I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma
----- Original Message -----
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma
In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly - thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms to the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk page if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your action completly appropriate.
-- April
On 9/21/02 12:02 PM, "Rosa Williams" aprilrosanina@charter.net wrote:
----- Original Message -----
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma
In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly - thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms to the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk page if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your action completly appropriate.
Of course, it's somewhat situational. It depends on what the actual background of "repeatedly" is. If someone inserts copyrighted material which is then removed, with notification why (perhaps a mention in Talk), and the person puts it back, then that's cause for concern.
Blocking is a last-ditch mechanism. Efforts should be made to find other solutions. If there aren't other solutions, then temporary blocking is appropriate.
It's important to remember that IP blocking is an imperfect tool. It's not just the social implications that merit concern when considering whether to use it.
On Saturday 21 September 2002 12:00, The Cunctator wrote:
On 9/21/02 12:02 PM, "Rosa Williams" aprilrosanina@charter.net wrote:
----- Original Message -----
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma
In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly
- thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms
to the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk page if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your action completly appropriate.
Of course, it's somewhat situational. It depends on what the actual background of "repeatedly" is. If someone inserts copyrighted material which is then removed, with notification why (perhaps a mention in Talk), and the person puts it back, then that's cause for concern.
Blocking is a last-ditch mechanism. Efforts should be made to find other solutions. If there aren't other solutions, then temporary blocking is appropriate.
It's important to remember that IP blocking is an imperfect tool. It's not just the social implications that merit concern when considering whether to use it.
He put nine articles on [[Workbench]] various versions in five minutes, preceded by three other articles about Amiga. I replaced several of them with violation notices, noticed that someone else was erasing the violations, and blocked the address before putting notices on the rest of them.
phma
I would say yes, given the offence is repeated and the person has been warned and requested not to insert material under copyright.
Stephen G.
--- Pierre Abbat phma@webjockey.net wrote:
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Pierre Abbat wrote:
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
Conceivably.
I think that more tolerance should be given to such people than to vandals that clearly have no intention of being helpful. Such a person is more likely to be trying to do good. And as The Cunctator said, banning is a serious measure. IMO, it should be done when we've given up hope on somebody.
In this particular case, you seem to have acted well, AFAICT. Each case needs to be looked at individually, after all.
-- Toby
On Saturday 21 September 2002 17:43, Toby Bartels wrote:
Conceivably.
I think that more tolerance should be given to such people than to vandals that clearly have no intention of being helpful. Such a person is more likely to be trying to do good. And as The Cunctator said, banning is a serious measure. IMO, it should be done when we've given up hope on somebody.
In this particular case, you seem to have acted well, AFAICT. Each case needs to be looked at individually, after all.
I just checked the IP address. It belongs to ttd.es aka telefonica.es, and looks up to 213-97-47-62.uc.nombres.ttd.es. Is that a DHCP or static address? Anyone in Spain who can check?
phma
Toby Bartels wrote:
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text from a copyrighted website about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
Conceivably.
I think that more tolerance should be given to such people than to vandals that clearly have no intention of being helpful. Such a person is more likely to be trying to do good. And as The Cunctator said, banning is a serious measure. IMO, it should be done when we've given up hope on somebody.
I think Toby is striking the right balance here. Sometimes people will just not understand copyright law, or they will make a mistake. They are probably benevolent, trying to help, and we want to encourage them. But if they won't listen, well, let's not waste too much time on them.
In this particular case, you seem to have acted well, AFAICT. Each case needs to be looked at individually, after all.
Absolutely.
The type of person who inserts "fart" randomly in pages is not the type of person we need to try very hard to "win over". But someone who posts a copyrighted article might just not understand the problem with it.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org