→GallifreyanPostman, indefinitely blocked: new section |
Added new thread |
||
Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
I indefinitely blocked {{user|GallifreyanPostman}} for ongoing disruption. I noticed his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_Communicator&diff=prev&oldid=164787870 page blanking]] of Microsoft Office Communicator, and started reviewing his contributions which I invite others to do. I'm not against this block being given an expiration time so if other's would like to review by all means please do. [[User:Keegan|<font color="maroon">Keegan</font>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Keegan|<font color="gray">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
I indefinitely blocked {{user|GallifreyanPostman}} for ongoing disruption. I noticed his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_Communicator&diff=prev&oldid=164787870 page blanking]] of Microsoft Office Communicator, and started reviewing his contributions which I invite others to do. I'm not against this block being given an expiration time so if other's would like to review by all means please do. [[User:Keegan|<font color="maroon">Keegan</font>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Keegan|<font color="gray">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Earn a cookie!!!!!== |
|||
I'll award a cookie to whoever closes [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy, season 6 episodes|this]]. -- [[User:Jreferee|<font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">'''Jreferee '''</font>]][[User_talk:Jreferee|<font color="007BA7"> t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jreferee|<font color="007FFF">c</font>]] 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:56, 15 October 2007
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Current issues
AfDs, MfDs and some others are a part of our robots.txt file, but due to the file not being correctly formatted, no one noticed and they were still indexed by google. It's been fixed recently, and many of us have our "WTF" faces on. The original request is seen at [1]. No discussion? Because of this, a major tool in finding past discussions has been lost to us. How do we fix this? -- Ned Scott 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you put "Wikipedia:" in front of a search query, it searches only in the Wikipedia namespace. For example a search for "Wikipedia:deletion haiku" delivers the correct AfD debate. Graham87 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Which works if you just want to do a title search, but nothing else. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be taken out of the robots.txt - the stated reason for it being in there can be satisfied with courtesy blanking, without destroying the ability to search AFDs it does not apply to. —Random832 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. We have tons of non-controversial situations that have no reason to be hidden. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be taken out of the robots.txt - the stated reason for it being in there can be satisfied with courtesy blanking, without destroying the ability to search AFDs it does not apply to. —Random832 13:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Which works if you just want to do a title search, but nothing else. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Blanked or not, no AFD discussion should ever be visible in the first couple of Google result pages for any search. Fixing this in robots.txt was a good move. You can still use Wikipedia's own search engine to search through AFDs if you need to. We'd need to courtesy blank a lot more if this is not in robots.txt, and that would bring a lot of other problems (Whatlinkshere would become a lot less meaningful in these contexts etc.) Kusma (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Given that they were still searchable somewhat recently, I'm not convinced it was ever a problem. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion this was a very good move. We have enough of a problem with abusive vandalistic edits showing up in the search engines without the vitriol that AfD can frequently be showing up as well. In my opinion the following should also be excluded if they are not: All user pages, User talk pages and article talk pages. I see little point in the first two being indexed, the first frequently associates "banned" templates with peoples real names or names that are traceable to them - and it is not our job to forever label them as someone that has been banned from wikipedia, no matter how disruptive they have been. The User talk pages frequently have the same problem as the user pages, with the added bonus of displaying every little dispute the person happens to be in at the time of the indexing. Finally the article talk pages, while somewhat more relevant to the encyclopaedia, frequently are the site of disputes that would be better left unindexed - disputes of notability of people for instance, or whether to include criticism of someone or something. None of those pages have encyclopedic value, so as unencyclopedic, potentially harmful meta pages I think they too should be excluded. Minor usability issues such as this shouldn't come ahead of potential harm to real people. ViridaeTalk 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Beware of unintended consequences. Our internal search feature isn't nearly as good as Google. If we exclude our pages from indexing, that makes it very hard to find things when we need to look them up. Who has that editor I asked about "red lederhosen"? Dagnabbit, the talk are no longer indexed by Google; I can't find that conversation. Am I making sense? If a user page is causing somebody problems, they can request deletion. - Jehochman Talk 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) I agree. For practical purposes, we need a good internal search engine for our contributors which should include talk pages and project pages and the like, but outward search engines like google should ideally only see our encyclopedic content. It's not good to have our dirty laundry indexed externally. Of course, it's a shame we don't currently have a good enough internal search and we've had to rely on google instead, but the answer to that is we should try to get our own facilities improved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the foundation can persuade Google to donate a box of our own? — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would be heavenly :D -- Ned Scott 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the foundation can persuade Google to donate a box of our own? — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, thinking more about this, I probably should have posted this to a VP page instead of here. If I understand correctly, a developer would have to make this change. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but I have to question the point of doing so. After all, if my memory serves correctly, Wikimedia developers added AFD to robots.txt on our request. They didn't do it just for lolz. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quick 2 cents... I concur with the suggestion of adding User Pages, User Talk Pages, and Article Talk pages to robots.txt to remove them from Google searches - for all the reasons stated above. I've had no trouble finding pages using the internal search engine and have not had to resort to Google for that. Lots of users have templates on their User pages stating that they are not encyclopedia pages, so it's clear that there is at least a concern about this in general. Also, in searching for non-Wiki topics on Google, I've randomly run across a variety of user and talk pages, and seen some pretty funny stuff, right there in the top Google rankings, complete with excerpts of people arguing about all sorts of things. Anything Wikipedia comes up on the first Google page, so it seems to me this should be considered seriously. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thought OTRS we've gotten a lot of complaints about non-articles being in Google's cache. This will help a lot...hopefully. An AFD !vote viewed out of context looks bad to someone who dosn't know anything about how wikipedia works. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Leaving it blocked from indexing does more good than anything. I would also support adding all of Wikipedia/User pages (and talks). ^demon[omg plz] 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, only the main namespace and portal should be indexed. Everything else is utility/internal, and is not monitored for compliance with article content policies. Either we apply our content policies to all public-facing pages, or we hide those pages from the search engines. I favor the latter course. If the mediawiki search engine is junk then that's an argument for fixing the search engine. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In looking over the robots file, I noticed that only some of the deletion discussion pages are listed. Is there a reason that it's limited to just a few, or should all of the discussions listed on Template:Deletiondebates be added? - jc37 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think only deletion subpages, as used on AfD for example, are listed in robots.txt, since those will linger on long after the debate is concluded. The pages listing current nominations are, and should be, indexable. Since old versions of pages are never indexable anyway, this means that no additional robots.txt entries are required for those deletion debates where old discussions are only archived in page histories. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if I've reported this in the right place - Wikipedia is so labyrinthine. Here goes. From the latest b3ta newsletter:
>> Quopedia vandalism << "Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We would like to divulge to you the following very sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of our labour, but for obvious reasons can't reveal the location of each image - so here is a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your newsletter's readers could aid us in our glorious mission?"
There is a weblink in the original newsletter to a photo: the same photo is in the Notting Hill carnival (photo of the crowd) and is vandalised. At the left side of the pic, at about 4 o'clock beneath the 'Kebabs Fish and Chips' sign, there's Francis Rossi and the other one (the pretty one who lost his looks) - very small, infront of a blue ?curtain/screen. They're very small - you'll need eagle eyes. In the original newsletter there's a link to the image which you can enlarge so that they're easily visible, but I couldn't link to as it's a banned site.
To see the original newsletter, go to http://b3ta.com/ then click ' read newsletter 298' just below where it says 'Cadburies take them and cover them in chocolate'. Go down the page a little bit and at the end of the section I've quoted above there's a blue link to the pic. 86.134.10.119 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the right place. Image has been deleted & Statusquorn (talk · contribs) has been blocked, though given that message I suspect much more has been done with throwaway accounts.--Isotope23 talk 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think Checkusers will accept to look into it? Circeus 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- We'll see. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think Checkusers will accept to look into it? Circeus 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(Rick Parfitt. LessHeard vanU 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
TREYWiki unbanned
TREYWiki has requested that the arbitration committee unban him. We have decided to do so, with the caveat that he's now under strict parole. Any arbitrator can re-ban him if he is misbehaving. Raul654 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is any arbitrator... supposed to read any administrator...? Joe 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The aforementioned arbitration case is closed. Artaxerex is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. The parties are reminded of the need to adhere closely to the neutral point of view policy. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Username issue
I came upon LSDisGood4theBrain (talk · contribs) while on new user patrol. While this doesn't seem to fall within the hard-and-fast rubric of WP:U, it would seem to me that common sense dictates that usernames promoting drug use are clearly not suitable for Wikipedia. I warned him with {{username}} and he's continued editing ... could some one have a look? Thanks. Blueboy96 12:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Userpage rules
I need to check on userpage rules. Is it okay to put political statements on your user page, including userboxes, saying things like "I hate such-and-such politician"? My understanding is that things that incite violence, reveal personal info, etc can't be on userpages but I'm not sure of this situation. Rlevse 14:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:USER#What may I not have on my user page?. EdJohnston 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica
FYI, there is a discussion underway on meta regarding the proposed removal of this domain from the Wikimedia blacklist:
--A. B. (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't really affect us much; as Melsaran says there, it'll just get added to our blacklist if it's removed from meta. -Amarkov moo! 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to begin a Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard
I propose to create a new noticeboard to help editors understand, comply with, and enforce the disruptive editing guideline. We already have specialized noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:COIN and WP:RSN. These work well to help editors get assistance applying those guidelines to real cases.
With the demise of WP:CSN, more cases of suspected long term abuse are heading to WP:ANI, often unformed and poorly explained. The lack of evidence and organization prevents the community from taking proper action and places the suspected editors in an uncomfortable situation. A specialized noticeboard for discussing suspected cases would help filter out frivolous cases, and would generate proper evidence for those cases requiring community attention. With the help of editors experienced in the WP:DE guideline, those requesting assistance would be much better prepared to file a request for community sanctions at WP:AN or WP:ANI.
This new board would not have any special powers. It would simply be a centralized place to discuss specific cases of long term disruptive editing. I've created Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard as something to look at, discuss, and edit. - Jehochman Talk 17:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- How does this interrelate to WP:RFC/USER? Addhoc 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion board is a place to talk about suspected cases. It's focus is education, explaining to editors what is and is not disruptive, how to avoid being disruptive, where to go with specific cases and how to present them. We might send people to WP:RFC or WP:RFAR or WP:AN/WP:ANI. Our users are often confused about how to navigate these situations. The board would provide guidance. - Jehochman Talk 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, are you intending to update Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors? Addhoc 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, if there is a consensus, that section could start with "Suspected cases of disruptive editing may be reported at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard" and we'd make some other changes. I'll propose new wording at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing. - Jehochman Talk 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since nobody has expressed any concerns yet, and I just came across an interesting case of possible disruption, I've posted that case to the noticeboard. Please have a look because a real case may illuminate what this board can do. If anyone objects, we can move the case to WP:ANI. I have no problem with that. - Jehochman Talk 03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for outside views on administrative action
(moved from WP:AN/I)
A little history. I ran across Homeopathy and blocked whig for edit warring. Then I posted a warning on the article talk page. After the warning, SM565 Orangemarlin SM565 Orangemarlin began to edit war again. After 2RR, I blocked both editors , Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · logs) and Sm565 (talk · contribs · logs) for disruption. After that, OM's block was challenged and Neil (talk · contribs) unblocked.
Because I disagree, and I am apt to repeat this behavior, by warning editors and doing short term blocks on those who perpetuate. I would like a review. Relevant notes are in the archives of Orangemarlin here and Neils page here and my page here.
Thank you for your time and attention. Mercury 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think that it would have been a bit better to have short-term protected the page rather than using targeted blocks. Though it prevents further edits by others to the article for the length of the protection, it forces discussion and resolution (hopefully) rather than the antagonism that might be released because of a block. I don't have a problem with how you handled the situation, but I'd suggest that only after ≥3 reverts might a block be a good idea, and then consider: our blocking policy is to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not punish edit warriors. Nihiltres(t.l) 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you handled the situation perfectly well. If our intention is to to prevent damage to Wikipedia, it is much better to block disruptive edit warriors, than to protect a page. Your block of 12 hours was not harsh, and came on the heels of a clear warning to stop edit warring, after which even a single revert would have clearly been disruptive. Isarig 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no excuse for continuing to carry on with disruptive behavior after being warned. Mr.Z-man 20:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Context should be taken from the discussion on Talk:Homeopathy, as I fear Mercury isn't telling the whole story. It was pretty evident the single purpose account Sm565's insistence on an NPOV tag remaining on the Homeopathy article was both disruptive and against consensus, and Orangemarlin's only "disruptive" editing was to remove it, twice. A block for Orangemarlin was absolutely out of proportion and out order, and I am surprised Mercury is so keen to bring his poor judgement up again.
- If our "intention is to prevent damage to Wikipedia" (actually, our intention should be to make a better encyclopaedia), perhaps we should not spank well-intentioned editors, risking losing them from the project. Particularly those in good standing, with a (previously, now) clean block log and thousands of good faith edits. And especially after this arbitrary "2RR" and no direct warning (the vaguely worded warning was on the talk page, not OM's talk page). If you felt an edit war was underway, rather than block more and more editors, you should have protected the article for 24 hours, or stepped away and let someone else handle it. The fact you suggest you are "apt to repeat this behaviour" is the real concern. Neil ☎ 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I suggested the review, was for my "aptness". This shows I am concerned for what the community as a whole thinks. The fact that I am open for review should eliminate the real "concern", I hope. Mercury 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I'll admit, I'm being succinct, but I would have hoped by linking the relevant areas, I would be telling the whole story. Mercury 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mercury, I would suggest you disengage from this dispute; the fact you want to re-apply a bad block is concerning. Addhoc 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- If our "intention is to prevent damage to Wikipedia" (actually, our intention should be to make a better encyclopaedia), perhaps we should not spank well-intentioned editors, risking losing them from the project. Particularly those in good standing, with a (previously, now) clean block log and thousands of good faith edits. And especially after this arbitrary "2RR" and no direct warning (the vaguely worded warning was on the talk page, not OM's talk page). If you felt an edit war was underway, rather than block more and more editors, you should have protected the article for 24 hours, or stepped away and let someone else handle it. The fact you suggest you are "apt to repeat this behaviour" is the real concern. Neil ☎ 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Disengaged. But I still reserve the right to comment in this thread. Additionally, I did not state that I would reapply the block in question, read the whole sentence... "by warning editors and doing short term blocks on those who perpetuate". Regards,Mercury 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The block of Orangelmarlin was a bad block. Full disclosure, I voted against your RFA. That being said, one bad block doesn't mean you should lose the mop. Let this go, learn from it, and move on. AniMate 02:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Using IfD for Fair Use Images failing criterion 10a
Just letting people know that as nobody knows which deletion template I should use on Fair Use Images that do not specify the specific copyright holder, I will start using the IfD process on them. Please say if there is an easier way, similar to {{Di-no source}} for example. Jackaranga 21:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Would {{No copyright holder}} do the trick? Happy editing, ( arky ) 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I will use {{Di-no source}}, and see what happens, as the message that is left on the user's talk page also mentions the copyright, even though the template itself doesn't. WP:NFC#Enforcement only says to notify the uploader, it doesn't say tagging the image is necessary, so I guess the user message is the most important. Jackaranga 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be aggressively deleting images per NFCC#10a. For some images the source and copyright holder are quite obvious. A logo is sourced to and the property of the corporation (or the parent corporation); a film poster is the property of the movie congolmerate (e.g. Universal Studios), and the source is rather irrelevant (because a scan or a digital image on filmposters.com isn't copyrighted by them); etc. While this is certainly at odds with what our non-free content policy says exactly, it seems sensible to me. --Iamunknown 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser backlogged
Could an available CheckUserer please clear the backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser? There are 27 outstanding requests at the moment, the oldest one dating back to September 21. Aec·is·away talk 22:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Community ban
What happened to the community ban link that used to be at the top of the admin boards? Has there been a change? I know of a case that will likely be there soon, or it's descendant form. This is a case dealing with multiple editors on several related articles. It needs to be a process with teeth, something enforceable.Rlevse 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That page was retired. The separate ban page was decided to be a bit too isolated, and ban discussions should now go back to WP:ANI. - TexasAndroid 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a trend now. Too much stuff is going to be on ANI soon and it'll be a mess. Then what exactly is the disruptive editing page for? I don't get a warm fuzzy from reading the page itself.Rlevse 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the 'soon' and 'going to be' ships have already sailed. The 'Episodes' thread there has been going since September 30 (and will go at least another 48 hours since a comment was left today), and the top three ('Episodes', 'Prester John', and 'PR') take up nearly 2/3 of the board. It should be renamed /Confrontations or /Brawls. KrakatoaKatie 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#CSN gone, redirected to wrong place? thread for an ongoing discussion. All this redirection to ANI is a stupid idea in my opinion. It's already over-bloated and can only get worse.--Isotope23 talk 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Totally agree all this stuff going to ANI is silly. Rlevse 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- If someone has done enough to deserve a community ban, they would usually be guilty not of having caused an "incident", but of a long-term pattern of bad behavior. Doesn't that mean that this board would be more appropriate for discussions of community bans than ANI, which is overloaded anyway? Cardamon 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Totally agree all this stuff going to ANI is silly. Rlevse 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#CSN gone, redirected to wrong place? thread for an ongoing discussion. All this redirection to ANI is a stupid idea in my opinion. It's already over-bloated and can only get worse.--Isotope23 talk 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the 'soon' and 'going to be' ships have already sailed. The 'Episodes' thread there has been going since September 30 (and will go at least another 48 hours since a comment was left today), and the top three ('Episodes', 'Prester John', and 'PR') take up nearly 2/3 of the board. It should be renamed /Confrontations or /Brawls. KrakatoaKatie 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a trend now. Too much stuff is going to be on ANI soon and it'll be a mess. Then what exactly is the disruptive editing page for? I don't get a warm fuzzy from reading the page itself.Rlevse 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The problem here is that too much is getting moved here. Community, check the Mfd on RFCN, etc and so on. Rlevse 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't we move those threads to subpages, and make an "on-going issues" infobox at the top/side linking to them? Seems like a good idea too me; we could do that for all threads which last for longer than a week. --Haemo 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A question about admins involved with articles
I hate to "tell on someone", but User:Zscout370 was heavily involved in a debate on Comparative military ranks of Korea, siding with parties that the insignia pictures were invalid where others claimed they were. He was directly involved with editing the article, but now has taken to deleting all of the images using his powers as an admin to support his views. The debate was also far from over, as I had contacted several sources trying to get the matter resolved. I reviewed Wikipedia directives and it clearly says admins shouldnt get involvoed in deleting things in which they were directly involoved with as an editor. If this is true, ZScout acted without authority [2]. Please clarify and again, this isnt to get him in trouble, only to ask a question. -OberRanks 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Were the images tagged with a delete tag first or did they meet speedy delete criteria?Rlevse 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some of them were, some of them weren't. Two users found them on a website and called them "copyright violations" yet when I made long distance phone calls to the Army and Navy in Korea I was directly told they were the original publishers. The Navy then logged on and offered to verify this through a navy.mil account [3]. ZScout became involoved in the debate and then choose to ignore everything I said and simply started deleting the images before the debate was over. I dont think that was right and it did make me upset espeically since I had made the sacrifice to call Korea and get this thing worked out. I'm sure he meant well and will adhere to WP:AGF and WP:CIV. I just think it was against Wikipedia policy what he did. -OberRanks 14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- i've asked him about this and to respond here.Rlevse 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the meantime, can we undo the damage's he's caused and undelete those pictures? I am very concerned about the junior enlisted insignia, which is nothing more than 1-4 colored bars on top of eachother, ineligable for copyright with some of the images he deleted not even appearing on the website where they were supposed to have been "stolen" from. He also deleted all of the South Korean general insignia, directly verified with CNFK as generic officer insignia public and free, and wiped out the entire Marine Corps enlisted section. The North Korean insignia do appear to have been taken from the website, I can live with that; but I am back to my original problem that admins shouldn't go deleting things in articles which they are personally involoved in editing, for sure not when the editing is disputed or when they are engaged in a debate with someone. -OberRanks 15:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Were the images tagged with a delete tag first or did they meet speedy delete criteria?Rlevse 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think this discussion may be relevant here. KrakatoaKatie 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- This comment should also be looked at. [4]. I believe it violates WP:AGF and it is interesting that ZScout claimed no proof was provided after a U.S. naval officer offered to e-mail another member of the debate to verify that what was being said about these images was in fact correct [5]. I am sorry to get so hot, but this thing is really upseting me after my hard work to resolve it through the proper channels. -OberRanks 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the rank insignia images, a word about the commercial website http://www.uniforminsignia.net is in order...I ran across it while trying to clean up and update licenses on images utilizing the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} template. The website, which exists based on donations, apparently creates GIF images of worldwide military insignia based on official descriptions of those insignia. The quality and consistent appearance of the insignia has apparently led a lot of Wikipedia editors to use those images to improve the appearance of our articles on military ranks...this linksearch shows images attributed to them on the English Wikipedia, and this one shows they are all over the Commons as well. The hundreds of images in those linksearches are only the ones that have been properly attributed...there are many, many more that have apparently been taken from that site without attribution. For example, look at this page on uniforminsignia.net, and compare the South Korean naval ranks at Image:RokNavCapt.gif and Image:ROKCmdrBrds.gif, which were formerly in this section of the Korean rank article (the one that is in dispute here)...the file format is identical, the file size is identical, the appearance is identical - only the filename has been changed.
The website claims copyright on the images it creates. As mentioned in the ANI thread linked by KrakatoaKatie above, the copyright claim may or may not be valid in 100% of cases. However, users with copyright expertise, such as Quadell, have made the point that the claim could be valid. In addition to the legal issues, it is morally wrong for us to take the images created by that site and use them ourselves in a fashion which is in direct competition with their commercial purposes.
Also, I am reasonably certain that OberRanks (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of Husnock (talk · contribs), given the fact that OberRanks pretty much exclusively edits articles created or significantly edited by Husnock. This is not a violation of WP:SOCK; the Husnock account is inactive. But dubious and unverified copyright permission claims, and bad image sources, were a Husnock problem (as shown at User:Durin/Husnock images) and Husnock was cautioned about image copyright issues at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a copyright policy issue, not a content dispute. Zscout isn't accused of using his admin powers to push a POV or have an article read the way he wants. He is simply trying to enforce Wikipedia's copyright policies -- a laudable goal. OberRanks says he has spoken with members of the US armed forces who have apparently told him that the images on Wikipedia (and therefore those on uniforminsignia.net) are US armed forces versions of the Korean insignia (insigniae?). I am uncomfortable making copyright determinations based on somebody's say so. Perhaps OberRanks could obtain a copy of these insignia as produced by the US armed forces so this information can be verified. Or, as I have suggested, someone could contact uniforminsignia.net and ask them to license their insignia so we can use it. Because even if the official insignia themselves are in the public domain, the artistic rendering of the insignia created by uniforminsignia.net is most likely a creative work of authorship entitled to copyright protection. There may be non-free content issues as well, if the underlying insignia are subject to copyright. Either way, this is a copyright policy issue and should probably be addressed at WP:FUR or WP:MCQ, not here. -- But|seriously|folks 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll back Zscout, alot of these images in this area are sadly lacking data on the source of the image. See the image problems mentioned at Template_talk:SouthVietnamWarMedals#Other_images. IF someone would like to, I'd suggest tagging the lot of those as unsourced. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Protected edit request on Template:Film
Would be very grateful if someone could implement this immediately. I've been changing over tags for WP Filmmaking, since they've joined WP Films as a task force when we expanded our scope, but unfortunately I forgot to change the template text to reflect the new project scope, so it's led to confusion amongst several editors. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, got one more edit I'd like to see addressed immediately. Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 15:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Difficult to tag users images for deletion when his talk page is protected
Hello, as the administrators do not encounter this kind of problem, I thought maybe they hadn't noticed the following :
Sometimes a user's talk page gets protected because he is blocked but vandalising his own talk page. This makes it difficult to request some of his images be deleted, as a user must always be warned before any deletion process may go forth. Normal level users have to use WP:RPP which is a bit silly. I'm not sure what can be done though. Jackaranga 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you not see the absurdity of what you've just asked [6] on RFPP? "Please leave this indefinitely blocked user these messages informing him of changes he needs to make to these image pages... which, oops, he can't do because he's indefinitely blocked" is roughly how it goes. On a side note, it is not the case that a user must always be warned before their uploads can be deleted. In this case no warning is fine. – Steel 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is an error in assuming that the user needs to be notified. There is no such requirement anywhere regarding deletion, or it needs to be removed if it has snuck in. Notification is a courtesy, done because the original contributor may know more and be able to solve the problems and because it leads to a better collaborative environment. In this particular case, those reasons don't apply because they can't solve the problem and they aren't here to collaborate. GRBerry 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Caribbean~H.Q.
Why is this administrator not allowing me enough time or space to finish editing a page before reviewing my changes? I have asked him several times to desist reverting my changes to Wikipedia until I am finished editing the page. However he just keeps threatening and intimidating me.
I will not make any changes to the Wikipedia (I suppose it is a preserve of a few elite administrators) until he explains his attitude issues here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.34.220 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I explained to him the reason behind the revert of a ovious violation of WP:NPOV (see here) in a edit summary, wich got promptly responded with a directpersonal attack on my talk page, following that I responded to that personal attack by telling him to read WP:NPOV and WP:NPA on his talk page, wich got anwsered with yet another personal attack both on a edit summary and his talk page, I'm not interested in continuing communication with this user so I told him to post this here so someone else can explain policy to him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- With regard to the point of letting you finish editing a page - there is no such right. As soon as you hit save what you have written is both recorded and liable to be edited... by anyone. There is a template (I've not seen it recently, so perhaps someone will link it) that comments that the article is being worked upon, but that is not binding and is voluntary. Would you perhaps like to comment on Caribbean H.Q.'s comment about inappopriate responses to their action, and why you feel that their review of your subsequent edits was unjustistified? LessHeard vanU 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{inuse}} — Dan | talk 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{inuse}} — Dan | talk 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikirage now in Spanish
I added the Spanish Wiki to wikirage. Portuguese as requested will be next. w3ace 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Move of discussions on WP:ANI
I've taken the largest two discussion and created subpages. Its too long to load and the page is unusable. Mercury 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
GallifreyanPostman, indefinitely blocked
I indefinitely blocked GallifreyanPostman (talk · contribs) for ongoing disruption. I noticed his page blanking] of Microsoft Office Communicator, and started reviewing his contributions which I invite others to do. I'm not against this block being given an expiration time so if other's would like to review by all means please do. Keegantalk 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Earn a cookie!!!!!
I'll award a cookie to whoever closes this. -- Jreferee t/c 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)