Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
I think that BetacommandBot is acting up. I'm pretty sure it placed a deletion temp when it shouldn't have. I don't know if one mess up is grounds for blocking it, but thought you should know. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a ":" missing in the article title in the fair use rationale because the page was moved back in August. The bot wasn't wrong; it was just useless. I've added the ":". GRBerry20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not resolved ... BetacommandBot is tagging logo images WITH existing Fair Use Rationales for all articles where the image is used. An example is :this. Apparently, BetacommandBot can't figure out that an article has been removed to a new title since the rationale was provided, and assumes that there is no rationale.
I request a temporary block of BetacommandBot until Betacommand figures out how to fix this "can't read simple redirects"-Bot. --Ragib (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot tagged the image and a human fixed it. That is not useless, now the image is tagged right. That is the use of it. This is a good thing, we now have a properly tagged image. If the time it takes to fix it is to much for you, then you do not have to do it. It cannot follow redirects as it does not know if the redirect is accurate for the rational as written. 1 != 221:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This is proper behavior. If the rationale does not list the exact correct article name, the image is in violation and should be tagged. Whoever moved the page should have fixed the redirects. --Spike Wilbury♫talk21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's plainly ridiculous. Just because someone hasn't bothered to fix all redirects during page move would cause an FU-image with proper rationale to be deleted? I don't see any justification in this argument ... this is causing a lot of images with proper rationales provided in their description pages, to be removed. This is in no way proper behavior ... Betacommandbot can't be so DUMB to be unable to check for this scenario. --Ragib (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(ecx2)The FU image must link directly to article it is used in as part of the rationale. Anything else is a copyvio. Your issue is with the person who moved the article and didn't check the image links, not with BcommandBot. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(ecx4) Who on earth thought up that "rule"? That's just plain silly, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. Fut.Perf.☼21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And there is an obviously superior form for the bot's activity to take instead of what it is doing now. When there is a rationale for a redirect to the page the image is used, post a specialized note indicating that 1) the rationale applies to a redirect to where the image is used and 2) the rationale needs to be checked for applicability to the redirect target. A lot of the noise about this bot would be eliminated if the coder applied sound judgment. GRBerry21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If only I had a nickel for everytime someone made a forceful statement confusing copyright law with wiki policy... Written rationales are not required for fair use to legally apply. Links certainly aren't required by any copyright law. These are entirely inventions of Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies. Their presence or absense is entirely irrelevant to the legal question of whether or not the image would be a copyright violation. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Huhh, if I had a (GB pound/Euro/AUS dollar/NZ dollar/sheckel/groat/goat/camel/US dollar...etc) for every misplaced complaint against BCBot, I'd have enough for a skinny Mocha. A gallon or two of the stuff. Come on people, read the small print. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Another bit which doesn't work as advertised is this: "if you feel that this bot is malfunctioning or isn't running correctly follow this link to shut it down. Any user can force the bot to stop." The fact that this doesn't actually work forces us to block the bot all the time... Haukur (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A block based on what? It is doing what it should. What kind of clearing up do you need? It did not mention the article it was a rational for, it was marked, and it has been fixed. What basis would this block have? 1 != 222:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Because the bot operator has been asked to make the bot follow redirects, has agreed that the bot should follow redirects, has said that it now does follow redirects and in this current run it doesn't actually follow redirects. Haukur (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Why couldn't the bot just fix the title of the article in the rationale to point to the correct one, if there's a redirect? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? Grandmasterka21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
How can a bot fix the title? That would involve knowing what title it should point to, computers are not humans and things that seem obvious to humans are almost impossible for bots. It marked it to be fixed, and it was fixed. 1 != 221:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Simple, BCBot has a list of places the image is used. It checks that each of these are referenced in rationales. If one is missing, but there appear to be "extra" rationales, then it would be desirable for it to also check to see whether any of the extras reference titles that redirect to the page it was looking for. If so, it can simply replace such redirect page titles with the actual page titles. Dragons flight (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Another set of logic: for each link: if the link is a redirect and the "linkshere" for the image includes the redirect target, then substitute the target for the redirect. This would catch most of the simple "page has moved" cases and lessen the fuss. It won't work, of course, when the page is moved and the original becomes a dab page, but that's where a human should look anyway. Gimmetrow22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
1!==2, did you actually look at the image in question? It had a rationale, and it blue-linked to the article. The only problem was that the page was later moved (to include an extra ':'), and the bot didn't follow the redirect, despite BC's assertions that it does so (the last time this came up). —bbatsell¿?✍22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it's lazy to expect the bot to the job of the uploader. Uploaders should provide the correct FU rationale or else expect their image to be deleted. Simple as. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus, redirect or no redirect (and in most cases it isn't a redirect, just lazy rationale), it's no BIG DEAL for uploaders to modify their rationale whenever BCBot comes calling. Spend the time correcting the rationale rather than just whining about BCBot. Funny thing is, does anyone really think Betacommand does this for kicks? Come on. Oh, and if you want to know where to read about the issue, please read WP:FU. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If it is, in your words "no BIG DEAL for uploaders to modify their rationale whenever BCBot comes calling" then why are confused people coming in hard and fast on BetacommandBot's talk page? Perhaps because the message the bot leaves on people's talk page is very unhelpful? Haukur (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The image had a correct rationale. Someone moved the target page. After renaming a page, do you routinely check all of its images to ensure that any fair use rationales are updated to point to the new page name? I know I sure don't. Please stop engaging in fair-use-rationale paranoia and realize that a rationale for a page that was renamed doesn't magically stop being a reasonable rationale. It's a trivial issue that should be handled automatically rather than creating make work for others. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on, how long does it take? This is pathetic. The bot is NOT responsible for fair use rationales, it's just doing it's job. If someone moves your target page and you get the message then do the business. It doesn't take as long to correct as it does to get all hot under the collar and all hissy. Fix the issues. Once again, let me ask, do you really believe Betacommand is doing this for laughs? I don't think so. If you have a better bot then roll it out. If not, get on with correcting the problems on the odd occasion you're asked to act. It's not going to break the bank is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's not about us. We understand the issue, we can jump through whatever loops some bot throws at us. But that's because we're admin wonks who've been here for years. The normal editors out there are having major problems jumping through those unnecessary hoops when we want them to have a pleasant experience so they can contribute useful content. Haukur (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well what do you suggest? The uploaders are carefully sent to policy.. Bear in mind the bot has to deal with thousands of mis-licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the bot do what the bot operator has already agreed it should do - check for redirects. I'm also suggesting that the bot should leave specific messages for each case, i.e. if an image fails 10c then the bot should tell the relevant person about 10c and explain how it works - not post a template about fair use in general. That would be carefully sending people to policy. Haukur (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Programs have bugs. In general, that's nobody's fault. However, when you find a bug, the correct response is: "Okay, how do we fix the program" and not "Well that's okay, we'll just have everyone else cleanup for it all the time". The suggestion that the burden of fixing the problem ought to lie on the uploaders and other editors is silly. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
arbitrary section break
Um, the uploaders _did_ provide a correct rationale. Then the article got moved out from under them. I log on often enough to catch the notifications: how many people don't?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
All the bot does is provide a notification. It's up to an admin to act and delete the images. The notifications allow plenty of time to make that (one edit) adjustment. No big deal. 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that BCB is doing a thankless task (good thing as a bot it doesn't expect thanks), and most of the complaints about it are spurious. However, there also seem to be many complaints that are based on a misunderstanding of what BCB does, either because (a) people don't know how it works (e.g. the need for a link to the article in the FUR), or because (b) it isn't quite working as it's supposed to (e.g. this redirect issue). Perhaps if the bots tasks were listed clearly on a subpage (rather than links to cluttered bot request pages), explicitly stating what it's looking for and what it does when it finds things a certain way, then people will actually know when it's doing something wrong, and there won't be so many accusations of wrong-doing. (Will post same suggestion on BC's talk page.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And again... Why can't the bot just change the links if there's a redirect? This is a manual, repetitive task, just the perfect thing for a bot to do. It would save a lot of grief. Grandmasterka22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody, bot or human, should even need to do that. A page is unambiguously identified by referring it by a redirect. We talk about pages by using redirect titles all the time. That's what redirects are for. Saying "This image is used under FU on page X", where X is a redirect to Y, is just as valid a statement as "We are discussing this at WP:ANI" or "I'll take this to WP:RFAR". Also, a person who moves a page is not responsible for changing links to that page; the system is supposed to take care of that, exactly by providing the redirect. That's why we have them. Demanding that in this particular function redirects mustn't be used is simply bizarre. Fut.Perf.☼22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this right, Betacommand has stated that his bot should and does follow redirects as evidenced above. There is nothing in the law to say that fair use rationales cannot be linked to the article in question via a redirect, yet some people believe that every time a page gets moved, the page mover should correct all links to fair use rationales on image pages. If this is the case, why isn't there a set of instructions to do this (and how) for the page mover. It is incredibly easy to move a page, I've moved dozens yet never recieved warnings that all of the images could get deleted, just that I should fix double-redirects. What if the image uploader has left wikipedia? Does the image just get binned if no-one fixes the redirect? If people feel so strongly that the bot shouldn't be programmed to fix redirects, I consider it entirely necessary that anyone moving a page should be warned that their actions could inadvertently lead to the deletion of the pages images, and given advice on how to fix the problem. Still all of this would be unnecessary if the bot could follow simple redirects. King of the NorthEast22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the bot's tagging of Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG was incorrect in terms of wikipedia policy or the guideline at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. While the template for fair use rationale had not been used, the rationale had been provided although without the link to the movie, the movie was implicitly mentioned ("In the article about this movie") and the image name contained the movie title plus it is all over the image - any human could have seen that and the intent of the guideline had been clearly met.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Another problem which can't be solved by the bot simply "following redirects" is when a page is renamed and the redirect is replaced with a disambiguation page. For example, the image Image:KNUJ.png was used in KNUJ, which was then moved to KNUJ (AM) and KNUJ was made a disambiguation page. This bot, for example, needs to check the edit history of the article (either the one in which it is used, or the one which is named in the use rationale) to determine if a rename occurred, (or even simpler, just check for a link in the current page, as would exist in a disambiguation or a summary style content split), and either leave the image alone or fix the article name in the image description. It is unreasonable to expect everyone who does page moves and disambiguations to update fair use rationales as well. This is what bots are for, fixing (alleged) problems, instead of deleting things for minor technical violations of an already contentious policy. DHowell (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's really quite simple: Links to pages from fair use rationales are no different from all other links on Misplaced Pages. If a target page is simply moved, the automatic redirects work just fine, thus there should be no problem to fix, for either a bot or a human. If the redirect eventually gets overwritten by a new page, as you describe, then it is the responsibility of the person who does it to check all incoming links and correct them as necessary - which is something they need to do anyway, independently of whether the links come from article space or from fair use rationales or from wherever else. Fut.Perf.☼00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Except that normally if one creates a disambiguation page and forgets to update incoming links, that doesn't result in a bot tagging an article for deletion in 7 days. Eventually, a human will notice the link to a disambiguation page and fix the link. On the other hand, fair use rationales are typically never noticed by humans until a bot complains, then humans are forced to please the bot by fixing a "problem" which is not really a problem. Bots should be here to serve the community, not to force the community to serve them. DHowell (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
See here for a similar move that caused problems. Instead of a missing colon, it is a set of extra spaces. Some articles get involved in move wars, and switch back and forth between titles. Fixing the links in fair-use rationales while that goes on could be, well, tiresome. Maybe that is another reason to discourage potentially controversial moves without discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, they get reposted to Betacommand's own talk page. I suppose that's somewhat logical though rather unexpected. Haukur (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is all ridiculous, people keep requesting BetacommandBot be blocked without ever giving the name of a policy it has violated. Please, please just give us the link to the policy (or guideline) and paste the relevant sentence here so we can see exactly what you are on about. OK I will do it for you WP:FUThe name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, there is no violation of this policy! Can people actually stop and read this sentence for one minute and understand each word, "name" does not mean "link", article does not mean article which redirects to the article in which fair use is claimed. The name of the article on this video game is Rome: Total War: Barbarian InvasionnotRome Total War: Barbarian Invasion, the later is the name of an article containing only a redirect. If the policy is silly, if you don't like it propose a change, but it's unlikely people will agree with you on this one, it's illogical to use a redirect instead of the real article name. Only request a block when a user or bot is violating policy. And if I were Betacommand I wouldn't feel inclined to answer constant accusations either, especially when you fail to mention which policy he is violating. Also as far as the occasional error goes, has any one of you made over 400,000 edits only to uphold fair-use policy ? No I didn't think so. Of course it's not perfect, none of you are either, and it's only a computer program. How would you feel if a whole bunch of people starting requesting you be blocked at every minor error. Should everyone who's AfD nomination closes as keep be blocked? Seriously ... Jackaranga (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Everyone complains that the bot isn't doing its job, when in fact it IS doing its job. Just because everyone HATES what it's doing doesn't mean it's doing anything wrong. JPG-GR (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot is violating Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy: "ules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This bot is enforcing rules against community consensus, invalidating images based on procedural errors, ignoring the spirit of NFCC while enforcing its letter, preventing people from improving the encyclopedia by forcing editors to focus on rules-compliance rather than content, and not participating in discussions in order to resolve disagreements; violating nearly every principle of "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy", in both spirit and letter. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is quite a difference between blocking a user for "every minor error" and blocking a bot for hundreds of "minor errors". No one is requesting the user Betacommand be blocked, just the bot BetacommandBot, until its problems are fixed to the satisfaction of the community. According to bot policy, the burden of proof is on a bot owner to prove that its edits are "harmless and useful". There are sufficient allegations and evidence presented here that the edits are both harmful and useless, to require that something be done about it. DHowell (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Completely wrong. There is nothing in copyright law that demands fair-use rationales in whatever form, according to whatever formalism, so the "legal issues" are a red herring. Fair-use rationales are purely a self-imposed measure of Misplaced Pages-internal communication. As such, they work according to the same logic as all other Misplaced Pages-internal communication. In that context, "name of an article" obviously includes "aliases of an article", because that's how we do things in Misplaced Pages and that's why we have these aliases. Jackaranga's distinction between "article" and "redirect" above is an absurd piece of bureaucratic formalism for formalism's sake, with no practical value whatsoever. Fut.Perf.☼06:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe that people are defending a clear malfunction due to shoddy coding. This issue already came up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive103#BetacommandBot.27s notices becoming more difficult to parse, and BCB was actually blocked for it at the time. There are plenty of times when redirects are wholly appropriate: the use of macrons and other characters difficult to type on standard keyboards, for one. Normal page moves are another (as noted, page moves followed by replacing by a disambig page are tougher and would be a reasonable mistake). Merges are a very notable case, especially in the case of {{R with possibilities}}; a book merged to its author page, for instance, might well be expanded back into an article on the book eventually. Having the rationale reference the book title, though it is currently a redirect to the author page, is entirely appropriate; that way, it will be correct even should the article be restored. Three legitimate reasons to use redirects aside from simple mistakes seems like a very strong reason to respect redirects in rationales. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I got an idea....block the bot and fix it...or...don't and move on to something else. Otherwise we are going around and around in circles and no one is getting anything done. - NeutralHomer03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Which would be following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Bot policy which says, "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously." (Emphasis mine.) Bc said "BCBot does now see redirects and follows them", if it doesn't do that, end of story, block away as desired. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The redirect issue ought to be fixed. Were the bot actively making bad edits, a block under WP:BOT would be OK, but this last block was handed out about 30 minutes after the bot stopped editing. Not necessary. Betacommand is more responsive to issues than might be apparent; in my experience, when issues arise he's adjusting the code rather than responding to every AN/I post.
Oh, for stats, I spot checked about 100 images tagged by BCBot, and 5 had the redirect issue. That's a pretty high rate considering the drama these tend to cause. A few more had {{Non-free use rationale}} but curiously lacked the "Article" field entirely. Gimmetrow03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
By my count, BCBot has tagged about 2500 images since the beginning of this thread. At a 5% error rate, that's potentially 125 images wrongly tagged during the course of this thread alone. Is BCBot going to go through and find these 125 or so images and untag them before they get deleted? DHowell (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
DHowell's got a point. Is BCBot going to correct it's mistakes?...and the answer is, probably not, but I have an idea. Why don't we find the mistake the bot has made and make Betacommand himself fix them. His bot, his bot's mistakes, he should correct them, manually. Maybe after that he will put his bot in to "spit shine" working order so he doesn't have it do it again. Just a thought, couldn't hurt. - NeutralHomer04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And my point is: the bot should either not tag images with only the redirect issue, or fix the redirects as it finds them if that's considered important. This would eliminate a big chunk of the drama. Then it might be nice for a bot to check images with {{Non-free use rationale}}, without an "Article" field, and used only once in article space, and maybe fill in that Article field. Together these two checks could reduce by as much as 8% the number of images tagged for admin review. Gimmetrow04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha. BCB's job is, essentially, to find and point out the mistakes of thousands of users improperly tagging images. So, when BCB makes hundreds of mistakes, it's STILL it's job to fix them? I'd like to see more of the community do it right the first time so BCB can't make the mistakes in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
in a perfect world there would be no need for BCBot, as for redirects BCBot normally follows them. Due to a API error it failed today. β06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In a "perfect" world, we wouldn't have to deal with the headache of this damned thing every couple days. I think you need to take a nice, long look at the bot and correct the problems that people have addressed (hey, it would make other happy).
I would, though, like to get everyone's opinion on something.....
I think if you own a bot and the bot screws up, the bot's owner should have the bot blocked (while it is fixed) and then the bot owner should have to manually correct all the mistakes made by the bot before the bot is unblocked. Think of it as a tough punishment. Since bots can tag, post, correct, etc. a couple hundred of things every couple minutes, if it screws up, I think the bot owner should have to clean it up....by himself. Bot owners would keep an eye on their bots and mistakes wouldn't happen.
I think that 99% of the time, the complains re: this bot are because the complaining user isn't fully versed in WP:FURG. Mistakes happen from time to time. Just because BCB's edits are greater and its function is more visible does it get complained about. JPG-GR (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the 1% (probably even more like 0.01%, to be honest - we never hear about the times where it tags an image correctly and the user never complains, so the statistics will be skewed towards cases where someone complained, legitimately or not) gets overlooked. Look how long it took in this case, where BC did ultimately acknowledge the bot had (once again) screwed up. The mass of bad complaints makes people too quick to dismiss legitimate complaints, too quick to unblock the bot, etc. —Random83214:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not base my error stats on complaints. I have an IRC logging bot so that when ever the bot's name is used in an edit summary I know about that, and I look into as many of those as I can. (Most of those are reverions of proper taggings, or are vandalism reverts) some I retag and others I can fix myself. Issues that are brought to my attention are less than 1/3 of my total numbers, I also do random sampling that is part of my normal MO. there have been a few issues never brought up, that I have found and addressed and added that into the bots error rate which at .1% is still better than any four humans. β15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to concur and expand on Newtralhomer's comment. Whenever a bot error is found (which happens fairly frequently, because of the number of different tasks it runs, and the number of non-free images which are not properly tagged), βcommand himself must verify the last two runs of that task that all such errors are repaired, and the bot remains blocked until that verification is done. (If he would separate the tasks, or be more communicative than the bot, we could accept his word that he would not run that task until the reported errors are fixed.) This example (not following redirects) is a bot error, even if βcommand's statement that it was caused by an API error is precisely correct.
In fact, NFCC#10c is not clear on the issue whether redirects should be followed in the justifications. Furthermore, the instructions for article movers only specifies that double-redirects should be fixed, not image justifications.
Move vandalism could easily cause non-fair use images to be deleted, which is contrary to common sense, and not required by law, although it appears to be required by NFCC. It's possible that detailed instructions for the admin reviewing the bot tags could result in more of the bot errors being caught, but they are still bot errors.
And, in response to some legal issues above, WP:NFCC is a Foundation directive, so that it needs to be followed, unless it's illegal. Whether there is an underlying law requiring it (the law clearly requires some policy, but this is probably more strict than necessary) is irrelevant.
I concur with the block, although it should probably be lifted now if βcommand asserts that it's fixed and that he's repaired the previous occurances. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)16:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
To clear up a common misconception, WP:NFCC is not a Foundation directive, but English Misplaced Pages's current interpretation of the actual Foundation resoultion. Note that the Foundation resolution says nothing about article names being required in the image description or rationale. In fact, as one board member stated, "The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way." That's Kat Walsh, posting to foundation-l. DHowell (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've also noticed that one of the bot's tasks is to remove non-coforming, but plausible, fair use justifications, and another task is to tag the image for not having a fair use justification. If the bot doesn't put a tag on the image and notify the uploader and recent editors on the first edit, and wait at least 48 hours before adding the speedy deletion tag, this is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)16:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot does not remove anything from image description pages, Im not sure where your getting your facts. β18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm, looks like the bot did screw up there, I did not look too closely though. However that image has its own problems. That image is a replacable fair use image, as its a picture of a living person. We don't allow that. Secondly its being used in an article (President of Israel not directly about the subject. In addition, its being used on the talk page of President of Israel (Talk:President of Israel), which is definatly not allowed. Non-free images are only to be used in mainspace. My two cents ;) —— Eagle10119:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated Pandapede and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —Coastergeekperson04@11/27/2007 04:18
I believe it is due to the fact that the article namespace has been used for trolling harassment of an editor here.--Isotope2317:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It does. For some reason the talk page is full protected as well. I don't see the edits that would cause that (the article seems to be consistently deleted and recreated though). Just passed an AFD too. Odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your in-jokes. The next time you give other Wikipedians a laugh, you will be given a barnstar. Will12:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to template the regulars. Making a personal, specific comment will probably make for a friendlier and more productive atmosphere than using a template that treats the editor as a clueless newbie. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fram (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that person. As an old-timer, when I saw this thread I thought about another litigitous person, who had left long before any of you even heard of Misplaced Pages. (IIRC, she lived in New Jersey also. Must be something in the water.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Block Review
I've just indef blocked account Cheese12345678910 (talk·contribs). User:LessHeard_vanU has recommended I report this here asthe account vandalised my user page twice so there is a conflict of interest. I blocked not on the basis of user page vandalism but the three vandal only edits to Ostrich. Out of 6 edits 5 were out right vandalism, and frnakly the username hardly inspired confidence. However if anyone feels indef. was overly harsh feel free to overturn or whatever. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As a general rule, I think consensus holds that if a vandalism- or trolling-only account is spewing random venom every which way, and an admin happens to get hit with the spray, that alone does not make it a conflict of interest to block the account. Chick Bowen00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
'Privacy violation?
If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.'
Please note that so-called "private" uses of check user are occurring as seen here. How can someone report a privacy violation if they do not know that checkuser has been used?
According to the policy, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory. Checkuser activities are logged, and it is possible to know which checkuser performed which check. -- lucasbfr21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That assumes that private use is misuse -- policy as it stands currently makes no such statement or implication that I'm aware of. The much greater concern has always been release of private data. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of checks are run following talk page, email or IRC requests to the checkusers. WP:RFCU is a backup; its use is not mandatory. The checkusers are supposed to follow the policy and turn down improper requests, and all checks are logged so there is a record of who checked whom. If someone is blocked and no reason is given, then it will be disputed and possibly overturned. If checkuser is given as the reason, then any other checkuser can look at the log to see who ran the check and then ask them why. Thatcher13104:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this process is acceptable and I have also alerted the Wikimedia Foundation. It's silly to pretend(as does the wording atWP:RFCU) that there is a method for the Targeted User to report a privacy abuse (which could mean simply the unwarranted use of Checkuser) if the process can be done without the Target's knowledge, PLUS it is deceitful to the public to even have WP:RFCU if it's being regularly circumvented via backroom conversation on IRC followed by a "private" Checkuser use. This is quite disappointing and clearly an abuse of the power to invade Users' privacy. From the comments above it does appear this practice is rampant and from what Thatcher is saying, it appears that if the "private" Checkuser results are in the Target's favor then the Target may never know it was even used. Think about the type of political systems that employ such "private" personal background checks? "Private" Checkuser usage is clearly a disappointing, unethical and deceptive process and I wonder what % of Misplaced Pages Users know that it is happening. 64.229.30.210 (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, in my opinion, publicizing Checkuser results leads to a bigger privacy violation (when the result is negative, or inconclusive) than when they are kept private. And you wouldn't know that a check has been done on you if you weren't monitoring WP:RFCU. CheckUser is not for fishing and checkusers only do checks when there is sufficient concerns, onwiki ot not) (funnily enough since you are not logged in, a checkuser might help understanding what is the matter here ;)) -- lucasbfr12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A:What is the objection to requiring informing the User when Checkuser is used on their account? B:Why need there be WP:RFCU at all if it is not necessary? C:Should Checkuser requests be processed within IRC conversation? 64.229.30.21013:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting - can anyone who is knowledgeable (checkusers or devs, respectively for each issue) discuss whether it would be reasonable / possible to allow each user access to the checkuser logs for their own account? It doesn't seem like it would be a privacy problem - the only privacy problem I've heard for releasing checkuser logs in general is that people would be able to correlate what names and what IPs are examined in a given time period to figure out what someone's IP is indirectly, and that wouldn't apply if each user only has access to their own data. —Random83214:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not knowledgeable, but I don't think this is a good idea. When you have a shared IP (like, e.g. apparently half of Qatar), it would not be good if one user could learn this way who are the other users on this IP address. Privacy, security (on-line, but in some countries certainly also offline), ... may be in danger. I may be overreacting, but at first glance this looks to be a potential big problem. Fram14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't reveal _anything_ concerning any other username. Just list, to User:Example, A) when a checkuser was run on User:Example B) when an IP check was run that resulted in a hit on User:Example. Absolutely no other usernames (except the checkusers who ran the check) would be disclosed. Any IPs disclosed would be IPs that the account had logged in from. —Random83219:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It occured to me that a compromised account could be an issue, but someone who compromises an account could (hypothetical method not revealed in public per WP:BEANS, but they definitely could find out the user's IP via other means without raising any suspicion) - but anyway, if that is a concern, simply don't reveal the IPs. —Random83219:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, this isn't possible on a technical level. I once asked for a searching feature (so you can extract logs for specific wikis), and I was informed that due to the nature of the log, it is not feasable to implement search functions, which would mean there's no way to give people the ability to only track the log on their own account. --Deskana(talk)19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can certainly find all checks on a given IP or username (though it will be on all wikis), which can be useful for checkusers looking to see if a check was performed earlier and/or elsewhere. There's really no need to post anything at all about it unless the results are both positive and needed as evidence.
Running the checks isn't really the issue with the privacy policy. Publishing the checks is definitely an issue, which is why only checkusers can see checkuser logs. In fact, the best way to protect privacy might be to get rid of WP:RFCU alltogether, and limit requests to email.--SB_Johnny | 13:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think another primary issue is whether the User checked should always be advised that a Checkuser check was or is being run. I think the answer to that is an obvious "yes". Mentoring0715:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (original nominator of this topic).
Since I was blocked by Durova, in error, and then again, in error by "FloNight" as if she had checkuser status, when she clearly did not, I concur with the statement above.(by Mentoring07) JzG, blocked Once and Forever with no evidence and then I was blocked as a sock of Once and Forever. (Once and Forever is an established user? The evidence I presented at Durova's Arbcom. hearing is proof that "Flonight" did not have checkuser status but claimed to have "access" to same. This is not ending here, right? It is clear that the privacy claimed by someone like "FloNight" is clearly not in keeping with a transparent system. I want to see the evidence that was used against me. Everyone is entitled to that much clarity, I think. User: Songgarden. 70.253.99.21918:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
About 20% down the page is a tooltip text with {{Replaceable fair use}}. The brackets probably need to be done with \{ to avoid this. Gimmetrow00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
spamfilter notice
Spam filter notice
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.
The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://snurl.com
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.
Return to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cryptography.
You could file a bug report but personally I think the quicker the link is discovered the better and preventing the page from being edited until it is removed is the best way to do this. GDonato (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Committee has found that Ferrylodge (talk·contribs) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics, and that he was blocked after a discussion on the Community Sanction Noticeboard that did not have a clear consensus. Ferrylodge is unbanned, but is put on an indefinite editing restriction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." The Community is urged by the Committee to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023talk00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I don't want to engage an anon IP so am asking for someone else to address this post at least for civility. I think the user could potentially be encourage to contribute but maybe needs a bit of Miss Manner's tips for playing nice on talk pages. Thank you. Benjiboi01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Every edit I make User:Seicer has to change it. He constantly keeps bothering and intimidating me. He acts like he is god. Seicer has constantly been in numerous disputes with other users. It must stop. Jdlddw (
please also see COI report susanbryce conflict of interest.
user susanbryce is edit warring in the Human trafficking in Angeles City article. she continues to insert irrelevant and false information into an article she has a documented conflict of interest in. she is the founder of a women's activist group and is campaigning for her cause. she continually and repeatedly inserts information into the article which is not Human Trafficking as evidence human trafficking is occuring in Angeles City. she repeatedly inserts information accusing Angeles City police of corruption while citing statistics irrelevant to angeles city. any attempt to remove her edits results in accusations of "attacking" her. there has not been one verifiable case of human trafficking occuring in angeles. as i am sure you know, verifiability is the standard wikipedia requires. this is an ongoing problem since this article was originally written by her.
oddly enough, the conflict of interest report resulted in accusations of an attack by me and the conflict of interest was never addressed. RodentofDeath16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The dropdown list for deletion reasons can be edited - I've added CSD links for the default three, more should be added. Obviously some shouldn't appear in the dropdown (e.g. XFD closure and probably CSD-G4 should have an XFD link) —Random83217:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this on Misplaced Pages, when there's Wikinews for things just like this? Serious question, not rhetorical, I may have a major misunderstanding of WP:NOTE. Can't we wait 2 days to determine if this is actually going to be a notable event or not? Does every incident that is covered in the media now deserve its own article? --barneca20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, generally, but this is the sort of story that sticks. I wanted to post it to WikiNews, but I could not do it. Bearian20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This IP has been used for some vandalism, though there appear to be no blocks. A post from this IP indicates that the IP is assigned to an elementary school, and requests that anonymous editing be blocked for that IP, though logged-in users would still like to edit. The post is signed as "IT Guy", indicating that it is a staff member of the school. The IP does not resolve to a school district, but to Cox Communications. I'm going to WP:AGF, so I'm looking into it for him/her. Are IPs blocked pre-emptively in this manner? If so, where should I direct this inquiry? Is there an e-mail address to which I could direct this IT staffer? Thanks, ZZ ~ Evidence20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The usual response to such requests is that the school should implement their own restrictions on editing, though that way it might not be possible to allow logged-in users to edit. There isn't enough activity to justify a long-term block. Hut 8.520:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll so inform them, and recommend the use of the {{sharedIPEDU}} template, allowing them to identify their school. Thanks! ZZ ~ Evidence20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This one is ringing bells in the back of my mind. Loads of edits to radio station articles, plus a mass of images with improper licensing. This reminds me of someone I thought we showed the door a while back, but I can't remember who. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think WAVY 10 dealt with him before. It could have been TV stations and he was adding wildly improper information spryde | talk20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
El Jigue redux
I would like some input on a page protection/ban issue. Despite his lengthy block, the POV pusher "El Jigue" has been using his user talk page to complain about edits he disagrees with. Background and the original block discussion can be found here. After being blocked, El Jigue made posts to his talk page such as a threat to contact the press and this extreme misrepresentation of this talk page post. I attempted to explain what the problem was here, which was read but obviously not understood, as he continued to make rather reaching claims about another editor in his response. I gave him a final warning about his talk page here, to which he responded with more paranoid ranting. So I've protected the page for the length of the block.
I would like confirmation from other administrators that I've understood the blocking policy correctly - blocked users can only edit their own talk page and then only to contest their block. As El Jigue is not using his talk page in the manner he's permitted to, my understanding is he's no longer permitted to edit it. The user and usertakl page are fully protected because there are some other non-admin editors that have been conversing with him, and I don't want to set up a situation where other people can taunt him and he cannot answer. I've also left my email address in the event that he wants to contest the block. I will not, obviously, make the unblock decision myself, but will post here or contact some random admin to make the actual unblock decision.
I'd also like some more people to weigh in on whether or not this is considered a ban. Ryulong said as much in his original blocking, and I think that is a reasonable measure, but I would feel more comfortable if their were more voices in this discussion. Natalie20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, there's been some brief discussion on unblock-en-l. Nothing particularly relevant here, I think. Anyway, I concur that the talk page was being abused. I am unsure whether or not the block was a ban. In any case, it's probably time for this person to contact an WP:ARBCOM member given that the unblock reviews have happened. Or accept the decision and refrain from further editing. --Yamla21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I handed him a long block about a year ago and his response was pretty similar. There doesn't seem to be any learning curve going on here. I tried to engage him in a discussion of core policies, but he had it in his head that I'm a Russian communist who blocked him for political reasons (boggle). No objection to banning on my side: this is more than POV pushing, it's also a lot of dubious OR. Durova23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a and the current one. They are very different.
I freely admit I don't know anything about the subject, but my impression from reading either of these versions is that they are pure "hoax". They are certainly extremely unencyclopedic. I would appreciate another opinion and advice of what if anything to do about this.
I can't really draw a conclusion from this; I thought this would signify or highlight something but nothing springs to mind. Deciding to postpone anon. page creation likely means that the admin-rush is no longer necessary and it has, in fact, turned into a slowdown. GDonato (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because of the page creation issue, it was packed for a while, so it makes sense that the available candidates, for now, have been spent. It will even out in time. Chick Bowen04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it wasn't page creation. Three times a year it slows down, all seem to revolve around the educational system. Exams April/May is the end of the school year (American), August is the beginning, and December is mid-terms/finals. Since it is my perception that a majority of the admincorps is collegiate, this makes sense. Keegan06:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Keeping a blank description page for an image on the commons
Hello, I was wondering if someone could explain what is the advantage of keeping a blank image description page for an image that is on the commons ? I thought normally they could be speedy deleted, so I had tagged one but the tag was removed. So I started an IfD (here), but it turns out consensus was to keep the blank description page, however users kept giving reasons such as the image is very nice, or things like that, so I don't understand ? I thought it was a pretty common task, and the page only existed because of an error, also the person who blanked it after the error, wants to keep it!? Please can someone explain ? He says he wants to keep the blank page because he will upload a new version soon, but is crushing a commons image like this a good idea ? Why not choose a different title ? Anyway if someone who knows more about this can explain thanks.
Hmm... personally, I don't see any valid reason to keep a blank page. Usually you upload the image locally and lock it when it goes to the main page, and I have seen some people creating a local image page to categorize the image, but I don't see any reason to keep it. It is my belief that they thought you wanted to delete the description and/or the image, and they did not understand that the description would be picked directly from Commons in that case. -- ReyBrujo03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- a lot of people don't understand that deleting the blank description page on Misplaced Pages doesn't do a thing. Its easiest to try educating people about how the Commons pass-through works and show them that yes, our page really doesn't have anything on it. Shell04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have informed this user of the discussion here. John254 05:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC
sorry i dont have time to edit more articles. i dont see what this has to do with banning but if u feel the need to ban me for that then so be it. this whole thing could be settled easily if the lies about angeles were removed from the wikipedia articles. instead of taking time to ban me i suggest you go through the articles and try to verify any of the information there. for instance, right now susanbryce has inserted a quote of a judge that says bribes are paid to city officials. if you read the citation the judge says no such thing. go through just about any other edit and they all have similar problems. i can make the same argument for susanbryce being a one purpose account to run a smear campaign against the philippines. i am sure there would be no problem proving that since the Senate of the Philippines has also accused her of the same thing. she has a clear and documented conflict of interest that for some reason nobody seems willing to address. RodentofDeath16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of RodentofDeath's activities have received little administrative attention. For instance, this edit constitutes a severe personal attack and a serious WP:BLP violation, which in light of RodentofDeath's preceding personal attack on the same user coupled with a severe WP:NPOV violation , and the warning he recieved, would furnish grounds for a block of an appropriate length. That a block was never actually placed on his account does not imply that RodentofDeath's behavior was acceptable. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath contains extensive evidence of such disruption by RodentofDeath. John25416:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you retaining ownership of the image, or releasing it into the public domain? If you wish to donate your work, you could use {{PD-self}} or one of the {{GFDL}} license templates such as {{GFDL-self}} or {{GFDL-user}}. If your picture is copyrighted and uploaded as a fair use image, please note that it may be tagged as {{Replaceable fair use}} and later replaced with a free photo. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Question
Why is 31 hours one of the default lengths for blocks? I understand the "15 minutes," "1, 24, 48 hours... etc." But why 31 hours? Not that this is important, but I have always wondered. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!)05:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the idea is to break patterns. Someone who edits at the same time each day will be much more inconvenienced by a 31 hour block than by a 24 hour one.-gadfium05:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are only two reasons for my hesitation. First, the user has made a few minor constructive edits (). Second, the user has not yet received a single warning (then again, one shouldn't have to be warned not to do certain things...). – Black Falcon07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a temporary block, with a warning that while constructive edits are welcome, more of the inappropriate edits can result in a long term block. -- Infrogmation07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, on second thought after looking at the user's edits, many of which are particularly vile, I am going ahead and blocking them myself. -- Infrogmation07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
67.53.130.69 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) - requesting permanent and community-wide block and ban of this IP. The IP is currently blocked for one month as the source for the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer EverybodyHatesChris. However, the IP is now abusively attacking several editors (myself included) on other sites while blocked on Misplaced Pages. My page on Wikinews was vandalized here, as well as by a new account suspected of being that same user. HiDrNick's page on Commons was vandalized repeatedly here, here, here, here, here and here. The IP has now been blocked for one month on Commons and for six months on Misplaced Pages, but the edit history suggests that may not resolve the issue. --Ckatzspy10:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
EverybodyHatesChris has a significant sock history here. I can support a ban on him and a block of the IP forhowever long the community feels is warranted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
EHC can troll my talk pages all he wants, I just want him to stay away from the articles. We still haven't cleaned them all up. I figured after all the mess before he was de-facto banned, but if formalizing it like this makes it easier for me to go to an administrator and say "please block this community banned user" without having to whip out 20 diff ands a request for checkuser, then I support a formalized siteban. ➪HiDrNick! 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just realized I'd not explained why I've requested this step. I understand that this action is not a trivial matter, nor is it something to be taken lightly. However, EHC's actions clearly demonstrate a disregard for Misplaced Pages's community spirit and a lack of desire to work cooperatively within that community. Furthermore, the sockpuppets, evasion of blocks, trolling, and now the personal threats suggest that he is not willing to change his behaviour. --Ckatzspy21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How to protect from fabrication?
Yeongeunmun Gate. some Japanese user edit like this.
I find This edit by Nightshadow28 edited list.
It's Totally Fiction.
It's purely fabricated edit. cite is nothing,too. see discussion page. nobody prove it.
And see article history. some korean correct rightly, Japanese Pushing POV trolls continuously revert it, too.
I'm very supprised this fabrication. How can i protect from fabrication? and How can i protect this from continuously revert?
I can request to protect template. but, it is not eternal. and i want report POV trolls as Vandalsim.
Can i report Nightshadow28 as vandalism?
I'm a beginner of wikipedia. Please understand my worry. i need help. 774townsclear
Hello administrator, I thank you for all of your works. Well, This article is a honey pot for Bason0 (talk·contribs) and his/her sockpuppets simply. Now, I and him is talking it in WP:SSP.
I'm not sockpuppets. I'm not same man with him/her. and even if I am a sockpuppets, this is not matter of this fact. your edit is totally fiction. i just asked to admin, How to protect article from fabrication? I'm very suprised from your fabrication. 774townsclear12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a new RFCU relating to this case, puppetmaster is Bason0, see RFCU. The SSP will be awaiting the RFCU results. Quite a bit seems to be going on here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not sockpuppets matter issue. i did not make any disruptive edit war by multiple accounts. I want know How to protect from this hoax edit.774townsclear13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That said, I'll just note that the version of the article that everybody except Bason is reverting to is nevertheless an abomination of silly POV writing. For chrissake, will nobody show some mercy and write a decently sourced non-copyvio stub there? That's the sad thing about chronic sockpuppetry cases, often the socks have some core of a legitimate concern that just won't get addressed. Fut.Perf.☼17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently Law Lord placed a {{db-userreq}} on their talk page archive at User talk:Law Lord/Archive 1, claiming that Content is often being used for invasion of privacy, libel and slander in my home country. Since this section of WP:UP states As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons I placed a {{hangon}} on the archive page, and opened a discussion on Law Lord's talkpage. The only information I can see on there that an editor might wish to have removed from public sight is the fact that he was blocked back in April, requested an unblock (which was declined) and was unblocked in August. Law Lord is now claiming that someone off-wiki is "libelling" him with this information (and claiming that the fact that it is true is irrelevant under Danish law, where LL is based). Am I right in declining to delete this archive page, given that it's an important historical record of LL's prior use of Misplaced Pages? Advice here or on my talkpage would be appreciated! Tonywalton | Talk14:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleting the talk page archive will not delete the information from his talk page history, unless he creates archives my moving the actual page. So if the only problem is the archived page, and the history is preserved in his regular talk page, deleting it would be fine. If the problem, however, is some edits in the history I'm not sure what the appropriate step would be. It would depend on what the edits were, and when they were made. Natalie14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me go a little further here. The ip address was revealed in a request for unblock. I tried to do the delete-selective revision thing but was unsucessful. Now, I am not sure what exactly is causing the libel but that is the only thing I saw there of a private nature. - JodyB talk19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your advice. The edits regarding the block and unblock have been blanked by LL himself, so this one's now moot, I guess. Tonywalton | Talk22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
With the advent of this new page and feature, all admins are given a drop-down list for the most common delete reasons, functionality previously achieved using the JavaScript WP:CSDAR (for those who chose to install it). Since this is a new feature, input on how we admins want to set it up would be appreciated (even from those not endowed with a mop :) ). Specifically, which reasons and subreasons to include (or not) is up for discussion.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee admonishes Durova to exercise greater care when issuing blocks and admonishes participants in the various discussions regarding this matter to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama. Durova (talk·contribs) gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels. Also, Giano is reminded that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors and the Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions. Finally, !! (talk·contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Misplaced Pages under the account name of his choice. Again, further information regarding this case can be found at the link above. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023talk17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Potential "crap" 3
I've regenerated the list of crap pages. We have over 6,000 pages that fit into this category. I'd ask that admins and users continue to go through the now updated list and remove/fix articles. Some of them simply need a fixing up to get them out of this category. Cleanup involves mainly wikilinking and perhaps finding a reference or two. While others just simply need to see dev/null ;). Get them there by either WP:CSD or WP:PROD. More information is given on the page, please discuss below any suggestions for improvement, etc. When this list gets down to a reasonable level (500 to 1,000), I'll publish a new list based on some different criteria, which will require the same attention as this one. (probably potential crap 4 or 5 or something like that ;) ). Cheers all! —— Eagle10118:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Also in addition, though its not exactly requiring admin attention, I'd ask that you all allow me to draw your attention to User:Eagle_101/linkfarms. This is a list of pages with more then 20 external links in the == External links == section. This list contains 2,000 entries (out of 2,006,000). These can probably do with some pruning. The format of the list is "# Current Page (revid that the program saw) external links: ##. Please before telling me the list is inaccurate check the revid that the program saw ;), they may have been fixed already! (perhaps those working on this list can mark these entries off as they fix them). —— Eagle10118:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Last summer Tim H., Press Officer for a TN Congressman, edited his boss's page, and the page of his brother. There were no stated rules that this was wrong, on the "Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". This was caught by the wikiscanner. Durova called the press and was interviewed multiple times for this. Political opponents of the Congressman raked the press officer over the coals. He was forced to take a class on ethics in Washington, D.C. and this week, he left his job.
There were no warnings on Misplaced Pages to inform this person that making edits was against the rules if you have any relation to the person in question.
Durova went on to give interviews about the topic, to give it maximum press, so that the person involved seemed to have done something very, very wrong.
The Press Officer dealt with online information about his boss, the Congressman. This was his job.
The Press Officer erased pararaphs about his brother, who is a state representative.
Nowhere on Misplaced Pages was it mentioned HOW or WHO could edit, without raising huge criticism.
What was written on his brother (State Senator, TN) was clearly written by political opponents.
What was written made it appear as if receiving donations from a pharmaceutical company were illegal.
This is not illegal. Most politicians receive corporate donations.
What was erased created a distorted picture of the Press Officer's brother, a politician.
Should he have edited more skillfully? Sure. But how was he supposed to know you had rules?
Was it done with malice? No. But Durova talked about it in the press as if it were.
It was not stated anywhere on the Misplaced Pages page, where he edited as an IP, what to avoid, including COI.
COI is not clearly described anywhere on Misplaced Pages article pages.
There should be a warning on every page
Still, Durova used this in her SEO essay on "How to Ethically Edit Misplaced Pages"
It seems as if her main goal was to maximize press attention, no matter what the cost.
Another goal seemed to be to get her name in the press.
Three Recommendations:
COI Warnings must be put on all pages (IMPORTANT)
Misplaced Pages needs to institute COI warning pages on all articles, with links to information about "what COI is" in the Wikipedian context
Right now, Misplaced Pages, with Wikiscanner is a "honeypot" for unsuspecting people who edit, thinking they can.
Do you really want to be "The Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit and Ruin Their Lives Because of No Warnings?
If ruining lives isn't a big enough reason, this is a honeypot for an eventual court case, which someday, Misplaced Pages and/or involved editors and admins will lose.
Guard against Wikipedian vanity
Self-advertising behavior, such as Durova practiced needs to be guarded against
Misplaced Pages needs to stop writing articles about its own scandals (unless it sees fit to also write articles about Durova, etc). They ruin people's lives. Stop that.
If Tim H. is notable, it is due to the man interviews given out by Durova, after the fact.
Durova actively pursued press attention to this affair. And no one at Misplaced Pages thought ill of it. :(
Take down articles about people that were caused by misunderstandings of Misplaced Pages, especially given that poor or no information is provided to the public.
The Press Officer of the Congressman has an article about himself. This is cruel. Take it down. Today.
Misplaced Pages is not the Center of Everyone's World. Therefore articles should not be written singularly to report Misplaced Pages in this light.
That's a long post and I'm not sure if it belongs here, but I completely agree that to have a "biography" of someone notable only for one unfortunate event, especially when said event is essentially self-referential, is a definite problem, and I have deleted the article. If someone can think of a better place to have an article on the congressional editing issue then I will give them the deleted content to see if there are any useful references; I'm not so convinced that was anything other than a storm in a teacup anyway. Politicians try to control their own public image? Wow! Who knew? Guy (Help!) 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh honestly Guy. Does everything have to be spelled out for you in large letters? It belongs here. She drove the press attention to that case, so it is very Durova-related. As for it being "one case" again, my comment about the large letters. Just because this is the first time you noticed it, or the first time someone called it to your attention, doesn't mean it is the first time it happened. It belongs here. Durova was very, very active in bringing press attention to editor mistakes about which they were ill informed.And keeping the focus on blaming the people involved It should have been part of the examination of her case, which was gerrymandered, instead, to try to fry Mr. Giano for having exposed some dumb email. Please allow people to have respect for the processes here. It is getting more and more difficult. 85.5.180.916:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova could have explained to the press that "we don't yet have clear information or user-training about COI, so we understand that this man did this in good faith" rather than the N-AGF story she put out, likening it to earlier attempts Congressional staffers had made to edit opponents webpages. This man's CAREER, and his LIFE, were DESTROYED, because of the "no inform" policy on COI, accompanied by people, of which Durova is probably the most active, with an agenda to expose people who broke rules - rules about which the information is 100% not well represented. That's not Durova's fault, but the way she treated people who misstepped was. There is a reason why so many people came out of the woodwork against Durova. One case for Durova? No, sorry Guy. Just the first time you realized it. Durova was the first to shout AGF to other people, and the last to practice it.
Let this be the positive legacy to this sad affair (Durova case). That things that happened under her aegis should be made better. Not that things should be hidden, or run from, or what-have-you. This entire page was a missed opportunity to make the project better. In the 11th hour, make some recommendations which can change things for the better. And yes, these are very, very Durova related. 85.5.180.916:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you say that, but I don't see that this has any place in the talk page for the proposed decision in respect of an arbitration case concerning a bad block. This is not the only venue for discussing problems. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If the Durova case, to you, Mr. JzG, is only about a bad block, I suspect you will be shocked at what happens at WP in the course of the next year or so. The Durova case, to me, is all about deceit, secrecy, and quite frankly, a lack of transparency. It exposed the very essence of what can and does go wrong when there are secret societies of power running things. The people, or the community eventually took back part of the control and Durova was quite rightly put in her place.
As you so often do, Mr. JzG, you may wish to block all of us for not having any mainspace edits, yet, however, that will not work forever. Cheers, and I am trying to be Nice21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to template the regulars. Making a personal, specific comment will probably make for a friendlier and more productive atmosphere than using a template that treats the editor as a clueless newbie. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fram (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing and checkusers only do checks when there is sufficient concerns, onwiki ot not) (funnily enough since you are not logged in, a checkuser might help understanding what is the matter here ;)) -- lucasbfr 12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
