On 5 Jan 2006, at 00:53, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/entertainment/13541042.htm
We should do so well!
"For example, the entry about bees compares the busy workers with the drones, which lack stings, start their day later and "frolic around the hive without working." Their "only usefulness" is to impregnate the queen, after which, "the workers hunt them down and kill them.""
Is this the fable of the admins and the user boxes?
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
Jkelly
On 1/5/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
Delete them, attempt to educate the user in what fair use is and isn't, repeat as needed, bang head against wall.
- d.
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
I'm assuming some/most of those images are fair-use. Have you asked him to remove them?
Chris
On 1/5/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
I'm assuming some/most of those images are fair-use. Have you asked him to remove them?
It's a mixture militry ones are probably PD. The star treck ones tend to be fair use.
-- geni
On 1/5/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
Jkelly
Develop a standard template for leaveing on people's tlak pages asking them to remove any fair use images.
-- geni
On 1/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Develop a standard template for leaveing on people's tlak pages asking them to remove any fair use images.
Create a user box that says "This user uses unlicensed media on user pages, despite the fact that this violates copyright law" and put it on his/her page.
Kelly
On 1/4/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Develop a standard template for leaveing on people's tlak pages asking them to remove any fair use images.
Create a user box that says "This user uses unlicensed media on user pages, despite the fact that this violates copyright law" and put it on his/her page.
Kelly
Don't tempt me.
Quite a few of the "pinups" around the outside of Trekphiler's userpage are also fair use, as are the Enterprise and DS9 images on the right side.
Nathan
Nathan Russell wrote:
Don't tempt me.
Quite a few of the "pinups" around the outside of Trekphiler's userpage are also fair use, as are the Enterprise and DS9 images on the right side.
Nathan
Remove the images and put it on your watchlist and also tell the user why they can't have the images up there and if they put them back then lock the user page and/or temporarily block the user for violating copyrights and Wikipedia's guidelines on using fair use images. Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who knowingly violate copyrights.
-Jtkiefer
Jtkiefer wrote:
Remove the images and put it on your watchlist and also tell the user why they can't have the images up there and if they put them back then lock the user page and/or temporarily block the user for violating copyrights and Wikipedia's guidelines on using fair use images. Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who knowingly violate copyrights.
Wow, that's incredibly heavy handed. A better first step would be to ask that they remove them, then if they don't remove them yourself, explaining yourself all the way, and then do protection/blocking if it's really necessary. We're not trying to get rid of people here.
Chris
For those who are interested, I've created a template at {{user legal userboxes}}.
Nathan
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Jtkiefer wrote:
Remove the images and put it on your watchlist and also tell the user why they can't have the images up there and if they put them back then lock the user page and/or temporarily block the user for violating copyrights and Wikipedia's guidelines on using fair use images. Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who knowingly violate copyrights.
Wow, that's incredibly heavy handed. A better first step would be to ask that they remove them, then if they don't remove them yourself, explaining yourself all the way, and then do protection/blocking if it's really necessary. We're not trying to get rid of people here.
But as we've discovered, lots of people get unduly attached to images that they can't legitimately use. I've applied a very light touch on image tagging myself, still get carping and reverts.
At some point (soon I hope) we'll get to where all fair use image descriptions include links to the exact set of articles where their use is justified, then it will be sufficient to run a variant of Orphanbot to quietly comment out all other attempts to use. Bots are relentless and are hard to accuse of bias or favoritism, so even the intransigent will learn to give up.
Stan
On 1/4/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Jtkiefer wrote:
Remove the images and put it on your watchlist and also tell the user why they can't have the images up there and if they put them back then lock the user page and/or temporarily block the user for violating copyrights and Wikipedia's guidelines on using fair use images. Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who knowingly violate copyrights.
Wow, that's incredibly heavy handed. A better first step would be to ask that they remove them, then if they don't remove them yourself, explaining yourself all the way, and then do protection/blocking if it's really necessary. We're not trying to get rid of people here.
So, for example, in order to avoid being "heavy handed", one might ask an editor (and fellow administrator) to remove "fair use" images from their page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev...], and then when they object to the request on several grounds, including not considering one of the images to be "fair use", say their comments are "so full of lies, misinformation and patent nonsense" that you must assume they are "ignorant, not malicious" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev...], and finally (a whole 39 minutes after your first request) delete them yourself.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&...] Have I got that right?
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
So, for example, in order to avoid being "heavy handed", one might ask an editor (and fellow administrator) to remove "fair use" images from their page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev...],
Yes, I would recommend people do this.
and then when they object to the request on several grounds, including not considering one of the images to be "fair use", say their comments are "so full of lies, misinformation and patent nonsense" that you must assume they are "ignorant, not malicious" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev...],
Did you read the comment she wrote, and my reply to it, or just the last two sentences? The section of my message where I discuss the fair use images is:
"Firstly, I could never have known that about the two images. Regardless of the nature of their current status, the fact is, they are fair use images and are not permitted. I quote: "[a]ll other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum". I must insist you remove them."
Both images state clearly that the uploader asserts the "... qualif[y] as fair use under United States copyright law".
and finally (a whole 39 minutes after your first request) delete them yourself.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&...] Have I got that right?
I removed them, in accordance with our fair use policy, because she was clearly not going to remove them. Is two talk page messages not enough to establish that the images are not permitted on the user page? How many do you propose I leave in future?
Chris
On 1/5/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
So, for example, in order to avoid being "heavy handed", one might ask an editor (and fellow administrator) to remove "fair use" images from their page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev...], and then when they object to the request on several grounds, including not considering one of the images to be "fair use", say their comments are "so full of lies, misinformation and patent nonsense" that you must assume they are "ignorant, not malicious" [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev...],
and finally (a whole 39 minutes after your first request) delete them yourself.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&...] Have I got that right?
I removed them, in accordance with our fair use policy, because she was clearly not going to remove them. Is two talk page messages not enough to establish that the images are not permitted on the user page? How many do you propose I leave in future?
You twice reversed the indefinite block of a highly abusive troll who spent a lot of his time on WP attacking me (someone I know emailed lots of people looking for someone to unblock him, including you, in my opinion). When I objected to your wheel warring, you made personal attacks against me on another talk page I was editing, and reverted to them several times when I tried to remove them. You called my post about admin concerns "whining"; you called me a liar on your talk page; you deleted another admin's warning to you about it; you turned up on my user page deleting two images half an hour after first asking me about them; and then, apparently astonished that I would dare to revert you, you reported me on [[WP:AN/I]]. Then you went to WP:Fair use, and changed the tag from guideline to policy, in order to support your report; and you're currently bickering with another admin who has tried to reason with you about it. (As for the images, I've deleted one, and I'm trying to find out about the second, which used to carry a free-licence tag, and that would have happened without your bullying.)
If you think your behavior is appropriate -- an example of the kind of civility you were earlier advocating -- the situation's even worse than I thought. What it looks like is that you're continuing where Marsden left off, and I very much hope it's just that it looks that way. At least Marsden didn't have admin privileges, though the way things are going, he's likely got a sockpuppet fighting vandalism as we speak in preparation for his nomination.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
You twice reversed the indefinite block of a highly abusive troll who spent a lot of his time on WP attacking me (someone I know emailed lots of people looking for someone to unblock him, including you, in my opinion). When I objected to your wheel warring, you made personal
I must insist you retract that allegation. It has no basis in reality and is nothing more than a disingenuous personal attack. If you have ANY, and I mean ANY evidence at all, you'll provide it. I am utterly disgusted by that comment.
attacks against me on another talk page I was editing, and reverted to them several times when I tried to remove them. You called my post
They were not personal attacks, and your editing of my comments was an inappropriate action for you to take.
about admin concerns "whining"; you called me a liar on your talk
This is quite a justified word to use. I'll cite some passages from the email in question:
"Almost every block is at serious risk now of being reversed by an admin who's never read the blocking policy, has had very little interaction with the community, and who got elected with under 20 votes"
"leading to yet another unknown and possibly clueless admin being promoted"
"Combine poor admins with hundreds of users who are turning Wikipedia into a social club, and you have a giant mess"
Your comments in the previous email seemed to be directed at me, and for that record, I was elected with 30 support votes, I have been an admin since July - having made two proposals on adminship reform previously to it, taking quite a lot of flak in the meantime - I am quite well known, I read the blocking policy every time I make a block just to ensure I am acting within policy, I contribute to the article namespace, and I single-handedly got an article to featured list status only recently.
page; you deleted another admin's warning to you about it; you turned
I later retracted that phrase and the other person's warning about it, since it was no longer relevant.
up on my user page deleting two images half an hour after first asking me about them; and then, apparently astonished that I would dare to
I apologised for removing the images; I was probably not the right person to do so, but I did so only after you had replied saying my actions were not supported by policy (which they are) and disregarded my second comment completely).
revert you, you reported me on [[WP:AN/I]]. Then you went to WP:Fair use, and changed the tag from guideline to policy, in order to support your report; and you're currently bickering with another admin who has
The ArbCom recently declared that the fair use policy is indeed policy, and I was surprised to see that there was not a policy tag on it. Kelly Martin, an arbitrator, later added a policy tag on the appropriate section I quoted to you requesting you remove them.
tried to reason with you about it. (As for the images, I've deleted
I'm bickering with no one.
one, and I'm trying to find out about the second, which used to carry a free-licence tag, and that would have happened without your bullying.)
I'm glad to see that, but there was no bullying.
If you think your behavior is appropriate -- an example of the kind of civility you were earlier advocating -- the situation's even worse than I thought. What it looks like is that you're continuing where Marsden left off, and I very much hope it's just that it looks that way. At least Marsden didn't have admin privileges, though the way things are going, he's likely got a sockpuppet fighting vandalism as we speak in preparation for his nomination.
Again, I have no relationship with Marsden, a fact I have repeatedly told you. I reject any such allegation, and I think you should retract it unless you have any evidence. Which you don't, because I don't have any connection with him whatsoever.
Chris
Jtkiefer wrote:
Nathan Russell wrote:
Don't tempt me.
Quite a few of the "pinups" around the outside of Trekphiler's userpage are also fair use, as are the Enterprise and DS9 images on the right side.
Nathan
Remove the images and put it on your watchlist and also tell the user why they can't have the images up there and if they put them back then lock the user page and/or temporarily block the user for violating copyrights and Wikipedia's guidelines on using fair use images. Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who knowingly violate copyrights.
I accidentaly uploaded a bunch of images which I thought were "free" to Commons but which turned out to be trademarked logos. I don't know if they've been deleted yet. Should I be banned from all Wikimedia projects, from Commons, or at the very least desysopped from there?
On 1/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jtkiefer wrote:
Remove the images and put it on your watchlist and also tell the user why they can't have the images up there and if they put them back then lock the user page and/or temporarily block the user for violating copyrights and Wikipedia's guidelines on using fair use images. Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who knowingly violate copyrights.
I accidentaly uploaded a bunch of images which I thought were "free" to Commons but which turned out to be trademarked logos. I don't know if they've been deleted yet. Should I be banned from all Wikimedia projects, from Commons, or at the very least desysopped from there?
"Jimbo himself has stated that we now should have zero tolerance for people who ***knowingly*** violate copyrights."
You're safe. :=)
-- Sam
On 1/4/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
Jkelly
By my count I get 87 userboxes. Could this be a new record?
Jay.
Jay,
In case anyone is interested, I came across this userpage when I looked at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templa...
...and clicked on *one* of the 186 usernames that are now there voting keep. To properly establish whether or not this is a record, I believe we would have to check all 186.
Jkelly
On 1/4/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
Jkelly
By my count I get 87 userboxes. Could this be a new record?
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/5/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Jay,
In case anyone is interested, I came across this userpage when I looked at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templa...
...and clicked on *one* of the 186 usernames that are now there voting keep. To properly establish whether or not this is a record, I believe we would have to check all 186.
Jkelly
On 1/4/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
What to do with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trekphiler&oldid=33854963
Jkelly
By my count I get 87 userboxes. Could this be a new record?
If it was a record, it's broken now, I count 170 (!!) userboxes here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nightstallion/userboxes
As a side note, Nightstallion gets points for making this a subpage and providing a tally for each category.
Carbonite
Pretty much any user listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Users_who_support_userboxes has a fair number . I'm currently explaining fair use policy to some of them.
-- geni
On 05/01/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much any user listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Users_who_support_userboxes has a fair number . I'm currently explaining fair use policy to some of them.
Remember to be clear on the difference between Fair Use _Policy_ and Fair Use _Law_. And just because we can use the latter does not mean we can use the former...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
In case anyone is interested, I came across this userpage when I looked at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templa...
See also: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~avar/ub
...and clicked on *one* of the 186 usernames that are now there voting keep.
When not regularly taking my dried frog pills against paranoia, I see an unfriendly takeover attempt here.
Regards, Peter Jacobi [[User:Pjacobi]]