of Lieutenant. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles .
• Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph . In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Misplaced Pages.
• Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involved with . (Also See:User:Durin/Husnock images).
• Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on Pharaoh and Cleopatra regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game . I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with it. This is, in my view, "following me around" to different articles: the very definition of Wiki-Stalking.
• Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page . I must add, unless someone is looking really closely, that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place?
• Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Misplaced Pages for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame . He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user" . I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -Husnock 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses

• • My only question is this: are you confident that your images are properly tagged and identified? Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not. Some of them are wrong. I am just feeling that my edits are being targeted by this user based on an original dispute about flags being displayed on User:Husnock/Travel. I at first listened to Durin and tried to find images I could display. When I began posting these, I think Durin had an idea that I "outwitted him" and began this campaign. -Husnock 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No. The seals and flags that you have been putting on your page would be absolutely fine if you had requested release under a free license from the various copyright holders of the images. I have on a large number of occasions pointed out to you that this needs to be done. I have pointed to the templates that you can use in requesting permissions. I have outlined the policy that supports this. Recently, I have asked you three times what permissions you asked for. You have refused to answer saying that since you are on deployment, you can not check. It's a simple question, and does not require checking. In general, did you ask for a free license release or did you ask for permission to use on Misplaced Pages? To date, there's no answer. From what evidence I have seen, it appears that what was asked for was permission to use on Misplaced Pages, which is not compatible with our policies. I've been trying hard to get confirmation from you about this, but I have not been able to get a response. I even offered a compromise position where we revert back to fair use, and you send the permission letters to m:OTRS when you had opportunity, so OTRS could evaluate and retag, allowing a third party to evaluate what permissions you received. I have been trying hard here to get these permissions clarified, but have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any response from you on this. --Durin 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • we need an efficient "image police". and Durin didn't 'completely freak out' here. But I tend to agree that this edit of his wasn't brilliant. All in all, not much to see here, recommend that Husnock tag his images watertightly from the beginning, and that Durin might give him a break over tiny Starwars rank insignia. Both users are admins, so neither needs to be afraid of "biting a newbie", and reasonable maturity, and properlly tagged image uploads, should be expected. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Two gold pips Husnock himself in an earlier edit acknowledged that the original came from Paramount. He created the tag {{PD-StarTrekRank}} (which has since been deleted as wholly improper) which contained the text "This image is that of a rank insignia used in Star Trek. Over the past 40 years, Paramount Pictures have released most such images to the public domain. Also, such rank designs normally consist of stripes, geometric circles, and other shapes which can be easily recreated and hence are ineligible for copyright." Can a circle be copyrighted? No. Can a rectangle be copyrighted? No. Use them together with particular colors in a design? Absolutely. The notion that simply because an image contains geometric shapes that it can not be copyrighted is utterly false. I don't really care if that counts as brilliant or not. It's blatantly obvious from Husnock's earlier own taggings that the image is originally Paramount's.
• As to the rest of this, I'm starting an RfC. This situation has gone on long enough, and despite my best efforts to work collaboratively with Husnock and keep things calm and cool, it's exploded. --Durin 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated four times now, I am at present in the Middle East and could lose access to Misplaced Pages tonight, tomorrow, or next month. I would not have time to follow an RfC or post to it or check it everyday. That is one of the points, you knew I was deployed and yet did this image targeting campaign and demanded answers if they were not posted within a day. Start it if you want, but I doubt I will be able to contribute. -Husnock 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab and add that stating in public that Husnock's identity was visible in an image was a mistake. Maybe innocent, maybe not, but a mistake nonetheless. yandman 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Husnock has uploaded an image before that contained his last name (in addition to the one already mentioned), this one in the title of the image. Since apparently me noting an image that has the name would be a problem, I am not going to note it here. But, it's out there. He has substantial personal information on his userpage that could readily lead to identifying him. I provided a copy of the image that did NOT have his last name so that he could better conceal his true identity. When I made mention of it, I did not state his last name. To date, Husnock has not used this image in lieu of the image that has his last name. If he was so concerned about the revelation of his last name, he would have deleted the original image and used the image that I provided him that did not have his last name on it. The claims that I am violating his privacy by revealing his last name are utterly false; he's the one doing so. I tried to HELP him not reveal it, but he's refused the help instead allowing the name to appear. --Durin 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Husnock on deployment: That a user is on deployment does not in any way mean that we should suspend operations here on Misplaced Pages. There are more than 50 problematic images uploaded and/or modified by Husnock. Are we to let these problems sit forever if he should vanish from the project for a year due to being on deployment? What if he vanishes and we don't know why? Do we let copyright violations sit forever? An argument before a judge where we said we did not correct the copyright problem because the user that generated the copyright problem was no longer with the project will not hold water. We fix problems as we find them, regardless of how active or inactive the user who created the problem is.
• Re: RfC I do NOT want to start an RfC. I really don't. But the reality is that this situation has been going on for months and months and months. I am not the only person who has approached Husnock regarding copyright issues. I have tried desperately to keep things amicable. Despite all my efforts, the situation has exploded. I don't know what else to do. These copyright problems exist. If I correct them, I'm stalking him. If I talk to him about them, I'm not assuming good faith. If I note that he is the source of the copyright problems, I'm conducting a personal attack on him. If I create a user subpage of mine to help me work through the images he has uploaded and/or modified, it's the "most insulting thing I've seen on Misplaced Pages from another established user". At most points (not all, but most) of this Husnock has been obstructionist and antagonistic. Now I'm being accused of revealing personal information....which he revealed himself. Not only that, but I tried to help him NOT reveal the information, but I'm still accused. If anyone has any suggestions on a route other than RfC, I'm all ears. --Durin 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stepping forward as a Global War on Terrorism veteran and an admin, I think the fair thing to do would be to open the WP:RFC with the disclaimer that this editor's Internet access may be interrupted due to the deployment. Let the RFC proceed at a more flexible pace than usual. Durova 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the expertise to review the images tag-by-tag but I would like to see this resolved if possible without an RfC, without undue distraction to an armed forces member on active duty, and without further dispute or dissension. Would it be possible for this to be addressed by temporarily removing any problematic images with the understanding that copies would be kept somewhere off-line and Husnock would be given an opportunity to re-post and retag them upon his return from duty? If this is agreeable then perhaps an image-savvy admin without prior involvement in this dispute could be responsible for determining which images need to be removed temporarily. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Durova 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this dispute

I've been chatting with some admins regarding a way to resolve this and we seem to agree that an RfC would be an unnecessarily long and drawn out process.

As such only solution I can see is as admins we get both of you to agree to leave each other alone (so Durin stops direct activity on any and all Husnock's images) and then we get an independant admin that knows image policy really well (Geni comes straight to my mind for example) to look over Husnock's existing image contribs as well as a review of the methodology he uses to tag future uploads - with an agreement that the decision made by this admin be fully binding by you both (so if the admin decides Durin is over-reacting and trolling Husnock's images he will drop the subject - or, on the flip side if he/she decides to speedy delete the lot per WP:CSD then Husnock will also drop the subject and live with the decision.)

I cant see a better way to resolve that will be agreeable to all parties personally... thoughts?  Glen  18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that it implies some sort of impropriety on Durin's part. His actions have been entirely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. Assigning someone else to this seems unneeded and likely to impair the proper enforcement of long standing copyright policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Creating a project page about me to expose any and all of my image edits to scrutiny, insisting that I post information on Misplaced Pages which I a) dont have time to research or b) isn't available to me since I now live in the Middle East, demanding e-mail addresses and phone numbers for every person I have ever talked or written to about photos, following my every edit and stating he will tag and delete images even if I'm not here to defend or update them, and last but not least openly accusing me of breaking copyright law, implying that I am knowingly posting false information on Misplaced Pages and perhaps even telling lies about my sources, and then bringing to the worlds attention that my last name is visable not once, but twice, on Misplaced Pages...these actions are not entiely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. -Husnock 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Your edits are already open to scrutiny via Special:Contributions/Husnock.
• 2) We expect people to provide contact information for images released under a free license from a copyright holder. You've been informed of this multiple times by people other than myself. Regardless of your current status, we need that information. If it can't be provided, you can always upload the images later when you do have it at the ready. Further, I asked you for one contact point; the copyright authority whom you contacted at City of Corpus Christi. You wouldn't provide it not because you don't have time to research but because you felt it violated privacy of a municipal copyright authority whose telephone and e-mail contact information is publicly available on a website I previously referenced.
• 3) I have followed your image edits, in complete compliance (not violation of) Misplaced Pages:Harassment where it says "(stalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In conducting reviews of your image edits to date, I have reviewed 146 images. 58 of them have or had problems of one sort or another, or approximately 40% of them. If this is not justification for reviewing all of your image edits, I do not know what would constitute such.
• 4) Not being here to defend an image is not an affirmative defense in court. If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation whether you are here to defend it or not. The work of Misplaced Pages must continue regardless of your availability. We can't suspend work here while you are on deployment.
• 5) I have never implied you have posted false information and have clarified that to you before. I have stated and continue to maintain that we do not know what permissions you asked for. You refuse to provide this information. I have never maintained that you did not contact the respective agencies, nor have I ever claimed or even inferred that you lied about your sources.
• 6) I provided you with an image that did not have your last name. If you were concerned about the privacy of your last name, you would delete your original (at least) and use the alternate image I provided to you. In effect, it's as if you spilled a drink on your shirt, I noted that you did, provided you a towel to clean it up, and you blame me for spilling the drink. You uploaded the original image that contained the name, not I. I observed to you that it contained your name, and thought you'd remove the image. Note that in bringing this to your attention I never mentioned your name, just that it was there. By deleting the image, you would have removed the name. Instead you chose and continue to choose to not delete the image and continue to host it on your user page. Additionally, another image still in use by you has your last name in the title of the image. These facts juxtaposed with your insistence that I violated your privacy can not be reconciled.
• I recommend you accept the proposal by User:Glen S and the proposed mediation by User:Zscout370. If you seek some sort of condemnation of my activities with respect to you, I respectfully submit (as per the top of this page) that you are in the wrong forum. Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment is the next step. --Durin 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Chairboy, thanks but no thanks :) The dispute with Husnock is sufficient that I do not feel further interactions with him by me on these issues is likely to be a pleasant experience for either of us. This is work that can be done by a third party, and done in such a way that causes less offense (I hope). --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, also Zscout370 comes to mind as a good choice as a third party also... :)  Glen  18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is all acceptable to me. I'll now continue my review of his images at User:Durin/Husnock_images but will not conduct any work as a result of those reviews. This will make the work that Zscout370 does, or whomever takes this on, considerably less. --Durin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll accept the task of mediator/third party. User:Zscout370 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Pointless addition from me: I've looked at Durin's edit pattern and, frankly, I can't see anything objectionable; quite the reverse - Durin has acted properly and conscientiously to protect the project. The edits can be defined as "stalking" or as "proper actions by an experienced and respected editor". Only the latter makes for the building of an encyclopedia and only the latter is correct. Just my tuppenceworth. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above the section semi-break which might possibly be helpful, I hope. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested a variation on this; that the images in question be retagged as fair use, and Husnock could present to m:OTRS with what permissions he asked for and received on each image and let OTRS retag the images away from fair use as appropriate by their reasoning and reading of the permissions received. I suggested this to Husnock yesterday. He's ignored the suggestion, and given that he has responded to this thread since your proposal was put forth and since Glen S's was put forth, it appears he is not accepting these proposals either. So what now? --Durin 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record that's exactly why I made the suggestion above - simply because without an independant 3rd party Husdock will never agree to Durin's suggestions as he believes there's malice invloved Glen 00:10, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions for Durin here. If in future you find an image with someone's name on it, and you are in a discussion like this with them, it might be best to approach the issue more elliptically. I was going to suggest you ask someone you trust to point it out to them instead, but that is fraught with ethical problems. The way you handled it, you might have thought you were doing a favour, but something like "are you aware that some of the images you have uploaded have your name visible on them?" and then waiting for a response, might have been received better than a "it's this image here, and I've done a new version for you". The 'waiting for a response' bit is crucial to avoid the scenario where the other person gets affronted and feels you've overstepped the mark. I personally don't think Durin did anything wrong here. Getting others involved earlier might have helped. Carcharoth 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the text transactions of how I notified him, please see User:Husnock/Durinharrass#Privacy_concerns. I did almost as you suggest above, with the exception that I did point out the image in the first message. I can see your point, but not telling him which image would send him on a needle in a haystack chase; he's worked on over 1500 images. We did try to get others involved on several occasions. First, it went to Image_talk:Corpus_Christi,_Texas_flag.svg on 14 November. Nobody responded there other than ourselves. From there, Husnock took it to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Outside_assistance on 16 November. One person responded there. Seeing such little traffic, I took it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive62#Input_on_copyright_issue_requested on 17 November, where two people responded. My opinion; most people do not like to deal with these copyright issues, so they get little attention. It wasn't until today, when it positively exploded, that it got attention. --Durin 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is getting attention now isn't it. Getting more people working in this area would be a good idea. Image copyright does seem to be one of those areas that really needs more people, but is chronically understaffed. My sympathies are with you in this dispute. I don't think the accusation of harassment is warranted. I do sympathise with Husnock as well, as he obviously does feel aggrieved, but it should be clear to him now that it is notjust you that has concerns about image tagging and copyright issues. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I was the third party mentioned by User:Husnock in the Talk:Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game)#Fair use images discussions that had developed about those images and additionally I have already offered to review any images. If User:Husnock User:Durin and User:Geni agree I'll act as an independant 3rd party to resolve these image issues. By this Durin and Geni list the images with the issues, I'll assess whats required to comply with the license and talk directly with Husnock. In the event of Husnock becoming unavailable the issues are still being addressed, where because of Husnocks unavailability the only option is to delete I'll organise it to be deleted and fix any affected articles including User pages. Gnangarra 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation by Zscout or even Geri would be fine. To clarify something, I'm actually not so upset about the images being wrongly tagged...some of them probably are. The whole point here is that this user seemed to target me and did a massive campaign to investigate every edit I have ever done. I will always feel this is becuase he wanted to "teach me a lesson" or had something against me stemming from the original dispute about flags on my user page. He then demanded immediate replies and posted tags stated that all these images would be deleted in seven days if enough info was not provided. I told him over and over again my time on this site is short and I would have to research this more deeply, needing much more than 7 days to fix these images. He dismissed this, saying I was using my deployment as an excuse. Its not an excuse, I am helping to fight a war in the Middle East, normally work 12-16 hour days, and only get on Misplaced Pages when I can. Then, when I arrive to enjoy the site, I find this user creating a policy page about me and demanding answers to questions posted the day before, before I had any time to review or research them. Then we get to this whole contact thing- I provided Durin with basic contact info. I told him I had written cities, had gotten some e-mails and letters. I told him I would have to check, again it would take time. I also talked to JAG officers and PAO officers with the Navy who assured me that the United States Navy had every right to copy and distribute city images of Japan and Korea which had been released by thier government to ours. This was all dismissed. Specific info was demanded and, when I couldn't provide it right away, I was being evasive or when I DID give the info, Durin would make a blanket statement that it was wrong or he would need names, phone numbers, and e-mails even for images uploaded years ago. Let us not forget, he hs not said a word about the image whre I flat out provided everything he asked for...the name, address, and how to contact the photographer (this was my ex-fiance). he uses the Corpus Christi case over and over, but that contact who gave me the city info is an elderly woman who works part time in the city office and got the info for me as a favor. No way was I going to hand over her name and number to Durin or post it on this site. So, in the end, others feel free to review my images. I will fix them when I can and provide info when its available, robably over a 6 or 7 month time frame. As for Durin, he can kindly leave me and my edits alone and his project page on me should be deleted. -Husnock 10:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts, but you are not being persecuted. Every image needs to follow the image policy, and when someone sees a substantial portion that do not, it is absolutely correct to proceed with further efforts to fix the problem. That has been explained to you, so please stop acting like you are being persecuted. I recommend stepping back from the emotions of this and just working to resolve the problem. - Taxman 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think anyone is targetting you. What I think may have happened is Durin noticed one or a few of your images were of concern. Given this, he or she probably decided to do a review of all your images. This is not about targeting you, it's about targeting a serious of images which the editor has belief to be may be of concern. Similarly, many RC and other vandalism patrollers will look through the contribs of someone who has vandalised or added other inappropriate info (NPOV, copyvios eyc) to see if this is the only instance and to correct any vandalism which has not been corrected and perhaps provide further warnings or even request a block if it's merited. Again, this is not about targeting anyone but about identifying a problem. Having identified possible problems, it is normal practice for an editor to take steps to correct them. There are several requirements for images and if any of yours didn't appear to meet them, Durin and other editors can and should make an effort to correct this problem. Generally speaking, the best way to do so is to approach the author first. I'm sure you would have preferred this rather then Durin just tagging them for deletion Nil Einne 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: as part of my mediator status, can I recreate some of the images that are in dispute? The problem I see with most of the flag related images that despite getting permission from the cities in question, the flags were drawn for the FOTW website by people who expressed their work not to be used commercially (which has been disallowed by Jimbo since May of 2005). Plus, some of the symbols drawn by Husnock are from other countries, such as Japan. We need to clarify that situation, so we could use some assistance with users from Japan. I am at college now, so I will not have time in the next few days to crack out images and upload (Durin and Husnock, email me). User:Zscout370 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Begging for help

On 22 November 2006, User:Taxman and User:Mindspillage left notes on User:Husnock's talk page indicating to him that he was in "inappropriate territory" . Prior to this, Husnock made a claim that he feared I am revealing personal information about him to outside parties (see User:Husnock/Durinharass#Original_actions item #9). Since these comments by Taxman and Mindspillage, Husnock has further expanded on this "fear" and continues to maintain that I not only am I doing this, but that his family is possibly in danger (, third paragraph and second to last paragraph).

This is a completely unfounded accusation. I have done no such thing nor would I ever do any such thing. Husnock himself contacted a number of different city agencies attempting to get permissions to use various different images. From his posting of the content of one of the response letters, it is a fact that in at least one of those contacts he used his USN rank and last name (see Image talk:Corpus Christi, Texas flag.svg, second section, quoted text). His release of his own name into the public therefore has factual basis.

Husnock has made no less than 10 distinct accusations against me, ranging from personal attacks, to slander, to stalking, to threatening his family. I have repeatedly asked Husnock to stop making accusations like this against me. Nevertheless it continues apace.

I have been told by a number of parties through various conversations that continued interaction with Husnock is not likely to bring any light, only heat. Agreed. I have been told by the same than an RfC is not likely to bring any light either. Additionally, I have been told by Husnock that he can not participate in an RfC.

I'm begging others to step in and please, please, please stop this ceaseless onslaught upon me. I am not recommending specific actions. Just that something needs to be done. --Durin 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, I really think there is no need to worry. As far as I can see, you have acted appropriately throughout. I can vouch for the fact that you were not "targetting" Husnock, since I know that you have, for months been removing non-free images from user space, not just Husnock's. (With a slightly red face, I have to admit that I was one of the careless people that you had to do it to!) Most of the people who do that (Jkelly is one example) provoke a lot of indignation from a very small number of users, regardless of how "right" or how civil they are. In every case where Husnock has made accusations about your behaviour on Misplaced Pages, your behaviour stands up to scrutiny, with one small exception (see next paragraph). In the case of your behaviour off Misplaced Pages, he has not, as far as I can see, actually made any accusation, just a hint that you might have released his name publicly. I can't imagine that anybody here will seriously think it's possible that you did, and he admits himself that it "probably isn't you", so what are you worrying about?

Where I think you may have been wrong, though certainly without malice, was in telling him publicly that his last name was visible on a certain photo. It would have been more prudent to have said that in a private e-mail. However, it is now a week since you told him that. He has admin powers, and could easily have deleted that photo. (You were kind enough to offer him a replacement where his name could not be seen.) Instead, he chose to leave the photo there, and to post on this noticeboard the diff where you tell him which photo it is. An admin who was really concerned about that potential risk to his privacy would have deleted the image immediately, and then complained about your post and about the possibility that people could have gone to the image in the few minutes or hours that elapsed between your drawing attention to it and his deletion. Since he has not deleted it, and has drawn extra attention to it as part of his list of accusations against you, it's hard to believe that he's all that concerned.

Another point is that when an admin such as Durin is conscientious enough to take on the extremely thankless task of enforcing copyright policy, it's absolutely normal that when a user resists him, reverts him, protests, etc., that the admin will then look into his other images to see if there are other problems. That is not harassment or stalking.

A final point is that the "ex-fiancee" argument and the "friend of my late grandfather" argument might increase sympathy, but cannot change policy. If an image source cannot be verified, the image should be deleted until such time as it can be verified, or until it can be replaced by a properly-sourced image. My understanding is that Jimbo is anxious that copyright policy be strictly enforced. Full sympathy to someone who doesn't want to pass on details of his ex-fiancee or his grandfather's friend, but are those images really essential to Misplaced Pages? Is it really essential that images without proper source should remain simply because we sympathize with the reasons for not providing the source?

I agree that something need to be done, as this is getting out of hand, and I urge others to give whatever help they can in this situation. AnnH ♫ 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I must clarify that I never said Durin had threatened my family or had revealed info to the outside world. Tha is simply untrue. I stated that I was afraid he had revealed info about me when he e-mailed Corpus Christi about thier image, but didnt know for sure. I then stated to him that I was getting scared of this whole situation becuase someone had emailed an nrelated contact, asking who I was using my last name, statng that I "worked for Misplaced Pages" and "wanted to find me". I NEVER said that was Durin and even clarified twice on his talk page that it probably wasnt him. Also, in resposne to concerns that he was getting fried up, I toned down the language of my sub-page User:Husnock/Durinconcerns removing references to harrasment and instead clarifying that it was a record of the dispute. I did all this to defuse the situation as I am leaving Wiki after the holidays and probably wont be here to continue this dipsute until next year. I am leaving this to ZScout and others. I am allowed to think what I think and I think I was targeted by this user for various reasons and that he was unreassonabe and unrealsitic in demanding such information ASAP even when told it would take weeks or months to verify in light of my situation. My supage speaks for itself, the record is there of what I believe he has done for the benefit of mediators and others. Durin is also concerned I am border-line making legal threats which simply isnt true either. I ahve never made a legal threat against Durin and it would silly to do so since I live overseas now and couldnt reasonably pursue it. I leave everyone with this scenario then and perhaps they can see my side of it:

"You are a United States servive member working overseas in the Middle east. You love Misplaced Pages and log on when you can and edit it. One day, someone questions where your article images are coming from. You try to answer them, but your answers aren't good enough. You give the best information you can, but there is always something that is either stated to be wrong or simply "can't be the case". You're then told a third of your images will be deleted in 7 days if proper information is not given. You tell people that you are overseas, you ask for more time. You are told no time can be given, a deployment is not "an excuse". You are then asked for very personal information like the phone numbers and addresses of those close to you or of people yo've known in the past. You then discover a page where every image you have ever uploaded is listed for "review", as if you've committed some kind of offense to Misplaced Pages that must now be looked at. And, lastly, you get an e-mail saying someone is out there, in the real world, asking questions about you and trying to find you because you've edited on Misplaced Pages."

Thats where I'm coming from, maybe now people see why this is disturbing. With that, I leave this to others. Happy Turkey Day and I'm off to do duties elsewhere. -Husnock 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

David Pipe and David Pipes

I've tried to delete/undelete/move the appropriate revisions into two articles. I can't find easily instructions for Administrators to separate two different articles being reverted back and forth into two different articles, although they're probably around somewhere. What I did was:

Delete David Pipe

Undelete the revisions which belong in David Pipes

Move David Pipe to David Pipes

delete the redirect

undelete the remaining revisions of David Pipe (leaving the redirect deleted)

(after a few random deletions and undeletions of the talk page, as there doesn't seem to be a way to copy the article in two places with the revision history intact, which is what I would have liked to do in the first place)

Moved Talk:David Pipe to Talk:David Pipes

Moved it back

Replaced the redirect at Talk:David Pipes with a copy of Talk:David Pipe

Added a revision history section to Talk:David Pipes with names and dates of editors to Talk:David Pipe

(and proposed David Pipes for deletion, restoring a previous {{prod}} which I deleted when I restored the David Pipe version. If I deleted it, I can restore it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you did good. However, I speedied David Pipes as A7, since even if it was all true it was an article explaining that a college student, despite his talent at football, does not play. Chick Bowen 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To protect or not to protect...

I recently unprotected DNA as it had been protected since 25 October due to heavy vandalism. It has received mostly IP vandalism since it was unprotected. I dislike having high profile pages like this permanently semiprotected, but I wanted to get others' input as it seems . I have left it unprotected for now. If someone else thinks it should be sp'd please do so.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

7 bad edits on the 21st (GMT)--I think we can handle that much over a 24-hour period. If it escalates considerably beyond that, we should s-protect. Chick Bowen 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

SpongeBob Episodes

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes was accused of copyvio. Discussion is going on at the bottom of the talk page: Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. I created a Temporary page, am I allowed to move the information back since the Temporary page has all copyvios removed? -AMK152 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the copyvio had to be deleted before the good stuff could be moved over, but I've done this. Near as I could tell, the copyvio material was added on Jan. 1, so I restored the edits from before that to complete the history. Chick Bowen 03:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you restore the history from after the copyvio? -AMK152 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not without including the copyvio, which we don't want (even in the history). Chick Bowen 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, was there anything in particular you wanted back? Chick Bowen 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:GFDL is the only reason. What was the copyvio anyway? -AMK152 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There were episode descriptions taken from various websites, mixed in with the others so that it would be very hard to sort out which was which. I don't know if there are more edits that can be salvaged or not--there are 2200 deleted edits, so it's not easy to go through them. Chick Bowen 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's possible (but a lot of work) to take the most recent deleted version, remove all parts that are copyvio, and save the page as such - then copy/paste the "deleted" edit history onto the talk page to keep the GFDL-required records. (Radiant) 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Technically, it's not a GFDL issue at all, because the current version of the article doesn't reflect those edits. This is similar to when an article is transwikied or copied onto a non-wiki website or paper version: you don't need to keep updating the contributions if you're not using them.
• It is a shame for the good faith editors who contributed to the article after the copyvio was introduced, but they can always go back in and re-add. One way to ameliorate the situation would be to view the deleted revisions and send talk-page messages alerting them to the deletion, and the reason it was done. But as far as restoring them, that's probably not a good path to take. --SB_Johnny||_books 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

More general question about page histories and GFDL

This type of situation, in which deleting a history due to copyvio, libel, etc. concerns or as the result of a move raises GFDL concerns in some people's minds, comes up from time to time. Obviously we want histories preserved where possible, but we don't need admins driving themselves crazy checking every edit, either. Two questions occur to me:

1. Is the concern that leaving names out of the history could violate GFDL a significant real-world issue, as opposed to a purely theoretical or philosophical one!?

2. Going forward, is there a small tweak that could be made to the license language that would address this issue? Newyorkbrad 15:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My responses:

• 1. For any Misplaced Pages article, you need to provide a list of the authors. This doesn't, as far as I know, apply to edits deleted by oversight, but I'm not entirely sure. Of more concern than deletion of edits, in my mind, is people copying and pasting stuff from other Misplaced Pages articles. The page history makes it look like they wrote the text, when in many cases it was someone at the other page who wrote the text. Technically, the page history only records who added the text to the article, not who wrote it. That is where the lawyering starts.
• 2. Tweaking licenses after the fact cannot be done if it changes the meaning of the license. You can start a new license and encourage people to use that instead, but you have to get the people that released under the old licence (ie. every person who ever contributed to Misplaced Pages) to re-release under the new licence.

Anyway, those are my views. Carcharoth 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL requirement is to maintain a certain amount of attribution 4b "...together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." Determining the principal authors of heavily edited page is of course difficult there maybe nothing left of one person contributions even if at one time they covered 95% of the text. We maintain the edit history and cover all authors, that means we are in compliance since we list all of them. Oversight is not an exemption (the GFDL wasn't written for us, the term oversight is meaningless in the GFDL context), but since the use of oversight is generally to scrub a contribution in it's entirety that's not an issue, if we aren't publishing material that the person wrote we don't have to credit them. --pgk 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. But what does "author of the Document" mean in this case? If someone writes a sentence, and then someone else copyedits it, who is the author? Either, neither, or both? I wasn't aware of the "at least five of the principal authors" bit, thanks for that. Am I also right in thinking that "the Document" here only concerns the present version, and not past versions? ie. Misplaced Pages is only "publishing" the present version and not past versions? And any document could be analysed so you can see who added each letter/word/sentence/paragraph/section, and then list those people. If your contribution got rewritten, you wouldn't be credited, is that right? Carcharoth 17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well multiple people contributing makes for joint authorship. Document there refers to the version you are taking to modify. Through history you can get to any version, so wikipedia is of course publishing multiple versions. If your contribution got removed or replaced a credit may not be required, although of course you may have arguably contributed to the version in question in other ways, such as the structure and layout of the document. Because we retain the full history many of these are non issues and if you want to get "good" answers (not definitive) to actually use, then you need to talk to a lawyer (rather than some editor on wikipedia.) --pgk 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:db-author, deleted?

I noticed the template {{db-author}} was deleted about two hours ago by User:Lucky 6.9. I assume this was an error, but is there a way to bring it back from the dead (or, if it is not a mistake, a ref on the deletion discussion)? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 02:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense; it was probably in the category "templates for deletion by author". -Patstuart 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All {{db}} templates have that <noinclude>'d. It still needs to be restored.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody else find it funny that he deleted {{db-author}} because he thought it was up for speedy because of {{db-author}}? Cbrown1023 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the reason for deleting the talk page, it appears it may have been a mistake. Since I can't find discussion anywhere else that makes me think it was deleted on purpose I've restored the template. If I missed something, feel free to re-delete. Shell 03:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use

Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 7 November 2006 - all of these images should have been deleted a week ago... Hbdragon88 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. About 250 deleted. There were quite a few that were tagged for deletion that should not have been, as they were fair use (e.g., of someone who was dead, or of a group in the 80s / sportsman playing in the 70s etc), and so not replaceable. Proto::type 10:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Can someone keep up with it? November 9-15 should also be cleared now as well. Hbdragon88 03:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pat Capponi

Pat Capponi was created as an apparent copyvio. I rewrote it so that it is no longer a copyvio, but another user reinstated the {{copyvio}} tag. Could an admin please delete the original version http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pat_Capponi&oldid=89259235 from the history and the copyvio notice one, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pat_Capponi&oldid=89339906 , and restore the correct version, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pat_Capponi&oldid=89362805 --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a whack at it. My first time doing such a delete and restoration. Did that work the way you wanted? Metros232 05:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not "apparently" a copyvio, it WAS a copyvio -- period/full stop -- part of a series of a dozen lifted directly from a publisher's website which I tagged as such. And full-on copyright violations get deleted -- period/full stop -- before brand-new articles can be put in under the original titles. If User:TruthbringerToronto would bother to familiarize himself with the policies, guidelines, and procedures -- as he has failed to do often in the past -- BEFORE acting or complaining, he might know this. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:NoRCaLD503/Archive

Once an editor (NoRCaLD503) archives their talk page, is it still acceptable for them to use CSD U1 to have it speedily deleted? See the talk page and User talk:Kukini for legal threats by NoRCaLD503. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point, after adding a {{hangon}} tag onto the archive page. --Daniel Olsen 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The editor now is also requesting a right to vanish . Kukini 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't moved there, the edit history on the orginal talk page is still intact. I don't see a huge issue with it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the editor archived it then nearly immediately requested it be deleted. The notices should be left available for review. Kukini 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Page histories remain available, so deleting the archived page won't lose the information. If further assistance is needed in the case, you can reference the history of warnings (most dispute resolution asks you to use diffs anyways). Shell 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If indeed the warnings/notices were still current (such that removal would be disfavored by whatever portions of Misplaced Pages:Removing warnings command—as promulgated elsewhere—a consensus), then the excision of such warnings on the talk page should be reverted; if not, there seems, per Shell, to be no problem. There are users who elect not to archive their talk pages (by which many in the community are, as I, irked but of which there is surely no proscription) and simply blank from time to time, and, because the archiving here was effected via copy-and-paste rather than via move, the effect of the archive's being {{db-userreq}}ed would be the same (in view of the preservation of the history at the primary talk page) as of the talk page's being blanked. To be sure, the archiving-and-then-speedying bit is a little gauche but, inasmuch as the effect is negligible and as the user apparently intends to leave, we need not, IMHO, to be concerned... Joe 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hmmm I came across an admin deleting a bunch of articles straight out. They were almost all all 100% no brainer deletable crap, but they hadn't been tagged. Is this normal? It makes me a bit nervous. But maybe it's necessary to keep Category:Candidates for speedy deletion from being inundated. Is this standard practice, or what? Herostratus 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Things don't need to be tagged to be deleted. Tagging is just a convenient way to bring them to the attention of admins. Things are eligible for speedy deletion (as opposed to slow and painful deletion) if they fall into certain categories of things which can be deleted without discussion, "on sight" as WP:CSD puts it, and they can be deleted at any time.

Note that some images may need to be tagged for a certain amount of time before they become eligible for speedy deletion (which IMHO is a hurdle for anyone addressing copyright problems, especially now that we have image undeletion) but once they are eligible they can be deleted on sight, regardless of tags. --bainer (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Really. Hmmm I thought that everything had to be tagged first, on the theory that two sets of eyes should see an article before its deleted. I clear out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion now and again and I find that about 5-10% of tagged articles are not properly speedies - of those, some are properly ProD's, some AfD's, some acceptable articles with a few minutes work, some acceptable articles as is. It makes me a little nervous to think of articles being deleted on one person's say-so... but I can also understand the benefit of avoiding needless steps, so if that's the way it's done, OK. Thanks for the reply. Herostratus 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but those that tag arent admins and therefore may not know policy 100% - those that delete are (and as such are meant to know policy) Glen 07:14, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

Admins can optionally tag as well to request a second opinion from another admin. --Ligulem 09:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some admins, IIRC, who hold themselves categorically to the tag and permit another to delete standard, and I can't imagine why such standard shouldn't be propagated generally; whilst admins are surely meant to know policy, it is not inconceivable that every admin has erred as regards speedy deletion at least once during his/her time here, and whilst proscribing an admin's speedying an article not previously tagged by another editor as meriting speedy surely will not serve to remedy most errors, it might serve to prevent some. An editor is generally to be at his/her most circumspect when he/she deals with candidates for speedy deletion, and I would suppose that we'd want admins to be exceedingly careful in the realm of speedy deletion, if only because the fact of a deletion's being wrongly undertaken is not always readily apparent (as against that, for example, of a block's being wrongly applied or an AfD's being wrongly closed). Joe 18:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with instantly speedy deleting an article if you're sure; likewise, there's nothing wrong with adding a tag and waiting for a second opinion if you're not sure. Much speedy deletion is housecleaning of utter nonsense or articles to which the words "non-notable biography" don't do justice; such uncontroversial maintenance work doesn't require admins to be "exceedingly careful". --Sam Blanning 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I never tag articles for speedy deletion; if they meet the criteria, I delete them outright. I believe this is common practice. The purpose of the tag is to bring the matter to the attention of an administrator; if the reviewer has the technical capability, he may delete the article himself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins were speedily deleting nonsense well before there even were categories! I happily delete stuff that is evident nonsense, if I feel it needs another set of eyes, I'll stick it in the category. Morwen - Talk 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since new admins are asking this kind of questions, it is time we make an effort to bring the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list up to date. (Radiant) 11:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking our sources

A proposal has been made here to mark sources in (eventually, all) articles with 'A', 'B' or 'C' depending on their quality. Since no objective definition of these three has been given, some people fear that this may cause revert wars. Others say the idea is good but the execution is not. The author of the proposal now basically calls for a test run; I believe it would be useful of some more people gave feedback on whether or not this is a good idea. (Radiant) 09:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• This user has already implemented his idea on several pages (Compass_rose, Wolfenstein_3D and Miles Davis). Is this useful, irrelevant, or harmful and removable? (Radiant) 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • An interesting idea, but I think that the definitions need to be solidified more. What makes an A, B, or C grade source? I also worry that it adds an extra layer of complexity into the mix -- Samir धर्म 09:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is to be done, it should be done on the talk page, not the articles, to avoid cluttering the categories. And, more importantly, it really shouldn't have begun (not even a pilot) without gaining community consensus on both a) the idea itself, and b) what objective criteria to determine whether sources are A/B/C grade. I note on compass rose that two new (red) categories have just been dumped on the article, with no clue as to what they mean, no references to them on the talk page of the article, nothing. Not acceptable. I'm going to revert the category additions until some form of consensus is gained (personally, I think it's a sucky idea). Proto::type 11:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. The last thing we need in a place like Anarchism or New Antisemitism (or any of the perpetual edit wars) is a quality scale for references. Endless new edit wars.Thatcher131 12:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any objective way to do this, and if it's done subjectively, it violates NPOV. I can't see any way this can possibly work. --Tango 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ack, what a bad idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all. Invites lame meta-edit wars over how to grade sources in places where edit wars are already ongoing over which sources to use, and provides yet another large-scale tagging project for people to rack up thousands of edits doing, essentially, nothing at all. Given the ongoing citation-creep problem, looking in my crystal ball tells me that FAC will contain comments like "oppose, whole paragraphs without A-class sources". As Tango and other point out, this is entirely a matter of subjective interpretation and inherently violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, foggy everything-is-subjective metaphysical speculation on the talk page left aside. Opabinia regalis 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, a waste of an idea. It's going to add another layer of needless bureaucracy to an already hulking mass. - Hahnchen 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Big backlog in CSD

350 items. Everyone lend a hand at C:CSD. - crz crztalk 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got it down to 80, but now I'm really bored. Proto::type 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention needed - Jack Chick

I have some concerns about this article. Firstly there is a complaint, supposedly by a JC representative, see Talk:Jack Chick#Legal Notice. Although this is obviously in the wrong place and doesn't really give enough info seriously to consider it, I do think someone needs to properly reply to it rather then the sarcasm it has been met with (none of them appear to be admins). Of course, it's probably a joke and may have no merit whatever the case but we should be safe IMHO. However an issue I have greater concern about which doesn't strictly need admin attention but I thought I'd mention here anyway is that the actual article has a notice that most of the biography is from the JC site. Obviously this leads to NPOV concerns but more seriously someone should make sure there is no copyvio. Nil Einne 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied under the assumption that it is a serious complaint (if it's a joke, then it is of no importance, so it's best to assume otherwise). I've linked to the relevant policy pages and explained why I don't think there is anything we can do to help them. --Tango 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Heart of darkness cover.jpg, the replaceable fair use deletion criteria and how it works

Okay, I have removed a replaceable fair use tag on the image above, since I don't feel it meets the speedy deletion criteria. As an admin I believe I have been entrusted with the ability to make that call, as I would any other page tagged with a template which makes them a candidate for speedy deletion. The template for replaceable fair use states that an image tagged "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created". In this instance the claim was made that Since the book is in public domain, it should be possible to find a public-domain cover from an early edition. I dispute this, it may not follow that the image can be replaced. There may not exist public domain editions available freely. Now I have been told I cannot remove the tag, because the template states Do not remove this tag. Now if images are tagged incorrectly, what are we supposed to do? I have again removed the tag after it was re-added with no attempt to discuss the issue with me, but I will now respect whatever consensus emerges here. However, I would like the issues surrounding this explored. Can a speedy deletion template really say that it cannot be removed? As admins, how are we supposed to act with incorrectly tagged articles or images? Steve block Talk 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The tag tells you what to do if you disagree: you add the tag {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} without removing the original tag. Same as with non-image speedy tags: if you disagree, you don't remove the tag, but you add {{hangon}} instead. —Angr 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as regards some/most non-image speedy tags, this is quite wrong. See, for instance, {{db-bio}}, which provides, in pertinent part, that, if the page does not, in the estimation of a reviewer, meet the criteria for speedy deletion, he/she may remove th notice; he/she is only enjoined from removing such notice on pages that created self, to which the application of {{hangon}} is then appropriate. If an admin engaged in speedy patrol finds an article tagged for speedy that is not speediable but nevertheless might be deficient encyclopedically, he/she ought, IMHO, to AfD it or alert the original tagger in order that the latter might AfD, and so the analogue here, I think, would be an admin's (e.g., Steve's) removing the tag and listing the image at WP:FUR or WP:IfD (see my edit-conflicted post below). Joe 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I imagine that the tag should be treated as any other the presence of which an admin undertaking proposed deletion or speedy deletion patrol might consider, such that, should an admin find the tag to be wrongly applied, he ought, even in the absence of a {{hangon}} (here, more specifically, {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}), to remove it, having determined the image not to merit deletion consistent with the tag. Just as AfD is often counseled in such situations as an admin reviews a SPEEDY candidate and removes its tag, so too might a listing at fair use review be appropriate where there exists some disagreement apropos of whether a fair use image is replacable with a free image; IfD might even be considered. In any event, though, it seems altogether silly for us to have a template that asserts that such template should not be removed; such provision presumes that the initial tagger is necessarily correct and that, in the absence of a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} objection, an admin should delete the image consistent with the tag, his/her own conclusions notwithstanding. Most of our speedy tags provide that they should be removed should the articles on which they are applied not qualify for speedy deletion (except by page creators, who are to use {{hangon}}; for a discussion of why removal in the former instances is appropriate, see, e.g., the mailing list thread beginning here), and I think {{Replaceable fair use}} should be styled similarly; certainly it is wholly nonsensical for us to say that a template asserting that a fair use image is replacable with a free one, once applied, can never be removed, and where there is disagreement betwixt admins, as here, some discussion to which members of the community might weigh in ought to be undertaken. Joe 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "Do not simply remove this tag" instead. Clearly if there is a real disagreement on whether or not the image violates fair-use policy, the speedy deletion tag shouldn't remain on forever; but neither should the person who disagrees simply remove the tag and not do anything further to address the issue. Adding {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} during the 7-day waiting period is probably the best approach; if the admin going through images at the end of the 7-day period finds an image he considers to have been improperly tagged (as in this case), then removing the tag probably is okay so long as the admin then also does something to address the issue, such as taking it to WP:FUR, WP:IFD, or WP:PUI. But simply removing the tag and not doing anything about the original tagger's concern isn't acceptable IMO. —Angr 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

With that I agree entirely. Just as I am troubled when an editor removes a speedy tag from an article that, whilst not speediable, is likely irremediably unencyclopedic and neither himself acts to {{prod}} or {{AfD}} the article nor informs the original tagger in order that the latter might so do, so too would I be concerned were an editor to remove the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag and partake of the discussion no further. Where an editor has in good faith and with some justification applied the tag and where another editor has in good faith and with some justification removed the tag, there is clearly a substantive issue to be discussed, and such discussion ought to take place at any of the several pages Angr, as I, suggests. Joe 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The tag question is one, the image is another. Fair use applies to book covers when they provide useful information about the book--a reprint does not. This one was not fair use, and I deleted it and replaced it with an image of the author himself. Chick Bowen 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be your reading of fair use, but I now withdraw from the debate. Steve block Talk 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve has pointed out to me that my actions here were rather abrupt. That's true, and I apologize for it. Chick Bowen 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible indefinite block

Noahlaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was going around adding links to Noahide laws to every article he could find, reinserting them when they were removed, and ignoring requests for discussion. So I blocked him for 24 hours and told him he had to respond to the complaints on his talk page. He has responded, but as you can see, the conversation has not been productive. So now what do I do? He kind of called my bluff. I'd appreciate others to weigh in before I block him permanently. Chick Bowen 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be picking up on what we are trying to do very quickly but that doesn't justify a jump to an indefinite block. Give him a chance when the current block runs out, explain to him what is allowed and that he will be blocked again if he can't follow our policies. Then extend the block as justified by the edits. For non malicious edits, step it up to a few days perhaps then a week then more, depending on how he responds. But certainly not right to indefinite. - Taxman 20:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to say the same thing. He's a POV pusher, not a blatant vandal. The temporary link-spamming block seems fine, but I don't think an indef block is in order at this time. Let's see if he can learn to edit collaboratively and follow WP:NPOV. --Ginkgo100 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I can only request that other admins keep an eye on him. His talk page is getting very long indeed, and it's hard to sort out the advice from debates about the nature of religion, so I think I'm going to wait until the block wears off (in a few hours) and see what he does. Chick Bowen 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

More on AOL

OK - here are the last 10 pages edited prior to the indef block from the 3 IP's I couldn't edit from today, before giving up and logging in (100% blocked this time)

Special:Contributions/152.163.101.8

• N/V/? Not vandalism/Vandalism/not sure
• U/R   edit Unchanged/Reverted from article
• N * U * 22:42, 16 November 2006 Mary Anderson - added useful information about inventing windsheild wipers
• N * U * 12:10, 16 November 2006 Talk:Frederik Willem de Klerk - removed own comment
• N * R * 12:10, 16 November 2006 Talk:Frederik Willem de Klerk - added comment to talk page
• N * U * 05:28, 16 November 2006 Mark Starks' Martian - added quote
• N * R * 22:53, 15 November 2006 Ashlee Simpson - added rumor re 3rd album
• N * U * 03:00, 15 November 2006 Abraham ibn Ezra - properly categorized article
• ? * R * 23:25, 14 November 2006 All or Nothing (Cher song) - changed sales from 250->750,000 (could be subtle vandalism or mistake)
• N * U * 04:47, 14 November 2006 Citric acid cycle - removed own vandalism
• V * R * 04:43, 14 November 2006 Citric acid cycle - juevenile vandalism re bunnies
• ? * U * 22:48, 13 November 2006 All or Nothing (Cher song) - duplicated info already in article Hot 100 vs Hot 100 singles (could be subtle vandalism or mistake)
• N * U * 21:36, 13 November 2006 Essex County, New Jersey - identified location of park (town)
• N * R * 10:42, 13 November 2006 InuYasha - remove statement "as he is with her..."
• N * U * 10:39, 13 November 2006 InuYasha - remove speculation re depression of character
• N * R * 10:36, 13 November 2006 InuYasha - age 150->15 - article now explains age better
• N * R * 03:36, 13 November 2006 Lupe Fiasco - reverted own edit - future album name later removed from article
• V * R * 03:35, 13 November 2006 Lupe Fiasco - added potential vandalism to name of future album

Special:Contributions/152.163.101.11

• V * R * 02:01, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
• V * R * 01:59, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
• V * R * 01:58, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
• V * R * 01:56, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
• V * R * 01:56, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
• V * R * 01:54, 10 November 2006 Autism - standard vandalism
• N * U * 02:35, 9 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - change undoubtedly -> possibly - this was a good edit as the phrase is per original research as it draws a conclusion - a better edit would have been to remove the speculation
• V * R * 01:30, 9 November 2006 United States general elections, 2006 - added image of Burro to article
• V * R * 00:21, 9 November 2006 Wayne Static - standard vandalism
• N * U * 23:22, 8 November 2006 Once Upon a Time in the West - added punctuation
• V * R * 19:51, 8 November 2006 Minor characters from Aqua Teen Hunger Force - removed all the "B" minor characters
• N * U * 14:59, 8 November 2006 Mary Warren - corrected own grammer
• N * U * 14:59, 8 November 2006 Mary Warren - added useful information
• V * R * 08:23, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
• V * R * 08:23, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
• V * R * 08:22, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
• V * R * 05:00, 8 November 2006 Christina Aguilera - standard vandalism
• V * R * 03:32, 8 November 2006 Carmel High School - copyedit own work
• N * R * 03:30, 8 November 2006 Carmel High School - copyedit own work
• N * R * 03:29, 8 November 2006 Carmel High School - added non-notable and not sourced info on a school show
• N * U * 09:53, 7 November 2006 Talk:Midnight movie - Explained deletion - notably the changes discussed remain as well

Special:Contributions/152.163.101.136

• No edits - blocked without any vandalism / edits

How AOL works

AOL works in a way that helps stop abuse. When editing with AOL - everypage you edit is delivered through a different IP address. Thus blocking the IP is very effective in that it will stop any AOL user from editing the article they were vandalising. Thus a quick block is very effective against AOL users - I would recommend any IP that makes the same change to any article be immediately blocked.

Additionally, since the IP assignment will remain for a while assigned to a specific page - it allows the AOL user to be responsible for their edits to that page - as well as provides a history that prevents gaming of the system like using differnt IPs to edit the same article.

Finally, users can not easily vandalise in an automated fashion since using the AOL browser limits ones ability to run attached programs through the browser.

Action

I urge the admins to carefully consider this change to the longstanding tradition of not blocking AOL as a proxy. As you can see above - there is vandalism from AOL - but there are many good edits as well. Do not prevent the unsophisticated users from editing wikipedia. I urge you to continue the open nature of the encyclopedia. Abeo Paliurus 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I've said before, these ranges ARE OPEN PROXY RANGES. Your actual IP is masked and it costs nothing to use. This kind of activity is not allowed per Jimbo here. "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Misplaced Pages is not one of the valid uses." (bolding mine) People in that range can either log in or not use the proxy range. Naconkantari 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We see helpful edits from open proxies all the time. That doesn't change the fact that they are open proxies. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That fact is you don't know how AOL works any better than the rest of us. What we do know is that these are open proxies (if not, they might as well be), and open to abuse. We are following policy. We are not ignoring it. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Found a suicide note posted by a user

I ran across a disturbing post which you should be aware of. The note was posted on the person's user page and talk page (see the fifth item on the list, inside comment markers): and

Trinity Skyward 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

She has had some problems recently. The Esperanza guys (even though I don't agree in some of their ideas) have been working hard at comforting her. However, I am not really sure what admins would be able to do in this case. -- ReyBrujo 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not something the admins can deal with, unfortunately. – Chacor 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here. It seems (s)he's getting as much support as possible from fellow Wikipedians, which is awesome... however I don't think it's necessary nor appropriate for an administrator to intervene here. I think it's best we just let it be seems to be the best course of action here. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, she seems to be getting plenty of support. I think her comment was one of those rare occasions caused by stress when you say something that you're really not considering. Dionyseus 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I saw the visible message, and was worried enough by that to add some words of support on the user's talk page, even though I don't know the editor. I never thought to look for hidden comments like that. That's... well, I'm speechless. My general philosophy is to steer clear of things like this, as online interactions can be very difficult to get right in emotionally charged situations (well, that and other reasons), and I now wish I had stuck to that principle. Carcharoth 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat alert

We have a legal threat sighting here. I haven't dug too deep yet. What is the customary protocol for this? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked either, but if he made the edits then it's GFDL, and he can't do anything. If he didn't, then treat as copyvio, imo. – Chacor 03:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't find copies on google. Eh find out what the copyright status of the text is would be the first stage.Geni 03:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears he made a long unsourced addition with this edit to Malta New York. When subsequent large and unsourced edits to other pages were reverted, he decided he wanted to retract the Malta, New York edit. His retraction was reverted as apparent vandalism and then he made his legal threat basically claiming ownership of the unsourced material. Since it's unsourced anyway, I say let it stay out, eh? Does this get referred somewhere anyway? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, never mind on the unsourced material being added back in. So basically, I have no idea why he made a legal threat. He just didn't want his unsourced material on Misplaced Pages but no one was fighting him for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like he added a paragraph about the town of Malta, New York in August , became disenchanted today with Misplaced Pages for unrelated reasons , and now wants his paragraph back. The legal threat was in response to a vandalism warning he got after he made the deletion. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

From just below the input screen when you edit: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." (emphasis in original) Maybe someone should point it our to him? Daniel.Bryant 03:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If his edit were useful, maybe. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The choices are either to repost the paragraph on the principle that we're not going to allow people to revoke their contributions under GFDL, or live without the paragraph on the ground that as noted above it's unsourced, plus it was never going to be a candidate for paragraph of the year anyway. I would not recommend a block for the legal threat in this instance, at least not at this stage, as it would probably only enrage the user just as he is seemingly heading out the door. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that last part. For the content iself, I vote leave it out. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have import?

An if so, could I get a list of articles transwikied from de.wikipedia? They have an excellent series of articles on phytopathogens (plant diseases), while our articles are rather sparse and in several cases just plain incorrect. I can translate them, but I was wondering if they could be imported to give credit to the contributors on de.wp. --SB_Johnny||_books 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible. The interwiki link if followed though, will allow people to see the history from de.wp pschemp | talk 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Special:Import - "No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." --pgk 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Import on Misplaced Pages is disabled. Last time I checked the import code in Mediawiki was actually broken, but I'm not sure if that is still the reason or not. Dragons flight 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not broken... we have it on wikiversity and wikibooks :). Word around the campfire is that they're worried about misattribution before SUL comes into play. I was just hoping it might have been turned on from that project, since the de.wikipedia has so much material in the physical and life sciences that we don't have here. --SB_Johnny||_books 16:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a telephone directory

Is it really appropriate for all these schools (such as York House School) many of which have no claim to notability, to have telephone numbers listed? We don't exist to provide directory information for every school in Canada, plus the potential for abuse of these numbers is very high. I don't think they should be included, but they already have been on hundreds of pages. Certainly a link to the school website or whatever gives enough info for someone to find the phone number, but our mission here should not be to publish such information. What should be done about this? pschemp | talk 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, and perhaps even the physical address are not appropriate. Unless those data and information are crucial and appropriate to the article (i.e. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the White House), then they shouldn't be included. They are not encyclopedic, and as far as I know, none of our other articles on locations (excluding schools) have any of this information, nor do any of our articles on living people. We don't provide contact information; we provide encyclopedic articles. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Apply gentle pressure at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Education which seems to be in charge of maintaining those infoboxes, and ask how this fits WP:NOT#DIR. If nobody can provide a good encyclopedic reason for including these phone numbers I agree they should be removed. Femto 17:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the school articles are completely non notable and unencyclopedic anyway, but given that we need an overwhelming consensus to delete, it isn't going to happen. There's nothing wrong with listing the actual address of the school, I'm pretty sure most articles on buildings will have an indication of its address or map reference. There's no need for contact details such as telephone, fax or email though, when a link to their website should suffice. - Hahnchen 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Physical addresses on casino infoboxes were removed and we were directed to put that kind of stuff on Wikitravel. Hbdragon88 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure I'd agree with that, I think the physical location is quite important. I'm not too familiar with articles on building to be honest, but I know King's Cross railway station and Jordanhill railway station both include map references in, why shouldn't casinos? - Hahnchen 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, we're actually talking about phone numbers on school articles here, so if people would like to comment, a discussion has been started on the project page here. pschemp | talk 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Improperly closed MfD

I nominated Misplaced Pages:Extreme article deletion for deletion here about thirty minutes ago after somebody mentioned the page in the administrators' IRC channel. Though my first reason for deletion may seem a bit point of view-y, I think my second was perfectly valid. I'm not sure if the administrators in the admin channel think this nomination is a joke or what, but it was a serious good faith nomination that was speedy kept per WP:SNOW, which isn't even a policy, 14 minutes after it was started. The closure was reverted, and the nomination received a delete and fourth keep before Misza reclosed it. Administrators have added a score of some sort to the page; I think this shows quite well how serious they think this is. A few people's opinions are being allowed to speedy close an MfD that should be allowed to run its course; anything wrong here? _JD 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: even good faith nominations may be speedily closed - these two things do not exclude each other. And my decision stands: not a snowball's chance in hell for it to be deleted unless we incite a site-wide movement to delete the the plenty of humorous and relaxing pages. Misza13 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You closed it fourteen minutes after I started it; it wasn't even given a chance. What proof do you have that there wasn't "a snowball's chance in hell"? I see it as a bad faith closure of a good faith nomination; and things that were being said in the IRC channel don't help. _JD 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3 speedy keeps in first four minutes, 1 delete = speedy snowball close. --Majorly (Talk) 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3 keeps and 1 delete (2 if you count the nom) is certainly not a situation to apply a "speedy snowball close". -- Steel 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The score was only intended as a bit of harmless fun in keeping with the spirit of the original page. I've removed it. (Which is just a shame, as bringing it up here probably earns you extra points). I have no opinion (perhaps leaning towards keeping the page), but I've reopened the nomination because I don't want J_Di or anyone else to turn this into a dispute. Misza13, I don't disagree with what you did, in fact I supported it. I guess perhaps we should wait a little longer in future before snowball closing – Gurch 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Even speaking as a keep voter, snowball's chance doesn't quite apply here... too few votes and this article hasn't been nominated multiple times for MFD before... other articles as old as this one have been MFDed and deleted before. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at WT:AWB/CP