Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs)

I didn’t want it to come to this, but this user is sticking in my craw. His biggest problem is a general lack of CLUE concerning sources and civility, especially with regard to AFD and the use of the term “bad faith”. He has blown what would have been a routine AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. David School (Richmond, California) into a battleground, in part by claiming that fleeting and junk references to the school make it notable, and continuing to banter on after two editors noted that the AfD is a lost cause for him. A perfect example of his lack of CLUE (and following me) is his vote here at an AfD I started on a school with no sources…he accuses me of disruptive AfDs when I nominate articles that have been ill-sourced for years; to say nothing of ignoring precedent on elementary schools that says that all schools aren’t notable. When I tagged an article for notability, instead of explaining why it was notable, he accused my tagging of being disruptive. This guy started a ridiculous ANI about me a few weeks back and was blocked for it; apparently he didn’t learn his lesson, as he started a ridiculous pump thread earlier today (one where being at the completely wrong place was the least of its problems). He also left a lump of coal on my talk page. Also concerning me is what appears to be canvassing; with regard to the St. David AfD he messaged every single editor (and that’s over 50), and there are other examples besides. I know this is a loaded word, but Lucifer has, however unintentionally, come off a bit as a troll. I know I am involved, but I would appreciate it if this user were blocked for awhile and topic-banned from AfD for awhile longer until he gets a little more CLUE Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I share some of Purplebackpack's concerns about Luciferwildcat's behavior, I do not think that the problems have risen to the level where blocks or topic bans are called for. I observe a negative interpersonal dynamic at work between these two editors, and accordingly have offered each a friendly recommendation to disengage from the other. To no avail - so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second Cullen's remarks. User Luciferwildcat appears to be overly passionate about everything connected to Richmond, California, and to be unwilling to accept consensus if it goes against inclusion. However, I think these are matters for education, not sanction. This user works hard and is likely to be a valuable contributor, if they can just learn to tone it down a bit - and to accept Wikipedia consensus about what is and is not deserving of an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have an inclusionist worldview and take personal offense when I observe mass nominations from editors that do not put in a similar amount of effort into finding sources or actual editing. I find it perplexing that someone would report that I need to get a "CLUE" while they complain that essentially my disagreeing with them, participating in AFDs, and not voting or holding similar views to them requires I get a clue. It would seem to be quite the opposite. It's not my intention at all to get in anyone's "craw". I don't quite know what that means but from the context I assume it could be replaced with "in my business", "riding my a--", or "britches" (correct me if I am wrong). I don't see how it is constructive to complain about my pattern of discussion as "bantering" when a good AfD would have a lot of discussion ideally. It should be noted that this user followed me to the St. David School article and led me to the AfDs again where I saw several other schools for nomination.

As someone that has gone to Catholic schools and lives in the U.S. I remembered that every time I go into the office of a school there are framed news stories about the school from newspapers and magazines and also awards which reminded me of the NRVE argument and as such I decided to chime in. It is a very common but absolutely not universal worldview here that all schools are notable.

Not just that the article survived a deletion attempt in the past so I didn't think it was a lost cause and further I have every right to my opinion, comment, and vote as he does and it violates everything that I have come to learn from wikipedia and consensus that I should not be able to state it or someone would whine about me offering my meager 2 cents. Perhaps there is some bitterness from the fact that I have sucessfully rescued several articles he has nominated for deletion. But it is misguided and counterproductive. In the end we both win. The articles were largely saved but the content was much improved. He says I am ignoring precedent which comes off as him attempting to dominate my perceptions and decision making in how I vote and framing it as disruptive in and of itself something that is most disingenuous as it is a fallacy of opinion versus actual policy which is nonexistant with regards to non high schools / colleges. I was never blocked for starting an ANI about this user.

This user, simply based on my understanding of "WP:STALK" at the time, elicited me to begin a discussion on his behavior that at the time was annoying me and another user with superfluous and quite pedantic discussion threads on every minute detail and demanding responses to nearly every comment of his mass nominations of city councilmembers (and out of over a dozen AfDs only one was deleted) I thought discussing the matter to help him COOL down and take things SLOW would be constructive. I feel that ANI was rather stonewalled and not taken seriously. Later a made statements that referred to the complaints made therein on an AfD and was given a short block for that and I accept that. I should have focused my commentary on content and not the individual characters (editors) of wikipedia and that should help avoid any such problem in the future.

The fact that this editor saw the question I asked at the village pump just goes to show he may be monitoring my edits. I genuinely desire to get along with if not avoid this user entirely, as our interests have collided then the former is paramount and I solicited advice on this matter, but did so with wording that completely avoids using his name so as not to tarnish anyone's reputation (of course I am aware a very interested party might follow my history and deduce his identity but the fact remains I did not lambast him in a public forum, I just would like to resolve any bad blood and therefore chose this approach.) I don't find the thread to be ridiculous it's a sincere attempt at input needed to resolve tension. I did in fact send him a lump of coal, but it was tongue in cheek and I made sure he knew that, in fact he sent me the same thing on my talk page. Apparently the message has been lost and its not something I plan on doing. I informed every editor of the AfD for St. Davids, and that is something that as far as I know, the AfD template itself suggests that the nominator do!

Notwithstanding this editor himself has informed every editor for some of his AfDs so this complaint is something that I find quite ludicrous. My message was extremely bland and informed people that have edited or participated in the previous AfD that it was on on the chopping block. I am confused as to why this user's ANI was quickly set aside and mine is still up, as we complained of nearly identical behavior.

And I don't mind any of the names he is calling me but If I was blocked for expressing a position that I described at the time this user's edits as "bad faith" then shouldn't he in fact be blocked for calling me a troll? I am not advocating that, but I just would like some feedback on that from the powers that be so that I can better understand the due process here. Lastly I find it very suspicious he would ask that I be topic banned from AfDs since most of the AfDs that we are both involved in I have prevented from being deleted and helped to dramatically improve. I think this would just lead to a loss for wikipedia of hard to source but still notable subjects. Also the best way forward from my end will be to only discuss subject matter and disengage entirely from this user.

I do apologize to you sir for any inconvenient feelings or distress that in have in any way brought forth in your spirit. I wish you the best and merry christmas and goodbye. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy WP:TLDR N^oformation ^Talk 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think the above banter speaks for itself that Lucifer just can't let this go, and needs to get a CLUE. In addition, within the last hour, he has counter-!voted on some school-related AfDs I voted in (voting with the false/continually refuted premise that all schools are notable); and it honestly seems to me that he followed me to them, as !voting on non-Bay Area articles seems to be out of his general editing scope. (For diffs, see his recent contributions) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Both editors have presented their reasoning but few supporting WP:DIFFs. Both some to have overlapping interest in school related deletion discussions. There's definitely no justification for a block and not much need for intervention except perhaps, education for LWC in more effective communication on noticeboards. I'd encourage pbp to try to have more patience with new editors Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A topic thread about me that you started and you pinged me to contribute to is not me not letting go, it's me responding accusations. I did not "countervote" anywhere you did, I simply voted on some school related and Bay Area related topics, because as far as wikipedia is concerned it is the focus of my attention, I also voted on several dozen topics completely unrelated to the bay area or schools or council members. It's unfortunate you assume that is what is going on. I think if anyone needs get a "CLUE" it's you, comments such as this one "Frankly, Unscintillating's obstinent keepism is boarding on disruption."[1] are nonsensical and ridiculous. This user uses talks down to people with an authority he does not have.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, you started voting at AfDs today with the ones I had voted in. That seems like a pattern (not to mention that most of your AfD votes disregard precedent). And how is the quote nonsensical and ridiculous? It was in response to Unscintillating a) saying you can't discuss notability in an AfD and that I had no argument when I clearly had an argument; and b) refusing to admit the outcome of the Maria Viramontes AfD discussion by throwing a pile of meaningless references that didn't establish notability in the absolutely wrong place. But this isn't about Unscintillating, this isn't even about me, this is about you Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made that clear and I accept your unresponsiveness. No editor that objects to a deletion decision has to "accept" it if they wish to bring it toward AfD. That is why the process exists. I have not "thrown" any references or commented anywhere that I am not supposed to. The only page with a large body of references about Viramontes was not created by me. The Deletion Review process requires contacting the deletor as a prerequisiteBefore listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. Please stop your pattern of accusing me of violating policy when you are completely wrong.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that nothing here puts us in block territory, but with that said, no editor should feel obligated to sift through walls of text like that in order to determine the validity of what's contained therein. Almost anything needed to be said on a talk page can be said in about 1/5th of that wall, and that which needs more space should use paragraphs and normal English communication methods. I managed to get through about a quarter of it and a lot of it is just irrelevant. N^oformation ^Talk 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noformation, there's a section of TLDR that specifically discusses Wikipedia:TLDR#Maintain_civility. If you only got through a quarter you really aren't in a position to comment on its quality. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point I'm making is that no editor should be expected to read that and most simply will dismiss it. N^oformation ^Talk 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; unfortunately TLDR is written it such a way that merely referencing it comes off as rude, especially to a fairly new editor. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I apologize for any convolusion and I will try to be more succinct and paragraph things in the future I was just trying to be comprehensive and cover every accusation in depth. Sometimes I forget that not everyone is good at reading a lot and fast as fast as I can type and even if they can it's necessary to maintain their interest. I motion to close this thread then.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. As the person under discussion, you can't be the one to "motion (sic) to close the thread". In fact your behavior here seems to suggest that I was wrong in my comment above, when I said that all you needed was to get a little education in Wikipedia policy and to "tone it down a little". Far from taking that advice, you are continuing to rant. You appear to be completely resistant to what other editors here are trying to tell you - calm down, listen to others, develop some perspective - while you continue to rehash at great length your battle with Purplebackback and your apparent belief that everything, notable or not, ought to have a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can, however, be the one to decide to let others have the WP:LASTWORD. No one's calling for you to be blocked, so you can review the feedback you get here and use it as guide for future editing . Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  PBP's open uncivil aggression in this ANI toward me is simply one example of the problem.  The purpose of the aggression is to throw smoke over the unprovoked personal attack being discussed.  What I have learned in trying to work with PBP is that he/she is unresponsive to editorial feedback.  For example, he/she continues to mention WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN as if the WP:GNG does not exist.  For my part, I don't know if PBP is WP:CIR incompetent or is just using incivility as a tactic.  Repeated removal of reliable sources from an article being discussed for deletion, and defending the action as a "content" dispute, is another example of deviant behavior.  In general, removal of references is considered to be abuse.  The spamming of AfD discussions is another example of a problem.  Administrative intervention for PBP is needed.  Administrative warnings need to be issued that PBPs behavior must change.  An AfD topic ban for PBP of one month would be a mild and appropriate sanction.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBP has shown some severe "ownership" problems with his nominations at AfD. I counted 17 generally badgering comments in one nomination of a stubbish piece about a borderline local politician, for example. This is the root issue here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A one-month AfD ban would be horrendously inappropriate. I see nothing wrong with commenting many times in an AfD that frankly should've just resulted in an unceremonious delete. And what the heck is wrong with using ANYBIO and POLITICIAN? They are relevant guidelines. And I will not apologize for removing what Unscintillating claims are "reliable sources", as they were junk references that had not been properly integrated into the article, they did not really establish notability as they were trivial, other editors agreed with the removals, and I explained why I removed them on either the talk page or in edit summaries. Not seeing how commenting multiple times in an AfD equates to ownership, either Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree, I just got called a troll and as someone that got blocked for three days for expressing that I felt harassed and what at the time I described as "bad faith" edits and mass nominations for deletion, shouldn't he be blocked as well? It seems only fair. So far this user has made Me, Carrite, and Unscintillating feel very bothered and annoyed, and a word that I was told I can no longer use to describe this user. So why no block?LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In the interest of ending drama, I think an interaction ban between these two might be an excellent idea. I think both are serious about Wikipedia, each in their own way, but there is bad blood, mutual stalking, and indications that one or both might be sucking up too many addictive adrenaline hits from the drama. It's time for both of these potentially excellent editors to let it lie. Certainly PBP is gonna get whacked in the head by the proverbial boomerang if he pushes this too hard. I'm disappointed that this has been opened at all, frankly. Much head shaking... Carrite (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would that would be implemented without giver a deletionist a first mover advantage? AFD topic ban for both? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WP:KNOCKITTHEHELLOFF personal interaction ban is what's needed here, I think. But the AfD situation needs to be closely watched. PBP in particular needs to learn the art of stating his case and then stepping back and letting event run their course on the nomination. Nominations are not matters of personal pride to be fought out to the last ditch... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing here is "I should be banned because I don't agree with you" more than anything Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs)

User talk:Purplebackpack89's latest contribution to Wikipedia is another personal attack, here.  As stated above, I have found in trying to work with this editor that he/she is unresponsive to editorial feedback, and this personal attack in the context of this ANI discussion is yet another example.  I again request administrative intervention, including the deletion of the personal attack.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close: For starters, Unscintillating is wrong that that's a personal attack...it's merely an observation that can be backed up by editor's comments on his talk page. Another editors said almost exactly the same thing earlier today in regards to Unscintillating. Furthermore, this seems an attempt by Carrite and Unscintillating to punish me for not cow-towing to their essentially strong keepist views (Carrite, for example, says on his page that AfD should essentially be eliminated). Unscintillating's position can be summarized as follows:

1. If a person is mentioned in a few places, however fleetingtly, he passes GNG
2. If a person passes GNG, it should be kept; any other notability guideline is irrelevant.

Whereas I say:

1. A little more than bare notability is needed
2. It would certainly help if the article passed the specific guidelines in addition to the general ones

Needless to say, I think my position is better rooted in policy. Yes, I do favor removing references Unscintillating has put in, as they don't add anything to the article (don't establish notability; aren't properly integrated). And I'm not a lone wolf, other people have agreed with my position on both the AfD and the addition of this "references". I think that this discussion should be shelved, as it's little more than keepist banter punishing someone who wanted to delete an article that was an absolute joke prior to the AfD. I think any kind of a topic ban is inappropriate for me. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and why was I not notified of this discussion on my talk page? That further indicates to me that this is an ill-conceived thread Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several IPs have at almost the exact same time reverted several of my changes at Wikipedia, they go back to different places. It looks like some kind of coordinated sock hounding attack.

1. Ads Israel to the list, though the site added is not located in Israel:[2]

2. Removes sourced information about who called the fortress Nimrod and inserts falsehoods that it was Jews and other falsehoods that the Israel national parks authority is the owner:[3]

3. Ads a falsehood that Hermon is the highest elevation in Israel though Hermon is not located in Israel: [4]

4. Ads a falsehood that the tunnel is in Israel, despite that it isn't: [5]

5: Ads a falsehood that the church is in Israel, despite that it isn't: [6]

(this is continuing right now as Im typing this, the socks are going through my edits)

Every single one of these coordinated reverts by the different IPs is a revert of my edit, you can also look in my edit history the edits I made on 19 December regarding places in East Jerusalem that many socks showed up to revert my edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not tors/open proxies and nearly all come from US - looks like many coordinated users (4chan-like). Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi-protected St. Toros Church, List of archaeoastronomical sites by country, Nimrod Fortress, List of elevation extremes by country and Western Wall Tunnel for three days. Based on this I'm assuming that these IP accounts are sock or meat puppets of Israelite1 (talk · contribs). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These look more like some sort of perhaps coordinated or sockpuppet POV pushing surrounding the status of Jerusalem and other territories rather then a hounding attack. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's much more likely that you happen to have been editing the articles where they chose to go. It's simply that they disagree with you; I suspect that they would likewise have reverted me if I'd made one of your edits to one of these pages instead of you making it. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is continuing: GRC:[7], Church of St peter: [8], Mary's Tomb:[9], Ecce Homo:[10], Cathedral of St James: [11], Church of St. James Intercisus:[12], Church of the Holy Sepulchre:[13], Lutheran church of the redeemer:[14], Christ Church: [15], Ghajar: [16], Category:Parks in Jerusalem: [17] (I created this cat), Kfar Haruv: [18], List of bees of Israel and the occupied territories: [19]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying Xerxes1337 (talk · contribs) and RxJar (talk · contribs) - the rest are all IPs, and I'll have those articles protected, if they aren't already by then, in a sec. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications given, and another admin had already protected most of those articles - I got the remainder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Bushranger. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still continuing, with hordes of IPsocks having decided I'm a puppet of the Arabs and saying so on my talk page. I'll continue to revert them while enjoying my Christmas ham. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in today's DYK on the Front Page, the first DYK reads as follows:

... that President Bill Clinton said he would personally pay the bill to keep the White House Christmas tree (pictured) lighted during the government shutdown resulting from disagreements on the 1996 federal budget?

Now, I would like to believe my English is as good as any American, but I am pretty sure "lighted" should be "lit" as in "...to keep the White House Christmas tree lit during the government shutdown...". Perhaps I am wrong, but if not, I think that change should be made on the front page ASAP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're interchangeable, though American English tends towards one common usage while those other English types lean the other way. :) Tarc (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm - depends how he meant it. Maybe he meant "to keep the physical decorations known as 'Christmas lights' on"? DS (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this probably should have gone to WP:ERRORS - anyway, "lighted" does look rather odd to me, but I think it can, technically, go either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying your English is as good as any American isn't saying much (I'm American). :-) Lighted describes Xmas tree decorations, and lit describes someone who's intoxicated. Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said "as any American", cause I speak American English. :) We always did talk weird in Norfolk, Virginia (where I grew up and home of the Tidewater Dialect), so that's probably where I picked it up. :) Okie Dokie, my goof. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional copy editor here (though you'd never know it by my own English :-)) - American usage differs between the verbal form and the adjective. The most common adjectival form is "lit" when the item in question is actually on fire (a candle, an oil lamp, a Yule log) and "lighted" when the item is electric (Christmas lights, the dreaded electric menorah, etc.). --NellieBly (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not-so-professional copy editor here. I'm from the UK, and I don't think the word "lighted" is ever used here. Not sure what the grammatical situation is in the US, but if both are acceptable to Americans then perhaps we could change it to "lit" to make it more accessible to English speakers elsewhere? Or perhaps we can use a new NPOV version, "litted"... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another limey here, and if my two English degrees are anything to go by, I think it should be "lit" - but I'm more than happy to trust NellieBly on this one. GiantSnowman 10:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to complicate matters, but I would write "alight" rather than lit or lighted. In my experience of (British) English, "lighted" is only ever used as in the past perfect, ie the completed act of lighting, and never in the continuous present. RolandR (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite play on the multiple meanings of "lit": "racecars don't need headlights because the track is always lit" ... "well so is my brother but he still needs headlights" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would choose "lit" but recognising the problems with all the suggestions to date, how about:

... that President Bill Clinton said he would personally pay to keep the White House Christmas tree (pictured) lights powered during the government shutdown resulting from disagreements on the 1996 federal budget?

or something like it? EdChem (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC) PS: I didn't notice that the hook has already completed its time on the main page, so this discussion is now really moot. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Englisher here - definitely "lit" over here! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Macbeth, by that well-known American, William Shakespeare ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An archaic useage, obviously ;) GiantSnowman 13:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I noted above, the word is used here in a past perfect tense, referring to a completed action. It is also used as a transitive verb. In British English, "lighted" would not be used in a continuous present, intransitive, form, as in the article. RolandR (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! And obviously he had to make it fit with the iambic pentameter, right? "Lit" just wouldn't have worked .... ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err yeah, what Roland said... GiantSnowman 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to go down the slippery slope of iambics...

Two parties, both alike in dignity,

The Federal District, where we lay our scene,

From public spending funds under scrutiny,

Where fiscal blood makes fiscal hands unclean,

--Shirt58 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusedspaceman (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Please look at this post by the above user (at bottom of topic). It looks to me like a legal threat and it links to an external page that may indicate the user has other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd class "I predict we'll see Wikipedia in court before long" as an actual legal threat -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Doesn't look to me like a threat, rather a general statement. I do agree that treating anything at Above Top Secret as legit says a lot though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusedspaceman (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account promoting quackery to people with cancer. His edits have the potential to cause significantly more real-life harm than any BLP violator. Does anyone take this seriously enough to do anything about it? Or do we just keep "discussing" our "content disputes" with these sorts of editors until we lose patience and get dinged for incivility? Never mind; I know the answer. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, not that it takes much, but User:AndyTheGrump has lost patience. Good old Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - not in the Christmas spirit, I suppose, but how much patience are we supposed to show to people who suggest that the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are co-conspiritors in what amounts to mass murder, and that "one-sided Wiki moderators hold some kind of power of life or death"? [20] It seems self-evident that this 'contributor' has no wish to do anything but promote quackery and off-the-wall conspiracy theories, and when this involves accusations of such magnitude against other contributors, there is no reasonable response other than a swift kick in the behind as we show them the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around some more, I'm inclined to rule WP:NOTHERE on this one. Sheesh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I entirely agree with you both and, therefore, I've just indeffed Amusedspaceman (talk · contribs) for using Wikipedia as a soapbox and for violating WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT. Review is welcome, as usual. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's complained to Jimbo now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and it got removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's contemptible, but it's not a legal threat within the meaning of the act. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good block - for all the reasons above - obvious is .... - Youreallycan (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this; I didn't realise these kinds of people really existed. MastCell makes a crucial point here in terms of how we might look to deal with similar issues in future. Good block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Non-administrator comment) This user has shown to use tactics similar to salesmen when they have failed at a pitch to make the pitchee feel bad. Not civil at all in my opinion. Phearson (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We shouldn't allow the 'pedia to become a conduit for life-threatening disinformation. --NellieBly (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• After reviewing contributions for this editor, I also concur with the block. He's been engaged in heavy POV pushing of a fringe theory, and seems incapable of receiving advice otherwise. Until and unless he's willing to stop that and accept the requirements of neutrality, especially refraining from undue weight toward fringe theories, he'll just cause frustration to himself and disruption to others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block - More of a "prediction" than a direct legal threat, but still looks like it was intended to intimidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Block --Merry Christmas from Guerillero 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Fastily just mass removed several hundred free license tags from images on en.wiki within the span of a few minutes, mostly under his alternate account FSII. This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how free licenses interact with copyrights. I left a message on Fastily's talk page but haven't gotten any response. It's 3 a.m. on Christmas morning here, so I'm not going to be able to follow-up on this. If someone else could look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Lord, that was an awful lot of edits in a short space of time.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• These are images tagged with two or more contradictory tags e.g. [21]. The few I looked at are photos of copyrighted sculptures, possibly being non-free derivative works in countries that don't have freedom of panorama. MER-C 13:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I indented your comment to make it more readable. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, Fastily's edits completely ignore the benefit of having the free CC licenses. They're added to say "I release my rights to this image under ___ license." Wait until the subjects of these images are PD or until a freedom of panorama law gets passed — or modify these images so that the subjects are either missing or are de minimis — and you suddenly have a freely licensed image. Remove the CC license template in such a situation and you have an image that's all-rights-reserved despite the lack of an issue with the subject. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although not precisely the same situation, File:JackLondon ADaughterOfTheSnows.jpg is a good example of how these license tags are useful. Someone uploaded a self-taken photo of a book cover and tagged it as non-free; another image of a different cover for the same book was later uploaded in its place. The original cover was wrongly tagged (it's PD-text), but because the photographer didn't say anything about releasing his/her rights into the public domain or under a free license, we can't use that image of a PD original. Regardless of the context, it is harmful to remove statements by uploaders that their own rights over an image are freely licensed or in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disagree with the idea of putting free tags on any sort of non-free images --Merry Christmas from Guerillero 16:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a problem here. We have many images that are derivative works with multiple copyright authors. For example, in the US, if you take a photograph of a 3D sculpture, then both the photographer and the sculptor are considered to have creative rights to the photo. We need to acknowledge both on the image description page. Template:Photo of art was recently created as a generic wrapper for cases like this. It allows a photographer to say their creative rights are freely licensed even though the underlying work remains non-free. Removing the photographer's statement simply makes the work violate the photographer's rights. Many of these need to be reverted. Due to the bot-like way this was accomplished, I would support reverting all of them so we can discuss them further. Perhaps we ultimately need a different way of handling this that makes the issue clearer, but we need to respect the rights of all parties that legally have an interest in a photo. Dragons flight (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of ironic, but by removing the photographer's statement of free access to the photo (from the photography standpoint), you've actually made them now be copyright violations when they weren't before. Silverseren^C 18:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that almost no one actually appears to have read up on derivative works before coming here; there are many contradictory phrases above within statements and even amongst statements. Everyone, please, don't assert your own opinions as copyright law. To clarify - a file cannot be free and non-free at the same time. When applied to non-free works, the copyright of a derivative does indeed belong to the original copyright holder(s) and the party who created the derivative. HOWEVER, the party who created a work derived from a creative work is not permitted to license this photo however they wish; the derivative of a copyrighted work may be licensed under the same license as the original work, or under a license. By releasing a derivative under a less restrictive license, the party that created the derivative effectively infringes upon the intellectual property rights of the original copyright holder(s). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea that the creator of, say, a statue owns the copyright of a tourist's photo of the statue is absurd...but, them's the law. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As I said on User talk:Fastily I do not like the idea of having photos as both free and unfree. I suggested that we could create or tweak a template to something like this {{Photo of <statue/art/whatever>|<Non-free-use-template>|<License for photo>|expiry=<year when the statue/art/whatever will be PD-old>}}. Then the photo can be unfree untill the expiry year and after that the free license could apply. --MGA73 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time I have ever uploaded a photo of a statue, it's been zapped as violating "no freedom of panorama". I'd like to know what has changed, if anything, to where a pic like File:Athletes monument.jpg is now allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the statue is not free then any photos of it will be deleted as a copyvio unless you manage to produce a fair use rationale that is accetable. --MGA73 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of "freedom of panorama" in the US overrides any attempt at a "fair use" rationale - or at least that was the explanation at the time. This sounds like the usual shifting sand of what's acceptable in wikipedia, which is why I don't upload pictures of statues anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're overreacting. Let's work with public statues in the US , where such works are protected by freedom of paronama. Since it is impossible to take a free image of that image(*) there's no free replacement. Thus you just need to show that the picture meets NFC policy. I'm 99% sure there are articles on these works of art with photos or the like. You can't use them decoratively - so, we can't use a statue of John Q Public on an article about JQP unless there is notable discussion about the statue itself.

(*) That said, I have come to understand that the freedom of panorama rules apply to the photographer. If a photographer from a country with very lax FOP (photos of art in public places are not derivative works), then as I have been told, that photo can be free. (Yes, this screams to be very odd in copyright law). That doesn't mean that we can expect a foreign wikipedian editor to easily make a free photo of a US statue, ergo a non-free of the statue is not easily replaced by a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time for someone to file an RFC? (Why is it Christmas always somehow has a row? XD )Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the purpose of the RFC is to figure out what the rules are. I would have to agree with Fastily here: Any alleged copyright of the photo is superceded by the artist's copyright on the work of art shown in the photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights do not "supercede" each other, they are cumulative. Regardless, the {{Photo of art}} template needs to be changed to clarify the issues. It should not, however, be mass removed from images (which is in many cases of violation of the uploader's licensing agreement). Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, your response implied that they were all derivative works of copyrighted works, but you did not say that. Did you make that determination on all of these? North8000 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they will have been if they were statues on US soil. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, however I have studied US copyright law and studied many of the important court rulings on copyright. A lack of freedom of panorama is not more restrictive than a routine copyright. It merely means that ordinary copyright does apply. A photo of a copyrighted statue is a derivative work. In plain English this means the image is in effect controlled by two copyrights, the photographer's copyright and the sculptor's copyright. [reply]

There is now an edit war over the hundreds of images changed by Fastily. I would like to suggest that everyone cool their guns and we discuss how to resolve this situation without just reverting each other. My suggestion would be to revise the functionality of {{Photo of art}} as suggested above and restore it to the images in question. This should satisfy both sides of the debate and keep everyone's rights and intentions intact regarding the images. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully a cease-fire seems to be in place now. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if Fastily's assertion is correct, does this not hold equally for photographs of designed objects like phones, cars, jewellery, or indeed just about any designed object? If this is the case, doesn't that mean tens of thousands of images here and at Commons should be retagged, and many of them deleted? If this isn't the case, what is the evidence that sculpture enjoys more protection than do other designed objects? Testovergian (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of media files on WMF projects. We've been having these issues for years now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Freedom of panorama restrictions apply to telephones, which are utilitarian objects. Statues are works of art and are typically unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)::(edit conflict) Yeah, it isn't actually. I should have been more clear, sorry. I agree with the fact that there are many problematic images, but not necessarily with the images above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, utilitarian objects are explicitly not covered by copyright. Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue the iPhone and the Macbook are works of carefully-designed art. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the creative way that File:Group of smartphones.jpg is tagged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama is a red herring here. If I take a picture of anything that is copyright, I create a derivative work, and will interact with the copyright held by the creator of the object I photographed. All freedom of panorama gives is the ability to make a prescribed type of image of an object in prescribed setting, which is not considered to violate the copyright held by the creator of the object. So in the UK I can take pictures of statues in a garden, embroideries in a church or daleks in a museum, without violating the copyright of the creator of the statues, embroideries or daleks. In the US, I can take pictures of architecture, provided I'm standing on the public highway, but i can't take pictures of statues. In France, I can't take pictures of the Eiffel Tower, because the lighting scheme is considered copyright. If I create a derivative work, copyright vests in both me and the creator of the thing I photographed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama is NOT a red herring. It's the same situation as what I've described. Just to be clear, there's nothing to stop me from taking pictures of statues in the US. I just can't publish them without permission. And before I knew about any of these details, someone zapped a statue photo I had uploaded, saying, "There is no freedom of panorama in the US." Nothing about "fair use", but only, "You can't do this. It's gone. See ya." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo of File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG is alleged to be public domain, yet it fails the "freedom of panorama" test. I'd like to know how Fastily missed that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...because it's on Commons. Commons has a robust disregard for all limitations on freedom of panorama - the position taken by Commons is that if it's in a public place, it's available to be photographed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if I upload my own picture of the Wagner statue, directly to commons, I can similary claim it as "free content"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if your statement is true, why does File:Athletes monument.jpg say, "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright. Commons does not accept 'fair-use' images"? By your argument, the File:Athletes monument.jpg should be uploaded directly to commons with a free license, just as the Wagner statue photo was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite my head off - I didn't invent the rules in this crazy house!! This is what Commons has to say on FOP - what it does in practice is apply the German law, so if the object is permanently mounted and visible from the street, you can photograph it without violating the creator's copyright. Photos of statues on US soil contain a copyright element from the original work, and so cannot be released under a Wikipedia compatible free license. They can be used under a claim of fair use - but the person who took the photo would need to have permission from the creator of the object to make the reproduction, or it may be regarded as having been made illegally. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to bite your head off, I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are. I thought I knew, but this throws a wrench into it. I have a couple of photos of the Wagner statue. If I upload them to commons, with the same license as the other guy's Wagner statue photo, will it be out of reach of the deletionists? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the side discussion at the Delta talk page, I'm hopeful we can get an explicit ruling from commons, as there's no point in my uploading something if it's going to be rejected sooner or later. We'll see! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US does have freedom of panorama (s120 of the Copyright Law) but it only applies to architecture. Statues are copyright under s102. There was some kind of legal case in the US that established beyond doubt that the creator of a statue has a right to assert his legal position where profit from a photo of his statue is concerned. This means that in the US, if you take a photo of a statue without permission, you may have unlawfully created a derivative work (s103), which is why the pictures keep getting zapped. s103 also explains why people are up in arms - if I take an arty shot of a Henry Moore sculpture in the Yorkshire sculpture park - which I can do perfectly legally under the UK freedom of panorama law - I hold the copyright in the arty shot, and it is important to the pedia to know whether I have released it under a license, released it pd, or have reserved all rights.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the copyright of objects (not fixed works) depends on the utility. A car's shape with a generic paint job cannot by copyrighted because that's a utilitian shape. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a "work of art" would be copyright. A non-art work would be trademarked but not copyrighted. Complete non-lawyer opinion from somebody who thinks that the whole "a picture is copyvio" is stupid. The first thing we'll do is round up all the tourists in Paris taking snapshots of the Eiffel Tower. Then we'll turn our attention to the lawyers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A non-art work would generally not be trademarked. Trademark is for words, phrases, brands, etc., not for things (we won't talk about trade dress and, of course, there are exceptions to what I'm saying). The Eiffel Tower couldn't enjoy copyright protection under U.S. law. It was created too long ago. As for the lawyers, we could try copyrighting them but they probably wouldn't satisfy the originality threshold.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If copyright worked the way editors here seem to think it works, then I'd sue the safety camera partnership any time they took a GATSO picture of my car. I'd be getting rich by driving past speed cameras at 100mph every time. Seriously: the commons view is correct. If something's in a public place and it gets photographed, then the photographer owns the copyright in that picture and he doesn't share it with anyone else. A photograph of the Eiffel Tower wouldn't be copyright of anyone but the photographer, even if it had been erected yesterday in the States, because it's in a public place.—S Marshall T/C 02:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new arty-farty lighting rig on the Eiffel Tower is copyright according to les Frogs legale. The tower itself is pd. As with many things, the issue comes if you try to make money from it - there's no point pursuing all the tourists with cameraphones, and the government writes the laws..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't own the copyright on your car. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the special interests wrote the laws.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If anyone owns the copyright to your car, which is more than dubious, it's unlikely to be you unless you painted something on the car. I suggest you paint a fancy picture of you flipping the finger at the camera. Then, don't forget to register the painting with the copyright office so you can sue properly. Then, try to find a federal judge who won't look at you like you're crazy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, if it worked the way you say, then all I'd need to do is draw a picture on the side and write (c) S Marshall 2011. I'd be quids in. I'm sorry, but confident though you seem to be of your position, it's entirely mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, your position is also entirely mistaken. Besides, there's no need to register a picture with the copyright office to claim copyright in it.—S Marshall T/C 02:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're taking as 'my position.' Works of art that are copyright are protected in the US even if they are on the public street. See [22]. Try [23] for an explanation of the position in other countries. It affects your ability to take a photograph of it and publish or sell your photograph. Incidentally, as traffic enforcement agencies in the US don't routinely publish photographs taken with their cameras, it isn't an issue in the US, which requires publication to activate a great deal of its copyright law. In other countries, the government makes the law, and even if it has no freedom of panorama, you can bet it has an exemption for speed cameras.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I don't think that 'les froges legale' is quite appropriate phraseology. However, this was a copyright case from last year that resolved in favour of the sculptor. John lilburne (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure there's a couple of diacritics missing :) Thanks for the case link - I knew it involved a war sculpture and a postage stamp, but hadn't turned up the actual judgement. Pages 7 (bottom) to 12 (top) contain an excellent discussion of transformative fair use. Page 24 (down at the bottom) contains a concise summary of US freedom of panorama - the copyright law does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place In other circumstances - if it is not an architectural work, if it is not ordinarily visible from a public place, then the copyright holder has the power to forbid the making of derivative works (s102 of the Act), hence there is a concern that the derivative work may contain a contribution from the original work that was obtained illegally, ie. without consent (does not necessarily imply breaking and entering to get the image). Page 4 (at the bottom) confirms that the person who took the photo (which was not taken illegally as photography at the location was permitted) is entitled to his own copyright protection in his photograph as a derivative work which was what started this whole thing off - Fastily's bot removing the second license whereby the photographer releases his own copyright in the image as far as he is able, given the status of the content for which there exists another copyright holder. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily is now personally attacking me on his talk page.[24][25] This sort of behavior is surprising from an administrator. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not posting there again at the moment - not worth the hassle. In the meantime, Fastily does need to calm down. This is a complicated area and needs more discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's complicated is because of the wishy-washy attitude about images which is apparently unique to the English wikipedia. The other wikipedias, last I had heard, don't allow anything except free content. English wikipedia "sort of" allows non-free, and "sort of" doesn't. When you try to have it both ways, these kinds of battles will inevitably erupt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason English Wikipedia policy is "apparently unique" is probably because the US concept of Fair Use is rather alien to most countries. To the extent that foreign users are familiar with their country's copyright law, the knowledge they have is that non-free images are always illegal to use (in their country). They naturally (but mistakenly) believe non-free images are always be illegal to use here. But there's an even bigger problem. US Fair Use is very subtle and complex. Fair use is inherently "wishy washy", to use your term. Even if foreign uses did realize that their servers are US based and therefore non-free images are sometimes permissible, foreign language communities will generally lack the expertise to make use of US Fair Use in a safe manner. Alsee (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following major Wikipedias allow some images that are neither freely licensed nor known to be in the public domain, but are legally allowed under policies such as "fair use": Czech, German, Greek, French, Italian, Japanese, Russia, Thai, Chinese (among others). However, in some cases the exemptions allowed are much more narrow than allowed in English. For example, the German exemptions relate narrowly to very old images of unknown authorship that are probably in the public domain but can't be ascertained for sure due to unknown authorship / copyright ownership. For another example, Japanese exemptions deal with certain freedom of panorama issues that would be free under Japanese law but require a fair use justification under US law. Though English Wikipedia policy is more expansive than most, a few wikis, notably Greek, Italian, Thai, and Chinese, are quite similar to the English Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has a better idea, I'm going to ask the WMF legal department for their opinion on Tuesday and then update the {{Photo of art}} template accordingly. In the meantime, I would suggest we all take a break from the issue and try to enjoy the holidays. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would very much like to hear what the WMF has to say about File:Athletes monument.jpg and also about the allegedly "free" photo of Honus Wagner, File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG, which to me looks like it should be labeled as non-free just as the Athletes monument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is actually pretty simple if you lay it out right. A photograph of a copyrighted sculpture is a derivative work of that sculpture. This means that the photographer has copyright in the photo that is subject to the sculptor's copyright, but not defined by it or limited to it. If the photographer did not have a new copyright in the photograph, it would be just a copy and not a derivative (as it would be if the original work were just a 2D painting) and we wouldn't have to worry about the photographer at all. But because a photograph of a sculpture in situ necessarily involves creative expression on the part of the photographer (choice of angle, composition, lighting) just the same as a photo of any 3D object, it is a derivative with two layers of rights we must be concerned with.

What is confusing Fastily and others is that, for use within Wikipedia, we must treat the files as nonfree because of the unlicensed copyrighted elements of these derivatives (i.e., the sculpture depicted) and so usage must satisfy WP:NFCC. But that doesn't take care of all the issues.

We must ALSO demonstrate that the copyrightable elements created by the photographer are freely licensed, by displaying the photographer's chosen licensing terms. And this also advertises to reusers that, not only is the sculpture not freely licensed, but this particular depiction of it is FURTHER subject to the GFDL or CC license. So even if someone has a legal fair use claim to use an image of a Picasso sculpture, to use MY derivative photograph they also must comply with MY licensing terms. Otherwise, they must ALSO have a fair use claim regarding my particular photograph. Similarly, if we fail to demonstrate that a derivative author freely licensed his contributions, then we must satisfy NFCC TWICE--for the underlying nonfree work AND for the particular nonfree photograph of it.

Baseball Bugs' File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG should illustrate these points well. The sculpture is presumably copyrighted, which makes this a derivative (no FOP for sculptures in the U.S.), and so yes, nonfree within Wikipedia. Crop or black out the sculpture, however, and you have just a photograph of the building behind it, no longer a derivative. There is clearly a contribution made by the photographer above and beyond the sculptor's work. And if the sculpture were to lapse into the public domain, the photograph would then be solely subject to the photographer's rights.

In sum, in the case of derivatives, we need to document both that NFCC is met for the underlying nonfree work and that the derivative author has chosen a particular free license for THEIR portion of the work. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa asked me about this today. He has some presents for us, but because there is no Christmas tree here, he can't deliver them. Count Iblis (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChristmasTreeWithPresents1000ppx.png

Bishapod has notified Santa about this thread for you, Count Iblis. Please always notify the user who is the subject of a discussion! Bishonen | talk 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Clearly, we wanted to avoid getting buried in coal. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This naughty or nice ^{[citation needed]} list of Wikipedians I've heard about seems like a clear case of WP:OUTING -- has anyone contacted Oversight? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to clean up the NPOV violation over on the right :) Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong menorah! The Chanukah menorah has eight candles plus one in the centre. --NellieBly (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't count. Well, I can, but I'm too lazy. Fixed. Alsee (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down with Arab occupiers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sean.goyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Down with Arab occupiers appeared to be harassing User:Supreme Deliciousness by reverting perfectly good maintenance tags and posting attacks, which continued on the user Talk page after I blocked. User:Sean.goyland was then created to attack User:Sean.hoyland, who had reverted some of the original edits - see the edit summaries at Special:Contributions/Sean.goyland, and the now-deleted unblock request at User talk:Sean.hoyland. Both are now indef blocked, but I think a few more eyes on the situation would be a good idea as I'm off shortly - so if anyone could watch the articles these two accounts have been editing with a view to blocking further socks, that would be a great help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a new one in DEATH TO GERMANS AND ARABS! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm going to semi-p all those articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And DEATH TO GERMANS AND ARABS1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if there is a Checkuser in the house, is there any chance of having a look to see if any IP rangeblock might help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible – it's all open proxies. --MuZemike 06:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, thanks anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more sock: [26]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more sock: [27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another sock, this time an IP: [28]. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged them all with the oldest account (the first one mentioned here) as the putative sockmaster, although some of the named accounts from the previous ANI thread above are probably the same folk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not tag socks from this guy. --MuZemike 11:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's who this is. I recognise the style, but can't at the moment recall who the puppeteer is. But we've certainly seen this vandal before. RolandR (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some eyes at Talk:Stallion may be needed. An IP (presently 83.77.224.215 (talk · contribs))with a highly dynamic address has been conducting a verbose campaign to include a fringe topic on the keeping of stallions in a group, sourcing it to an advocacy website that until recently (i.e., until it was noted by other editors in the discussion) is or was primarily devoted to anti-(animal) castration activism, with some more dubious issues on the side (see the talkpage for discussion of the proposed source). I had protected the main article to divert discussion onto the talkpage. When the IP's proposed edits failed to gain traction, the IP started demanding personal information of the primary editor who had been engaging the IP, Pesky, who was until then very patiently discussing policy; she was not pleased by this and said so. The IP was warned by myself, Tom Morris and Dreadstar. Dreadstar deleted the diffs involving the improper inquiry (I'm not convinced it was necessary, but that's how it stands). The IP is a bit worked up and is convinced that censorship is involved. Given the highly dynamic IP and the time zones involved, it would be good if some European admins could monitor the talkpage and the IP. Acroterion (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Stallion_discussion. Yet another fringe-pusher convinced that our sceptical response is proof of a conspiracy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost patience with them, as has everyone else who's tried to engage. Pretty much the definition of a tendentious editor. Acroterion (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that this is such a crying shame - if only we could get this editor to work with us, he/she has such passion and energy that, properly directed, focussed, and as part of a collaborative team, they could actually be a real "positive". However, at this point, it seems that they can see no way to work with us at all. :o( What a waste of so much energy. I have run entirely out of ideas as to how to get anything good from this editor. Just adding a bit: the site this editor keeps pushing has already been cited as to the existence of minority views (which is the only thing it is "reliable" for, in the view of other editors involved with the page); and for a bit of AN/I dramah entertainment for this morning, it's worth mentioning that the site previously (until very recently) had articles labelling horse-women as man-hating, oppressive animal-mutilating criminals, and advocated human intervention to give uncastrated animals the "relief" which they might need. Applied by hand. Which is not only so "fringey" a view as to be totally unsuitable for mention here, but without doubt promoting practices which are quite definitely criminal in the vast majority of countries! A two-word summary of this "treatment" would rhyme with "blanket". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also being discussed on WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added another really good source into the article, and clarified for the IP why the source they were concerned about is ok (it has pics and video of perfectly-happy group-kept stallions - video is always RS for its own content). I'm hoping that this obviously-distressed editor (newbie thrown in at the deep end of dramah, who started with obviously good intentions and just became increasingly frustrated) will be able to see things more clearly now, and I'm actually still somewhat hopeful that we may be able to turn this around into a win/win situation. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be the pessimist to your eternal optimist but I have my doubts. I have my doubts about the editor's intentions too. While I don't want to assume bad faith, the impressive display of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT leads me to believe the IP has no interest in learning what Wikipedia about. Good intentions are coming to the project with an open mind to learning what's involved in contributing content. Everyone at that talk page has been remarkably patient with him/her, but the message isn't getting through. The IP is clearly not stupid so I take that to mean he/she doesn't want to understand. I have very little sympathy for them when everyone has patiently linked appropriate pages and explained themselves repeatedly. I can't see a good outcome. If the IP continues along in the same vein I think blocks are the only available option. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest this evening by nominating San Luis Shrine Desecration (Mormons) for deletion. The article originally contained an egregious BLP violation, in that it claimed that two Mormons had committed a human sacrifice. I've removed that, but the article subject itself appeared to me to have no long-term notability, being a teenage prank that occurred five years ago. As there was an assertion of significance and as I was concerned that a PROD would be swiftly contested, I took it to AFD.

However, after I nominated the article for deletion, the article creator, Justamanhere (talk · contribs), repeated the accusation of human sacrifice at the AFD (note: I have not refactored his comments there) and attempted to control the AFD by ordering Mormons not to !vote at the AFD. The editor is also fighting for The Truth at the deletion discussion at great length, and wikilawyering about the difference between "anti-Mormon" and "hostility to Mormonism". (Please note that the user is also editing at 69.171.160.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), by his own admission.)

My main concern here is the BLP violation, but I also have to wonder why the editor is dredging up a five-year-old teenage prank that wasn't even notable when it happened, let alone now, and I have to wonder why the editor is so adamant in using the phrase "human sacrifice" when there wasn't an actual human sacrifice. This especially given the upcoming US Republican primaries where the two top candidates are a Mormon and a Catholic - is Wikipedia being used to start or support a political smear campaign? I don't know, and I'm not sure that my asking the editor would get a straight answer.

I'd appreciate any advice (or actions) admins or more experienced users could provide. (And yes, I realize that I might just be bringing the drama over here.) Editors Justamanhere and 69. have been notified. --NellieBly (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The political angle looks like a big jump. -Kai445 (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, would an admin care to look at User:Justamanhere. It's blatantly an attack page. I took the liberty of tagging it under WP:G10 Hot Stop ^UTC 08:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: I deleted the user page before noticing that there was an ANI discussion related to this editor. I've only just started looking, but I'm concerned that this "man" isn't "just here", but is here to push a very specific POV, possibly without understanding things like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'll try to look into the issue in more detail later. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his repeated POV and attack editing, including this, I'm calling WP:NOTHERE - the late hour makes me reluctant to "block and run" (or sleep as the case may be) but I'm pretty sure a block is needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems pretty likely to me that we're going to have to block this person for POV-pushing, but I assumed a lot more good faith than is evident and put a final warning on his talk page. My opinion is that he should be blocked with his next edit that pushes this particular bias, and in fact that's exactly what I'm planning to do the next time I check in and see that such an edit has occurred. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review his posting of User talk:Justamanhere#About Wikipedia in determining if this is a constructive editor. Never mind, he also posted the edit on this noticeboard below under Legal Threats and False Accusations of Bias from User:FisherQueen. 72Dino (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trungkiendo (talk · contribs) is claiming ownership of the various awards and rank insignia of the various Vietnamese armed forces. I am fairly certain that the government of Vietnam does not release things into the public domain (if they did these things would be all over the commons instead of just being uploaded to en.wiki).—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This now appears to be a case of sockpuppetry, as Prince Sophia (talk · contribs) was blocked for performing similar uploads of Vietnamese rank insignia and other armed forces files.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some help would be nice, considering he does not understand that just because he put these images together does not mean he owns the copyright on them and can release them through the Creative Commons.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 11:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not applicable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for admin(s) to have a look at the talk:cold fusion page, preferably those with some prior familiarity at the article. An IP editor was recently banned as a sock of VanishedUser314159, but before departing alleged there is at least one other active editor of the page is a sock of a banned user. Over the last couple of weeks the activity on the page has increased rapidly (by almost 150 kB from about 27 kB since 17 December), including debates about stating the MIT is teaching cold fusion and a suggestion that an endorsement of CF by Mitt Romney should be noted. I would like someone (or several someones) familiar with past cold fusion debates to have a look at what is going on and see if anything is worth doing before the area descends into much nastier debate, and also to see whether there is evidence of sock violations. I am not accusing any individual but would like someone with the familiarity to spot duck-evidence of socking to examine the page. I will post a notification at talk:cold fusion that I have asked for admin review of the page. Am I required to post to all current active editors, as if so I will. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly prove that I am not a SOCK user, what I have written on my user page is absolutely correct. I have/had another account which I currently do not use, but might use again when my interest for cold fusion goes away. My current account is a single purpose. I do my best to edit NPOV, but the article is a battlefield. And yes, I know my username is not wisely chosen. Please see what the banned user VanishedUser314159 "promised" me [29]. I can't tell how many other editors he has already "encouraged to oppose my efforts". --POVbrigand (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POVbrigand, has your other account been disclosed at least to Arbcom? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi persistently adds incorrectly referenced information (and non-English non-primary source references, which I am not sure is recommended) to Slavic Neopaganism, and once deleted my tags saying that the sources could be unreliable. He is pushing a non-NPOV that borders on gross incivility. I explained all this on the talk page. I request that something be done, such as the article at least be protected and given a NPOV.--Dchmelik (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dchmelik has committed numerous infractions of WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has not sourced reliably or otherwise a single statement of his.--Galassi (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what is wrong with "non-English non-primary source references"? Sources don't have to be in English and they should preferrably not be primary.--v/r - TP 15:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galissi has no examples of his allegations. He continues to add incorrectly referenced information and delete my WP:RS tags after I had read and disputed sources. All his English sources are incorrectly referenced, and all in other languages that I checked with Google Translate seem to also be, and I explained why on the article's talk page.--Dchmelik (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User User:FisherQueen posted legal threats and false accusations of bias on my page. This user also has userboxes stating she hates men and her hatred and her tone was apparent. Please have someone level deal with me on these issues who does not post userboxes 'I HATE MEN'. I am simply writing verifiable content and being attacked by mormon mobs is not what wikipedia is about. I wish to report fisher queen for posting legal threats to my talk page. Justamanhere (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are a terrible way to induce an editor to contribute. Let me translate what she said:

1. The Mormon donates large amount of $$$ to Wikimedia and we certainly are not going to allow an editor to actually write something that may stop them from paying for Mr. Wales trips to the massage parlour in Russia. Esspecially not when we are in the middle of a fund drive and are not making the $$$.

2. We are certainly going to allow them to only post materials 'approved' by the Church and we will threaten anyone else. i.e. look at this edit summary. 02:20, 26 December 2011‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs)‎ (116,847 bytes) (again rv POV-pushing addition; undue weight for individual actions not sanctioned by subject of article) (undo)

3. I have not posted anything that is not verifiable and accurate.

4. If you and I were talking face to face, I doubt you would resort to threats, and I know you would not so so brave. I have read the sites policies and what you have posted here is a 'legal threat'. I don't think you are permitted to do that.

5. I think you should apologize. I have done nothing other than state my views -- although they are not your views or the views of the majority.

6. [redacted]

7. I also note on your user page you post userboxes indicating you HATE MEN (I am a lesbian, I am a feminist -- I HATE MEN). Please refrain from any further admin actions regarding my account -- I would prefer to not deal with someone who has no use for men and posts she hates men on her webpage your tone and hatred is apparent to me.

Actually, I thought FisherQueen was on the money here. I particularly agreed with "It seems as though your opinions about the Mormon church are much too strong to allow you to edit about that subject in a neutral way. That's fine; many of us have subjects we avoid because it's hard for us to edit them neutrally." I have redacted your number #6 as hate speech, by the way. Also, what do you think is a legal threat? Because I can't see any. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that #6 hate speech -- its true and you even have an article about it. Please explain I think perhaps I am trying to get in your shoes and understand.