Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The quotes from User:Jimbo Wales here are addressing plagiarism. Not all copyright-infringement is plagiarism (and not all plagiarism is copyright infringement). I am under the impression that User:Jimbo Wales has said similar things more specifically about repeated copyright violations. It would be helpful if someone could point us to where to find those statements. Jkelly 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the text to make it clear Jimbo is talking about plagiarism. I doubt he'd ever want to see a user blocked for inadvertently misusing a fair-use image, for example, or for disputing an image's status, so we should be careful how this section is worded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely deliberately misusing a fair use image would be indentical to plagiarising text? Legally, I mean. - Mark 05:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Plagiarism is not an offense in law ... although it's a violation of academic ethics codes in universities, professional standards in journalism, and so forth. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are independent: either one can exist without the other.

Plagiarism, recall, is not about the legal right to reproduce a work (copy-right). It is about attribution of authorship. Thus, one can plagiarize without infringing copyright. If I publish a work of Shakespeare's and say that I myself wrote it, I am not infringing copyright, since all of Shakespeare's works are in the public domain. However, I am plagiarizing, since I did not really write that work; I am claiming credit falsely.

Likewise, most casual copyright infringers, such as traders in "ripped" MP3s, are explicitly not plagiarists. They do not claim (for instance) that they wrote and recorded "Toxic" by Britney Spears. They give full credit to Ms. Spears, going even so far as to put her name in the file metadata so as to make the file searchable. The file-traders infringe copyright because they violate Ms. Spears' record label's legal monopoly over distribution of the song.

In our society, copyright infringement is illegal (excepting, of course, fair use) but it is generally not regarded as the serious moral failing that plagiarism is, at least in the academic and journalistic professions. To take another's credit and reputation is thought of as worse than to merely take that person's monopoly and profits. For one, the former is much harder to recompensate later. --FOo 06:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back SlimVirgin's changes. Jimbo clearly did not mean "plagiarism"; he meant what we colloquially call "copyright violations" and was specifically talking about abuses of so-called "fair use" images at the time. I've had a couple of long talks with Jimbo on this topic and while he cares deeply about plagiarism he also cares deeply about "fair use abuse", and it was the latter that he sanctioned blocks for, at least originally. He's also sanctioned blocks for plagiarism, but let's be very clear about this: all copyright infringement, whether or not plagiarism, is blockable. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, the quotes say "plagiarism," which is not the same thing as copyright violation, and we should stick closely to what the source says, or else not use him as a source. The situation we should try to avoid is where users dispute the status of an image and are blocked for it, as I saw happen recently. Or if we want to allow blocks to be used in that way, the proposed policy change has to be thrown open to the community for further discussion, because there's currently no consensus about whether that should be a blockable policy violation; in fact, not only is there no consensus, it's a deeply divisive issue. Just because NPOV, NOR, and V (for example) are policy doesn't mean admins are allowed to block over perceived violations. So what our copyright policies are, and whether violations of those policies should be blockable, are separate issues.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the section header and paragraph to read "copyright violations and plagiarism". I hope that pleases everyone.--

Black

07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't "compromise" on what someone said. If Jimbo said "plagiarism", it's wrong to interpret him as saying "copyright violations", which is very different. I'm worried that this might institutionalise the bullying that Slim has suffered. Let's be a bit careful about doing that. Grace Note 08:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below, which should clarify that he is talking about both. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's dig into this a little more. Since plagiarism and copyright infringement are independent ("orthogonal", to nerds like me), a quote regarding plagiarism doesn't say anything at all about copyright infringement. Placing the words "copyright infringement" in Jimbo's mouth is simple misquotation. The issue at hand was an editor who plagiarized; that is, claimed to write things that s/he did not. The quotes would have been equally appropriate had the editor plagiarized from the public domain, since plagiarism is independent of copyright infringement.

It's also important to keep in mind that nobody is authorized to use blocking as a punishment, that is, to inflict suffering upon a person as a form of retribution or a deterrence toward others. Blocking is, rather, a preventative: to prevent a person from doing harm to the project. We shouldn't take Jimbo's words as meaning that whenever we find someone doing something wrong, we should consider using blocking to "teach them a lesson". Rather, the issue seems to be as follows: a repeat plagiarist is going to keep doing something that critically harms the project's honor and integrity. Blocking a repeat plagiarist is justified the same way that blocking a repeat vandal is: it prevents harm. --FOo 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! Prevent the damage, not punish the offender. Grace Note 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the quote. It's pretty odd to use two quotes that say X, then interpret them to say Y. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that Jimbo does mean copyright violations. I know I have asked for clarification myself on this and gotten an answer in the affirmative, though I don't have anything to cite for my own correspondence. This diff shows him advising nixie of the same thing: repeated copyright violations should be blockable. He is talking about both plagiarism and copyvio; he makes the distinction and says that both are blockable. Here again he blocks someone for copyright violation rather than plagiarism.

No one wants to block anyone for inadvertently doing anything. But once a user has been warned a few times and keeps on violating copyright, we can't tolerate it forever. We do get nasty letters demanding removal of copyvio images on a fairly regular basis, and users who will not respect this after being contacted about it are a liability to the project, which is why repeated copyright violation is and should be a blockable offense. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Both the links you offer show Jimbo discussing plagiarism, Mindspillage, which is a much more obvious offense than image copyright is, in the sense that no one could inadvertently plagiarize a text, and whether it has been plagiarized is usually plain to see; but people can and do inadvertently use images of unclear status, and the status is often tricky to clarify. It's important that no editor should be blocked simply for disagreeing about an image's status. I saw that happen recently and it was out of order.

When you say "copright violation is and should be a blockable offense," can you say what you mean by "is" a blockable offense? Which offenses are blockable is something the community should decide, and it hasn't decided. I don't doubt we also get nasty letters about unsourced defamatory claims, but we don't block people for not using sources properly. Please understand that the issues of what is policy and what is blockable are entirely separate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's worth adding that if people want a section saying image copyright violation is a blockable offense, there's no need to make reference to Jimbo, but it should be discussed here before being inserted so we get the wording right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really understand what the problem is. I think we all agree that people can, and should be blocked for repeated using content (images, text, whatever) that we can't legally use, after warnings and discussion. So let's not quibble over semantics, okay? I think "copyright violations and plagarism" covers that pretty fairly well.--

I hope everyone agrees that it's important to have a text that won't lead to abuse and bullying. Please discuss on this page how to achieve that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't trying to hide anything, and I completely agree that discussion should take place here. I'm sorry if it seemed that way. In any case, I'm unclear as to what the problem is, however. See below my proposed wording.--

Black

09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, thats the problem. It appears that SV doesn't think people can be blocked for refusing to quit uploading copyright violations to Wikipedia, she is pretty much saying that outright above. I still don't see why she thinks people are overzealous about the copyright issues when there are still a large number of incorrectly tagged images shes uploaded which no one has recently troubled her about. --Gmaxwell 08:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that repeat plagiarists or blatant copyright infringers can be blocked, to prevent damage to the project. However, this shouldn't be used (e.g.) as a way to stifle discussion about "fair use" issues -- e.g. whether a "fair use image" (falsely so-called) may be put on user pages. Personally, I think not ... but I don't want to see admins abusing blocking as a way of making that point!

I think we're better off not quoting Jimbo directly here. We can link to the diffs in question as a form of support for the policy ... but we shouldn't represent this policy as merely a diktat, when in fact it enjoys wide editorial support. --FOo 08:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the need to make sure the policy isn't misused. Someone who repeatedly uploads an image where the copyright is undisputed and where it clearly should not be used is being disruptive, and can be blocked under that provision. But someone who is in good faith disputing the copyright status of an image should not be blocked, and yet that is happening and it shouldn't be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I completely agree.--

Black

09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo was specific with his wording. Both of the above cited diffs specifically say "copyright violation". The claim otherwise is .. well, the difflinks are there and the text is clearly on the page. I can't see why anyone would change the text without reading the context, nor can I see how anyone could read the context and walk away claiming that he wasn't talking about copyright violation. --Gmaxwell 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I read, he's talking about text, not images. Did I misread it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear in this edit (scroll down to second change section) - Nixie explicitly asks about both text and images, and Jimbo's answer covers both. FreplySpang (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is, and this is just an example, "Repeated copyright violations and plagiarism, after sufficient discussion with the user in question, are grounds for an indefinite block" acceptable to everyone? Obviously, there will be more to it, and it won't be quite the same, but that'swhat I think everybody is trying to say anyway.--

Not exactly. Because you say "copyright violations and plagiarism", it sounds like someone who only does non-plagiaristic copyvios is not subject to blocking. FreplySpang (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, would "or" be okay?--

Black

09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If we must use a Jimbo quote, I suggest the one below, where he makes it clear that the issue is the avoidance of theft and passing someone else's work off as our own, and not simply the mis-tagging of an image page. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square. —Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.--

Black

09:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And to me. I think that's a good compromise. The bad guys get slaughtered and the good guys who are misguided -- as even the good guys sometimes are -- don't. I particularly think we have to be careful not to allow blocking where copyright issues are under dispute. This would smack far too much of punitive action rather than preventive action. Plaudits to Slim for finding a constructive solution. Grace Note 12:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The suggested text looks good to me too. I also agree about the Chairman Mao-type quotations from JW, each framed and writ large; "cheesy" isn't the word. They only lack an image of his avuncular visage made up of ten thousand Wikipedia editors with coloured placards. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's proposed wording is too restrictive. We shouldn't have to wait for Microsoft to file a complaint before we can block someone who persistently misuses the XP logo, for example. And I think that y'all are focusing on a single Jimbo quote to the exclusion of other Jimbo quotes; Jimbo has spoken in the not too distant past on "fair use abuse", and those pronunciations are being ignored here for reasons that make no sense to me. Jimbo's made it clear that all copyright infringements are unacceptable, not just plagiarism. This strange reliance on his most recent pronunciation as somehow overriding his previous ones is bizarre and should not be used as an excuse to roll back policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion doesn't say we have to wait for a formal complaint, Kelly. It says "images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation" or where a complaint has been received. As for this being an attempt to roll back policy, the copyright section was only added on January 11 by Alkivar, with no discussion that I can see. [1] Policy pages shouldn't be changed radically without discussion on the talk page. We need to find words that allow truly disruptive users to be blocked for repeated and undisputed violations, while at the same time protecting editors who are acting in good faith in situations where there's a genuine disagreement about an image's status. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"However, editors who are using images or text in good faith, where the copyright status of the material has yet to be clarified, and where no formal complaint has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation, may not be blocked under this provision." This quite clearly states that no person can be blocked without a formal complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation. Something along the lines that "Editors who accidentially infringe on copyright in good faith should not be blocked for a first offense; editors who continue to do so after being warned may be blocked" would be far more reasonable.

The policy that copyright infringers may be blocked has been around for months; you're the one trying to change it without discussion, based on a Jimbo quote that is not intended by Jimbo to roll back any policy. I know for a fact that Jimbo is fully in favor of blocking copyright infringers, and yet you're trying to argue that Jimbo's main concern is plagiarism, a statement that has simply no basis in fact. There's no good reason for the policy change you're trying to push. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Can we avoid the use of overly dramatic language like "without discussion" and "trying to push" here? I see quite a bit of discussion, in fact, and a whole lota reverting going on from lots of people. For any one party to sieze the moral high ground now is a bit off. -
  brenneman^(t)(c)
  12:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Seconded. There's no need to be uncivil here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the misunderstanding comes from an "and/or" distinction. The text that Slim proposes says that where all three conditions are true, the user should not be blocked. Which I think Kelly agrees with. If the user is acting in good faith and if the copyright status is unknown and if no complaint has been recieved, the user should not be blocked. If the user is not acting in good faith, and the copyright status is known, then that statement doesn't apply, even if no complaint has been received. See?

Perhaps it could be reworded for clarity. "In cases where an editor is acting in good faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable."

There are probably better ways to say this, and someone might be able to propose better wording than mine. I personally don't see any need to quote Jimbo at all - links would be fine. I think Kelly and Slim agree that when an editor inserts alleged copyrighted material, and when the user honestly believes the material is in the public domain, and where the copyright status is unclear, and where the editor is acting in good faith, and where no complaint has been received -- if all these are true -- then blocking the editor is basically taking sides in an unresolved copyright debate, and would be inappropriate. The rules as they are now allow someone to be blocked for an inadvertant violation, or for disagreeing with the admin about the copyright status of an image, but I'm sure Jimbo's statement refers to willfull and deliberate infringements. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, Quadell. They make it clearer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Shorter version

I would note that it is possible to plagiarise images, as well as have copyvio text. I propose the following text:

Both plagiarism and copyright infringement are unwelcome on Wikipedia. Text, images, and other media which is either plagiarised or is a copyright violation may be removed on sight. Editors who partake in repeated readdition of media which is plagiarised or is a copyright violation, when they areaware that doing so is forbidden, may be blocked indefinitely.

Thoughts? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, what if the editor truly believes, with good reason and in good faith, that the material is in the public domain? But when the blocking admin truly believes, with good reason and in good faith, that the material is copyrighted? If the copyright status is unclear, and the editor is acting in good faith, I think a block is inappropriate. That's what Slim's text is trying to say. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's best for Wikipedia to assume that something is plagiarised or is a copyright violation and be wrong, than assume it's not and be wrong. The burden of proof is on the contributor to prove it's not. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Copyright is one issue on which "I think it's okay" isn't a good excuse. We shouldn't allow images unless we're bloody well sure they're kosher, all parties must be aware of this, and those who insist on their own cognizance that an image is okay can use it on their own wiki, but not ours. Good faith here implies a duty to avoid actions that may create a liability for the Foundation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, we should err on the side of caution when deciding what to keep. But this is about blocking someone. It's very easy to point to a PD image and raise an element of doubt - that doesn't mean a block is in order. In the case of "fair use", it's even more hazy. There are often disagreements about what's a fair use and what isn't. Yes, I think we should refrain from using an image under the "fair use" doctrine unless its use is uncontested or unless there's consensus that it's fair to use it. And yes, I think we should refrain from using images that might be public domain, if it's possible they might not be. But I don't think we should block people for it, if the problem of understanding. Now if a user reverts against consensus, that's blockable already. This is just for repeated infringements.

Remember: in the case that brought this discussion about, an editor used an image on his user page. This image was PD in Canada (where the editor lives), but copyrighted in the U.S. He shouldn't use the image on his talk page, but I understand the confusion, and I think a block was overly-harsh. So it would be nice to clarify that blocking isn't an appropriate action to take in the result of a misunderstanding. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a case directly being discussed here? When was that brought up? ...anyways... Quadell, in the case you are mentioning the user was informed by quite a few users. He was begged and pleded with.. when he finally realized that he wasn't going to be permitted to use the image he replaced it with a redirect (then finding that didn't work, a hyperlink) to his history. It's a really poor example here because the user could have been blocked under a number of other rationale (excessive reverts, etc) independent of the copyright issue. Users are routinely blocked over more minor issues. Overall I think it's critical to make it clear to users that 1) their action is unacceptable and should stop, and 2) if they fail to stop then we'll force them to stop. In the case you cite, the user was even informed that if they agreed to stop that they would be unblocked. The standing policy already supports that notion. ... Can you really say that you think it's a complicated decision to block a user for violating copyright when it's a simple misunderstanding but they've responded by editwarring and refusing to listen? I think it is really unfair of you to characterize the discussion as not blocking vs blocking users who were completely ignorant of their mistake. If you think it needs to be made more clear that the user must have been informed then continue to submit copyright violating content, I would welcome some proposed text... but if you're just going to imply that the existing text says otherwise, you basically make it impossible to continue a disussion on the matter. --Gmaxwell 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate place to debate this specific case. Whether you think that case was a good example or not, I think you'd agree that a block shouldn't be enacted based on a simple misunderstanding or difference of opinion about the copyright status of a particular image. Reverting against consensus is blockable, as is "excessive reverting" (four times in 24 hours). But if I disagree with you about whether a use is fair or not, I shouldn't get to block you simply because I'm an admin and you're not. Wouldn't you agree? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? To me it seems like you are just trying to derail the conversation, first by bringing up that case.. then by dismissing my reply by pointing out that this isn't the best place to discuss that case, and finally by continuing to imply that the preexisting text would support blocking someone who only made a mistake. As I said above, I don't and the page doesn't. If someone makes a mistake and posts copyright violating material we tell them to quit, if they won't quit we can block them. It is no longer a mistake if they continue once they have been informed. No one is advocating anything more restrictive.--Gmaxwell 17:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) Sorry for bringing it up - I didn't know it would cause a stir. Here's an example. Let's say I claimed that I thought I'd seen Image:Civet2.jpg in a copyrighted magazine, and that I therefore thought it was a copyright violation. (This is not true - I'm just making an illustration.) I could "inform" you of this, and remove the image, but it would be well within your rights to revert my change. I shouldn't then be able to block you for this, since there's chance I might be wrong. A certainty, in this example. And you shouldn't be blocked for that. That's why I think it would be best to clarify the text.

For a more realistic example, I added a bunch of images to the Commons that were listed on an FDA site without attribution. (The FDA had neglected to supply a copyright notice.) You let me know that they were infringements[2], and you deleted them, and I concurred. But what if I had disagreed? What if I had been convinced (wrongly) that the images were created by the FDA, and were therefore PD? If you and I had gotten into a revert war, then we'd both have been acting immaturely about it, but should one party get blocked and not the other? That's why I think having something about "good faith" and "unclear copyright status" would be helpful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Civet2.jpg? I'd tell you to delete it in any case! I only created it as a replacement for an article because people kept putting copyright violations on the article, so I though if there were something there that they would stop. The article had a free image last I checked so that crud should be deleted. ;) I understand this wasn't your point.

Back on topic, I don't agree with your position that I shouldn't be blocked if I edit warred it back in. While the image is out of an article it is not yet delete and discussion can progress normally. I shouldn't be blocked for disagreeing, but there is a substantial difference between disagreeing and holding an edit war over it.

We simply can not include an image in Wikipedia without clear affirmative proof that we have the legal authority to distribute the image and permit others to do the same. This position has been supported by our standing behavior and by Jimbo's commentary [3] on the subject. As such, a claim of copyright violation by any member of the community is sufficient to cause an immediate removal of the content pending further discussion. --Gmaxwell 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the policy about images, but whether users should be blocked for restoring a disputed image, where it isn't clear which "side" is right and where no complaint has been received. It is only whether anyone should be blocked in such a situation that's being discussed here. Can you say exactly what problems the suggested text would cause (see below)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a content dispute going on at the moment that I'm aware of, in which one side is trying to keep out text that promotes a certain POV. They're doing this by saying it is a copyright violation: a translation of a text that is on the Web but which the publisher says is copyrighted, according to these editors. The publisher has not complained, and all attempts to contact him have failed. Therefore, the editors who want to quote that text have reinserted it several times. You are saying that, in this situation, those editors should be blocked, simply because a claim of copyright violation has been made by a member of the community. But this is a content dispute, and the onus is on the people claiming there has been a copyright violation to provide evidence of that, which they have so far failed to do. It would be wrong to block the editors who are trying to use the material in good faith, in the absence of any evidence of a copyright violation, and where no complaint has been received from anyone claiming to be the copyright holder. The suggested section below would make sure no blocks were applied in a situation like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide a link it is difficult for me to respond. The answer to your situation above, however, is sounds simple to resolve. Is our use of the text justifiable under fair use law in the US (i.e. is it a limited except properly attributed and used for the purposes of critical commentary which does not replace the original detract from a perspective of commercial value)? If it does, then we do not need to contact the publisher. If it does not then we can only include the material with a clear affirmative license grant from the publisher. That you've bothered to mention that there has been no complaint implies that we can't make a fair use claim and the material should be removed. --Gmaxwell 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you missed the point of the example. The question is not whether the text is allowable. The question is whether the editors who insert it ought to be blocked while the matter remains unresolved. I say not, and the suggested section below reflects that. You seem to be saying yes, they should be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If they text is not allowable then they should be blocked for re-inserting it providing they've been warned not to do so... They can still discuss if it is allowable or not while it is not inserted, but more importantly, it is usually crystal clear if it is allowable or not. If it is not fair use then in the absence of a clear grant the text must not be permitted. If it is fair use, that can almost always be determined without any extensive consumption of time since no contact with the copyright holder is needed. Do you have a link to this discussion so I can understand better what we are talking about? --Gmaxwell 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg, you say "if the text is not allowable," but the question is what to do in a situation where no one knows whether it's allowable (regardless of the details of any particular case). My point is that there should be no blocking in cases where the copyright is unclear, the editors are acting in good faith, and no formal complaint has been received. Whether the text should be removed from the article is a separate issue. The point is that no one should be blocked over a content dispute like that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the disconnect is here, I think. You pose the question "what to do in a situation where no one knows whether it's allowable", but that's not really a useful question because it is VERY rare that no one knows, and such situations almost never end up a subject of dispute. In the vast majority of cases, the content is either clearly fair use or it is not, and if it's not then the content is not allowable until a license is obtained. In the fair use case there may be a span of time between when the question is raised and the justification is provided, but since the justification requires no outside input it tends to come rather quickly, thus in that case we leave the copyrighted work out until it is provided. This also works well because it keeps the incentive on the submitter to provide the needed information (fair use justification, or permission email for example), this is important because it is often the case that the submitter is the only person able to obtain this information.--Gmaxwell 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a further disconnect is that this isn't a discussion about the fair-use policy. It's a discussion about the circumstances in which people should be blocked for alleged copyright infringement, whether of text or images. Even supposing that everything you say above is correct, it's still the case that editors acting in good faith should not be blocked because of a disagreement about an issue that is unresolved. In any given case, you might want to argue that they are wrong about the copyright issue, but the point is: as wrong as they may be, they shouldn't be blocked (assuming they're acting in good faith etc). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand where you are coming from in this latest reply, I mostly avoided discussion about fair use since you weren't bringing up an example of fair use as far as I could tell... I only mentioned fair use as the only case where a copyrighted work can be used without permission from the copyright holder in advance. I do not like the idea of blocking people with good intentions, of course, but if we've asked them to stop, and warned them of blocking, then what recourse is left for us? We can't allow people to screw up Wikipedia, good faith or not.--Gmaxwell 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is: All copyrightable works are automatically copyrighted, and when a work is copyrighted it is a crime and a tort to infringe the authors exclusive rights. Thus if we are to perform actions which the law would only permit the copyright holder to perform, we must have a clear and affirmative grant in advance. That the author hasn't come around and sued us yet is not an excuse to continue to infringe on his work.--Gmaxwell 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are pretty much a good record of how this particular bit of policy was made, and that's significant in itself. Thousands of Wikipedia editors didn't just wake up one morning and think to themselves: you know, I think these copyright infringements have to go and those who persistently introduce them should be blocked. What made this policy was basically Jimbo's announcement that he didn't want to keep people who intentionally and knowingly expose the Foundation to liability, and who devalue the project with the taint of plagiarism. Those two quotes document that. I got rid of the cheesy quote boxes because I thought they were horrible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very disapointed that Tony has chosen to remove signed edits from a talk page as "silliness". I seem to recall an imbroglio over this regarding his removal of Nandesuka's comments, and am greatly displeased to see this behavior continue. I am sure this will be written off as "brenneman gunning for Tony" but it is bad form none the less to remove remarks critical of an action while leaving the initial explanation of the action behind. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Deleting discussion and leaving the misleading appearance of a one-sided declaration is not OK. --FOo 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, please stop doing this. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is my normal explanation of a policy edit. What Aaron added was some idea of his own about not editing an article during a discussion. I've no intention of taking the bait to I removed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can one of those reverting to Alkivar's version please say exactly what is wrong with the suggestion below (which incorporates Quadell's changes)? Perhaps give an example of a case where it would be important to apply a block, but this section would not allow it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation — or where a formal complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation — may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

I don't agree with this text, for the same reason why we don't give a free pass to people who spam articles with pictures of old cars because they think it is harmless and amusing. The user did it but thought it was okay. User is told to stop and that its not okay. User is free to discuss, but if they continue they will be blocked. Obviously there are going to be cases where the claim of copyright violation is suspect, which is why good judgment must be applied. Can you find a case where someone was blocked for inserting copyright violations which turned out not to be in spite of good behavior on the users part? --Gmaxwell 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about spamming, which users can be blocked for regardless of copyright violations. Can you give a hypothetical or real example of a case where a block would be needed but couldn't be applied because of this section? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, [[4]]. There are lots of other users as well.. Perhaps I should have avoided the word 'spamming' because it wasn't important to my claim. We'll block someone for a single clearly inapproiate image insertion if they revert on it after being asked not to... Do you have an example as I requested above? --Gmaxwell 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to judge the Scottfisher case because the images have been deleted, but it looks as though it was an issue that went on for a long time and in which multiple admins were involved, and yet he kept on uploading more images (adding PD tags) that were disputed for the same reasons. I don't think a case like that would be affected by the suggested text. What the suggestion tries to avoid is the case of an editor disputing one image or block of text, and being blocked for trying to prevent its removal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you find it different. Scott, presumably in good faith, claimed his images were PD. Many other people told him they were not. He ignored their complaints and then their warnings and was blocked. He was unblocked so he could discuss the matter, but then he continued to reinsert the content. I don't see how a single image differs materially from a set of images where the same incorrect reasoning is being employed to justify their inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that covered by the "repeatedly" bit? If someone uploads some copyvios and tags them as PD, you tell them what the problem is. If they keep doing it, you try to explain, and if they still don't understand, you block them. Right?--

Black

20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is in the current text, but in the text SV proposes, it appears to me that as long as the editor thinks they are doing no harm that we give them a free pass. .... Now, I don't now how you can argue that they think they've done no harm if they continue after being told to stop, but since warning is already required in the current text it would seem to me that the new text gives protection from blocking beyond the warning which would be required to notify a good faith user of their mistake. --Gmaxwell 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a situation where we can't just do the waggy finger. We really do have to take action in the interests of Wikipedia, and ultimately that means a preventive block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you- But I don't see how SV's proposed change advocates that, and, to me, anyways, does say exactly what you, and everyone, I think, want it to say.--

Black

20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it says not to block if the user is acting in good faith unless we get a complaint from the copyright holder. That leaves us with two possible readings, one is where the new text is meaningless i.e. "If the user has been told to quit and refuses he's obviously not acting in good faith thus you can block" or "even if the entire pedia is telling the user that he is wrong and endangering the project, until someone threatens to sue you may not block". Basically the above text is advocating a position on copyright, namely we'll ignore violations even when we know about them until the copyright holder threatens to sue us, which the Foundation has outright rejected. --Gmaxwell

That's not what it says, Greg. If someone is repeatedly, over a period of time, uploading images and simply slapping a PD tag on them, having been told by several editors that there's no reason to believe the images are PD, then clearly the assumption of good faith can be withheld. But it shouldn't be withheld from an editor who simply disagrees with you about an image's status. Otherwise what you seem to be saying is, if you believe something is a copyright violation, then it is; and if you say it should be removed from an article, then it should be; and anyone who reverts against you may be blocked. It's that kind of scenario we have to avoid. By all means, let the policy be tough on repeat offenders but we also need some built-in protection for good-faith editors. If you're right about the image, then others will agree with you, and they will help you to remove it so that a block won't be necessary, which is how the wiki works with all content disputes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You're putting the burden in the wrong place. If you upload someone elses copyrighted work the onus to prove that you had the right to do so, and that we have the right to redistribute the work requests squarely on your shoulders. If you're not trying to claim that we should wait until the copyright holder mentions us, why do you even mention the copyright holder at all? You still haven't provided the example I asked for... If this is actually a problem you should be able to find one, .. if you're able then perhaps we can craft some better language which addresses both of our concerns. Without one I can't see what valid case you're trying to prevent. --Gmaxwell 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism. I don't see where the consensus appeared to drop plagiarism from the policy. Plagiarism is a serious problem which is distinct from copyright violations. All information should be sourced, and verbatim text should be quoted. Repeated, willful acts of plagiarism are indications of a failure to understand the principles of this project. I hope that we can find a way to re-insert language that treats plagiarism the same as copyright violations. -Will Beback 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism doesn't pose legal problems for the project (unless it's also a copyvio); copyvios do. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Does that mean that editors who repeatedly and willfully add plagiarized material are doing nothing wrong, and should not be blocked, despite the explicit remarks to the contrary by Wales? -Will Beback 00:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

since I've seen I don't know how many reverts of this page in the past day—it seems to be at or near the top of my watchlist every time I check it. From this diff it seems that the issue is whether users may be blocked for persistent plagiarism or for persistent copyright infringement.

While I've edited and argued over parts of this page before, I have no opinion on the matter currently in dispute. I've protected it until the disputants reach some agreement on the exegesis of, or Jimbo clarifies, the quotations at the center of the disagreement. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was definitely NOT expecting to start a wheel war by adding to blocking policy per Jimbo's quotes from AN & AN/I. Guys, Girls, lighten up... This is definitely not something we should be wasting our efforts fighting over. I think as it stands we have a perfectly valid process for overturning blocks. If someone is blocked per this subsection of blocking policy we can clearly debate that on AN/ANI. As this has not yet become an issue, why are we making an issue out of something hypothetical in the future? For gods sake we're supposed to be adults, and setting forth a good image to other users. How is a wheel war on the freaking blocking policy page going to help convince joe newbie that his block for 3RR is justified? I think we should leave it as it stands and ask Jimbo to come here and give some input. Cause frankly its looking like thats the only thing going to stop this wheel war.  ALKIVAR™ 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

not a

wheel war, just a garden-variety edit war . . . so far. If sysops were to continue the edit war while the page is still protected, or start protecting and unprotecting it repeatedly, then we'd have a wheel war. —Charles P.  (Mirv)

23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that all this hypotheticalising is bordering on the ridiculous at this point. It's largely a to-and-fro between two users who disagree on something else (fair use images on userpages, specifically) and appear to be using this as another front in that battle. What Jimbo means is so blindingly obvious to me, that I barely even begin to comprehend the discussion above, or the need to write anything other than Jimbo's quotes along with a simple introductory sentence. If someone is blocked and disagrees with it, they will be told what to do in short order. -Splash^talk 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to tell them- Nobody really disagrees here at all.--

Black

23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the way I feel as well Splash, I think Jimbo's quotes are pretty fucking direct to the point, and seemingly obvious. That is why I added the mere 3 sentance intro and the 2 quotes to be the entirety of this section.  ALKIVAR™ 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sean thats bogus... what we first saw here was an attempt to misrepresent Jimbos words to imply that copyright violation was not to be subject to blocking only plagerism, later it shifted to an effort to state that blocking was only permitted if the user admitted to knowing it was wrong or if we got a complaint from the copyright holder. If you can't see how there remains a substantial difference in opinion I don't know what I can say to help you see that. And splash, you should check the edit history. In no way is this discussion related to fair use images, what you see is a good dozen editors supporting the common sense previously standing version by alkivar, and three users edit-waring back in the text by Quadell. --Gmaxwell 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Jimbo doesn't condone bullying and incivility, particularly not in his name or that of the Wikimedia Foundation. Secondly, I think most people agree that editors who are acting in good faith shouldn't be blocked if the situation can be dealt with in any other way. So that's what we're trying to do here: find the words to express that without undermining the fair-use policy. I believe the suggested compromise achieves that. I also agree with Will that plagiarism of text is at least as important as image-copyright violation, so we should be careful to bear in mind that we're not only talking about images. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that SlimVirgin's suggested version upholds the copyright policy and gives some protection to good faith editors. AnnH ^(talk) 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim if that were true Jimbo would not have said "We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy" and blocked User:*drew, who had been acting in good faith for more than a YEAR after the copyright incident he was blocked for.  ALKIVAR™ 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alkivar, Jimbo initially blocked Drew, but then he unblocked him. [5] And the wheel war involving several admins over a period of just a few hours shows that there seems to be no clear consensus to block good-faith editors in situations like this, which is why I feel some careful wording is needed in the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did check the history, and I did indeed see others 'editing'. But the overwhelming bulk of the discussion above (to which I referred fairly precisely) is between you and Slim Virgin; it's not surprising that you two should be disagreeing with one another at present, over an issue related to blocking and/or copyrights. -Splash^talk 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg, what I'm saying is, you disagree about the wording, and are considering the ramifications of that wording, but you agree with the spirit of what the policy currently says, and what it should say. We're just coming at this from different directions, is all.--

Black

03:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We were just editing at the same time.. Did you miss the comments from the other users? .. heck I was a late comer to this issue. In any case, the test that is being edited doesn't even talk about fair use. --Gmaxwell 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For whatever its worth, I think it qualifies as a wheel war now [6].--Gmaxwell 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That was 3 minutes before protection was applied, and Talrias's was just barely before. The page hasn't been edited since being protected. -Splash^talk 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg, you seem to be inadvertently deleting other people's comments. [7] [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that.. I must have edited an old version (hit edit to reply while walking through diffs), and in the second case I must have done that to the topmost versions.. so that in that case I never removed Sean's text actually but I wasn't alerted to the edit conflict. The page is long enough that its making my mobil broweser really slow. --Gmaxwell 07:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's a brand-new phrasing:

The point here is to reinforce civility and discussion, while ensuring that disputed material stays out of articles until we're sure it's safe for us to put up. In order that people may discuss the issue, it's reasonable to allow disputed material to be linked from a talk page during the dispute. But it needs to be off the article. At the same time, it's both uncivil and abusive to use admin access to shut someone up because you disagree with them, even over such an important issue. So admins need to be reminded not to block someone just for disagreeing ... even though people may be blocked for revert warring over this or any other issue. --FOo 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I could support something like this, Fubar. Thanks for writing it. I think I'd prefer to leave out that they may be blocked for reverting, because all the admin would need to do is start the reverting, then block the editor for responding. I'd prefer to say "Editors who engage in revert wars over disputed works and who violate 3RR may be blocked, as with any other 3RR violation" to make it clear that reverting over an image is not a special case. But otherwise, I'd support this version. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But how do we rectify this with our ability to block people who vandalize? .. If someone WoWs a page we can still block them if we were the person to fix the page. In many copyright cases, it should be the boxed text quite acceptable... but I might not find a revised version as acceptable. I'm hesitant to label persistant copyright violation less serious than other forms of vandalism, because I really think that if any different we should probably treat it as more serious. --Gmaxwell 07:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC). Wow. The text of the above was just changed out from under me and I edit conflicted. I can't support the above versions. The default behavior should not be to leave vandalism in a page just because the vandal says its not vandalism, nor should our hands be tied regarding our ability to block the vandal to make them discontinue. Too bad, I really thought we had something we could agree on here. --Gmaxwell 07:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. For "engage in revert wars", read "violate 3RR". This needs to be taken in combination with the rule that admins shouldn't block someone they're in a content dispute with, though -- so starting a revert war and then blocking the other guy is already Not OK. --FOo 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems fine to me, too (although I think we ought to be linking to

Black

04:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good point that admins shouldn't block someone they're in a content dispute with. I like the way it's worded at present, because it covers that eventuality, but also covers a situation where an editor involved in the dispute might call upon another admin to do the blocking. As it stands, it's saying that these are content disputes (so long as everyone is acting in good faith), and blocks are not the way to settle them. I can certainly support that. And your first paragraph emphasizes the importance to Wikipedia of not using plagiarized or copyrighted material, so the policies aren't undermined by this section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about content disputes, but about recalcitrant editors who repeatedly flout the copyright policy. Here, to remind you, is how Jimbo put it. I happen to agree with him. Your mileage may vary but remember that he owns the site and will most likely be left with the legal bill if we get it wrong:

We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least. (04:28, 28 December 2005 ) UTC)[9]

There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.(15:54, 28 December 2005) (UTC)[10]

We shouldn't have any material on our website whose legal status is subject to dispute. If there is a dispute it can be removed until its legal status van be settled. Editors who persistently add disputed material must be blocked. This is not a matter on which half-measures are acceptable, and this is not the kind of case to be treated as if it were a content dispute. Absolute harshness. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, that kind of extreme language is what's unacceptable, and it's the reason this has become such a divisive issue. Reasonable people need to be approached with reason, not with bullying and aggression, not least because aggression breeds aggression, so you're likely to deal with the issue faster by being decent to people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, as Mav pointed out elsewhere tonight, Jimbo does not own Wikipedia. [11] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We all agree with that. This wording does not at all change that, as far as I can see. What's the problem with ensuring that people who genuinly don't know what they're doing don't get blocked, and that people who are disagree about the legality (or lack thereof) of an image or block of text) (a content dispute) aren't the ones blocking people for copyright violations? I honestly don't understand this objection.--

Black

06:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, Sean, we don't all agree with that. There's a canyon between an image's legal status' truly being problematic and some guy's having a problem with it. (An analogy is to pages on which there are POV disputes. Give it some thought.) Given the concerted campaign here and on other pages, this is beginning to look like an attempt to write a policy specifically so that a particular editor can be blocked under it. Slim's suggestion does not prevent blocking the deserving but it protects editors who have a dispute, not with the law, but with other editors. Grace Note 06:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, I guess, but just as you shouldn't be tagging images if you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be removing images from articles or whatever if you don't know what you're talking about. I think we do agree, we're just (yet again) coming at this from different angles.--

Black

06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is disputed material, we need to deal with the material with a firm response; we do not need to break our other rules with regards to how we treat editors. For instance, it doesn't matter why an admin got into an edit war; if they're in one, they don't get to block the other guy. Instead, they're expected to do the right thing and post to

WP:AN/I or a similar forum to get review of the situation. If they're right that it's needed, someone else will gladly perform the block. --FOo

06:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing track of what we're talking about in the word smog. I've "div-ed" the lastest version off up there, maybe we could edit it a bit and gasbag less? -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed "However, administrators should permit a dispute to be worked out in discussion, and must not use blocking to "settle" a content dispute" as something we shouldn't have to state. This isn't the place to work on problems with admin behavior, and we're verging on "stop or I'll say stop again" with that phrase. Also pared it down in general. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't alter my signed posts. I've restored what was an important part of it: the caution to administrators. Concern about misuse of administrative powers needs to be addressed, as it has been part of an active dispute (or probably more than one) recently. --FOo 07:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. That's why I put in the div and the note. You didn't revert that quite far enough, by the way, it's still altered. Do you want me to put it back like it was up there, or do you want to do it? Here's a version that anyone can edit at will, as I think that's the easist way to move forward. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What about when users refuse to allow the copyright-disputed material to be removed from the pages/articles in question? You (FOo) appear to be putting a lot of faith in editors not to act like dicks. Also I am troubled by your distinction between "editors" and "administrators". Administrators are just editors who happen to have a few extra buttons. Any text like this should not single out administrators as some special group that *has* to behave differently to other editors in disputes. If that makes sense. - Mark 07:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The only way someone can "refuse" is by re-inserting material. We have 3RR for that. Anything that talks about editors/admins as disparate is not appropriate in a general guideline. Deal with admin behavior somewhere else. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The above version sounds like a fine version to me. --Gmaxwell 07:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I'm starting to think I'm agreeing too much, though :).--

Black

07:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It leaves out the crucial point that good-faith editors should not be blocked where there is a genuine dispute over uncertain copyright and where no complaint has been received. As Foobar said: "We don't find out who is right and who's wrong by blocking someone and declaring them wrong." I'm happy with the version last suggested by Quadell or with Fubar's. There's strong consensus on ANI for a version that stresses blocking shouldn't be used against editors acting in good faith unless all other options have been tried and have failed. There's no point in formulating a policy that doesn't reflect consensus, because then it won't in fact be policy, notwithstanding what it's called. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't act in good faith and simultaneously knowingly do something where the legal backing is hazy. If the copyright status of something is questioned, it should be removed until the copyright situation is clarified. We are a top-30 website, and should behave like one. [[Sam Korn]] 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like there versions too, but this one is basically okay with me- You're completely right that no one should be blocked when there is a genuine dispute. Humph.--

Black

20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It will be policy because Jimbo says so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But not because you say that he said so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that version. It clarifies what the term err on the side of caution means, and substantially echoes Jimbo's suggested absolute harshness, in the interests of the project, towards those who persistently place disputed material. Making a copyright-protective block stick in the current lackadaisical climate, however, would be problematic, and I foresee all kinds of silliness if we don't get our act together and agree a firm line. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A further refinement: Editors who persistently insert plagiarized or infringing material, after having been warned, may be blocked to protect the project. -> Editors who persistently insert such disputed material, after having been warned, may be blocked to protect the project.

This is in line with erring on the side of caution. Once a good faith dispute is recognised it's incumbent on the editors to take the cautious path and deviation will carry a price.

In any case Jimbo has made it plain that you can put this one in your pocket and take it all the way to arbcom, though hopefully this will not be necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. Though copyrights and plagiarism are serious matters, they are also complex and editors acting in good faith may disagree. Blocking should not be the first response. So long as there is demonstration of good faith, through ongoing discussion, then blocking should not be sought. A "zero tolerance policy" could become a pretext to remove both text and editors with whom there is disagreement. -Will Beback 07:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish people would stop quoting Jimbo out of context. Better still, stop quoting him completely. We're not schoolchildren and he's not the headmaster. We should come up with a policy that makes legal and moral sense, and one that's compatible with our other policies and general approach, in which "absolute harshness" has no place. When Jimbo talked about being harsh, he was talking about clear cases of theft (e.g. plagiarism, or deliberate and repeated copyright violations), not good-faith disputes about which tag to use on an image page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems somewhat incongruent that you are now saying that after this whole debate was started by not only quoting him out of context but factually misrepresenting what he said, and that you only changed your argument from being centered around Jimbo's words after your error was pushed in your face multiple times. --Gmaxwell 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the harsh sanction. If they're inserting disputed material against policy, they should be removed, until the status of the disputed material is determined. But nowhere has anyone suggested blocking as the first response, only a response to persistent re-insertion of disputed material. Discussion can be carried on when the ongoing cause of the problem is removed. This is a case where good faith absolutely isn't an excuse to reinsert disputed material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not understanding how the current working version can be seen to support Tony's "absolute harshness". I agree with SV that blocking is a last resort, and that we should stop with the kowtowing. The current very brief version leads to only one good-faith scenario: Person A has a problem with some content. They remove it. Talk ensues. Any further action by any other person until the talk is over isn't in good faith. Putting something back when there has been a dispute can't ever be done in good faith. It can be done by mistake, but that's where we use talk pages and their ilk. By the time someone has reached 3RR over disputed material, they've used up AGF. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:59, 18 January 2006

And this has nothing to do with 3RR. If they persistently reinsert the disputed material at periods spaced a week or a month apart, they may be blocked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But we're not all agreed on the wording, Tony. Most people who have commented support wording that makes it clear blocks should not be used against good faith editors over disputes about image tags. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Most? I get a different count than you.. although, this isn't something we can vote over. Users have been and will continue to be blocked for repeatedly inserting copyright violations weather you like it or not. --Gmaxwell 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 3RR trumps AGF; if someone violates 3RR, they get blocked, pure and simple. Repeated insertion of plagiarized or infringing content is another issue on top of that. If someone goes around inserting plagiarized material in lots of articles, they may not have violated 3RR on any of them, but they're still blockable.

I don't think this is worth anything without the guidance and caution to admins, though. The use of admin access is one of the most contentious problems on Wikipedia right now. Avoiding that issue is irresponsible. The page we're working on is, after all, the blocking policy -- not the copyright & plagiarism policy. The whole page is instruction to admins about what's blockable and what is not.

It doesn't seem OK to me to suggest that just because anyone declares that a work is "disputed", that it must immediately be pulled from any article and anyone who puts it back gets blocked. Some people are going to raise disputes mistakenly or wantonly, or will refuse to accept that they're wrong. Sometimes, a "dispute" just means that one person is being a dick. --FOo 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of who declares the dispute, but whether the dispute is in good faith. There are tell-tales for this--use of "fair use" material in a disputed context, for instance, commercial watermarks and logos in images, suspicious-looking patches where a logo could have been removed, absence of a license declaration, suspicious content (declares it's his mom but it looks like a posed model), and so on. Administrators determine whether people are making good faith statements all the time in assessing requests related to blocking, protection, vandalism and deletion, so it's not a big deal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those "disputes" will be worked out pretty quickly... within minutes probably. And we're not going to solve the problems with admin abuse by putting up another warning with no teeth. Admins who are acting a self-appointed marshals already know that there are both written and tacit rules against what they are doing, and sadly also know that that nothing can be done to enforce them. By writing it out again, we're only going to make ourselves hoarse. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

08:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is all well and good, but when it comes down to it, the licensing status of images and text on Wikipedia is a more important consideration, which is more the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation and the board than for idle policy discussion on an obscure page like this. In my opinion, an acceptable "good faith" excuse is "I thought the software was stuffing up and my edits kept getting lost". Something like "I know the copyright status better than the others so I kept re-adding it" is NOT. Just as removing a copyvio tag from an article is bad faith, so is re-inserting images whose copyright statuses are in doubt. 3RR shouldn't come into it: that is an entirely different policy designed to stop revert wars, not deal with the inclusion of questionable content (a slow image revert war is just as bad as a rapid one). - Mark 08:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've still not seen an example where someone being a dick has resulted in an incorrect banning over copyright although I've asked several times. I feel sad that some of the people here have so little faith in admins as a whole. --Gmaxwell 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading through the versions, I think this one is closest to being the best. I think administrators should be able to remove copyvio content and protect the page if a dispute gets out of control. Copyvio (and indeed, fair use vio) content opens Wikipedia up to legal liability, and it's important to protect Wikipedia in such cases while issues are being worked out on the talk page. While, a 3RR restriction on admins removing copyvio content will hamstring admins in protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, I think the page ought to be protected or the user blocked before that point is reached.—thames 14:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, although we all seem to think it supports our various views, we all seem to be converging on this one version. Does anybody have any serious objections to this wording? It seems pretty much perfect to me. If there's a dispute we remove the disputed material and investigate, and we may sometimes block a recalcitrant user if he insists on reinserting it after warnings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have serious objections to it, as I said above. It seems to me that there's a clear consensus her and on ANI for adding something about not blocking editors who are acting in good faith. Yet when anyone points that out, you just ignore them, Tony. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's really going to block someone for acting in good faith. See my comment above. [[Sam Korn]] 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I could see how in certain instances, goodfaith could become as amorphic as the possibility of an actual copyrights claim. El_C 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly simple. If you know there's a chance that you're infringing copyright, you are not acting in good faith. That shouldn't be too hard to judge. [[Sam Korn]] 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a chance I'm infringing copyrights (somewhere, somehow)... Wait, no, forget I said that! Let's start over. El_C 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Damnèd semantics! I mean, if you know that there's a chance that you're infringing copyright in a particular situation, you're not acting in good faith. Cheers,[[Sam Korn]] 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right, and I apologise for not noticing her serious objections in my skimming. This wording would involve blocking people involved in good faith editing disputes if they persistently and despite warnings inserted disputed material. A good faith belief on the part of one editor that the material can be used legally probably isn't enough to absolve MediaWiki from liability, and in my opinion it may be necessary to block such a persistent editor, good faith and all. We already do block good faith editors so I don't think that's the issue. Also on looking at the incident in the Jimbo quotes I see that the blocked user (*drew) seems to have been acting in good faith also, and because the infringements were found to be minor and not ongoing he's back editing Wikipedia right now. It is possible for a good faith editor through his actions to damage wikipedia, and MediaWiki may sometimes need to take precautions to protect itself from the headstrong, unwise actions of editors introducing suspect material in good faith. That's what it's all about.

Page unprotected, let editing commence

I've inserted a mixture of the last version suggested by Quadell, and the version suggested by Fubar. The former was supported by almost everyone (when I last checked) who posted about this to WP:AN, and the latter seemed to be supported here. Could I ask that people edit this, rather than reverting. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This has got to take the prize for the most complicated phrasing of a blindingly, incredibly, completely obvious message I have ever seen. I cannot understand what was wrong with the nice, clean, simple version. All this cruft about good-faith? Any admin worth their salt knows you don't block for good-faith edits unless the user is being truly idiotic, and we don't need paragraphs on policy-plaque written up to tell us so. I presume this is to permit people who disagree with the Foundation's copyright policy to point and say "oh but look, I can use copyrighted material any which way I like as long as I plead good-faith". That simply isn't the case, policy or no. -Splash^talk 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

By all means, tighten it, Splash, so long as you retain something about good faith, because that's what most people who responded wanted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't edit a protected page. -Splash^talk 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just unprotected because I think we've come to a conclusion.--

Black

23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sean. Splash, the problem is that there's a widespread perception that the policy is being enforced by bullying. The message may seem blindingly, incredibly, completely obvious" to you, and it does to me too, but there are people who unfortunately need to be reminded of it. There's no point in pretending that this isn't a divisive issue. The enforcement of it has caused more bad feeling than any other issue I can recall, so it's important to make sure admins aren't unnecessarily heavy-handed. Good-faith editors are (almost by definition) essentially reasonable people, and should be reasoned with, not shouted at and threatened with blocks (at least, not until everything else has been tried). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I scraped some of the plaque off it, and it now only says everything once rather than several times. I don't think the problems have been caused by enforcement of the fact that copyrighted material is illegal, but by the fact that people disagree over the usage of copyrighted mnaterial in the first place. -Splash^talk 23:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict X 3) The reason that the version above exists was so that we could edit it here as opposed to more idiocy on the main page. I'm not seeing any "conclusion" to these discussions, except that one favored version is now on the page as opposed to another that was also supported. I cannot help but point out that Tony and I agree on the concise version. As to support at ANI, let 'em come here and work it out as opposed to making it a vote by proxy. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes where people voice their support, Aaron, but they did voice it, so there's no point in ignoring it. Do you think we should arrange a poll? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I undertand that some have a

Black

00:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My point about ANI is that whomever voiced some support somewhere there didn't do it here. Did they look at the different versions presented, did they read the commentary here, or did they make in-principle noises about the one version that they saw? The discussion at

brenneman^(t)(c)

00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed totally, ... I was unaware of the discussion over there. Thats not the correct place at all. The majority view *here* appears to be something like Mark's last version... --Gmaxwell 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Aaron and I agree on something is enough to make it policy :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Slim's version

I've made some small changes to the text but now I'd like to make a big one. It reads:

When a formal complaint has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, re-insertion of the material is inappropriate and may result in a block even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

This implies that unless the foundation has received a complaint, we can't block someone. As mentioned above, if I re-add disputed material once a day for three days without meaningful talk, I should be blocked. Clearly, every effort should be made to engage me first, but that's outside the scope of this part of the guideline. I'd like to change it (at the very least) to read:

When a complaint has been received, such as by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, re-insertion of the material is inappropriate and may result in a block even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

Ummm, no it doesn't imply that at all. Both before and after your edit there is a separate sentence that provides for blocks whether or not a complaint has been received. I also think that the prior version was slightly more precise, since after your edit, it sounds like a simple reference to the 3RR rather than to adding any copyrighted text repeatedly (e.g. I could add different, obviously illegal, text repeatedly and still deserve a block, even though each piece was only disputed once, or even not at all).

I see your point about "disputed". On the proposed change, we say in the first instance "you can be blocked" and in the second "if X happens you can be blocked". Either the second (more specific) sentance is redundant and should be removed or it's clarifying the first and should be loosened. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um. It does pretty much say that as long as the user is editing in good faith and there is no complaint that we can't block. Since it's clear that the most obvious test of good faith can't be used (i.e. from the text it's obvious that reverts and editwarring against the community do not demonstrate a lack of good faith, since it is to those activities which the exception applies) it would appear that there is no obivous way to invalidate the good faith exception without something unlikely, such as an admission from the user. As such I've moved in the last proposed version which was fairly well supported, and lacked these flaws. --Gmaxwell 06:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put in a sentence that says re-inserting material whose (unclear) copyright status is under review is bad-faith. Maybe we need to wait for a new copyright review mechanism to come along before that, though. - Mark 06:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see there being any new review method any time soon, at least not any which is slower than the current process to the extent that we need to include text like that... I've yet to see an example where anyone has gotten in trouble over an image which turned out to be okay. I've asked many times. I can't understand why anyone wants to make the text more complex and unclear in an attempt to address a corner case which may never happen. --Gmaxwell 06:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now nervous that we're having a slow-motion version of the same back-and-forth that started this. Perhaps we could all just let the project page lie for a little while and work it out here? It looks like "consesus" when we do it here and "edit warring" when we do it there. So, again see

brenneman^(t)(c)

06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree with this. How about nobody edit the policy page, please? Let's discuss.--

Black

06:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why people shouldn't edit the policy page during this discussion. Isn't that what wikis are for? Sometimes editing clarifies things where discussion bogs down. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg has made more changes. I'll go along with pretty well any version, so long as something like the sentence "In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked" is included, because I want to avoid good-faith editors being treated too aggressively. People who have responded here and on WP:AN supported this, and I believe the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians will support it.

The question is: do I have to go off and organize polls to find that support, or can it be sorted out here? I've compromised away every sentence of the version I prefer, but this sentence is crucial, as I see it. Without it, there's no protection from bullying for editors who are acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if I can ask: What is the core "objection" to this sentence? It seems fine to me, but what objections exist?--

Black

06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not really 'changes by me', rather it's a wholesale transition to Mark's work in progress version which appeared to gather the most support of the text proposed here. The problem I see with the text you've proposed is that you've given us no basis to invalidate a presumption of good faith (since the text obviously removes the most obvious method, that the user reverts it in against the advice and warnings of other users)... as such as long as someone is simply wrong (but in good faith) and persistant, we will never be able to remove a piece of obvious copyright violation. The text you were previously supporting appeared to take this into account by saying we would take it down when the foundation recieved a complaint. However, that solution is not acceptable. You've still yet to provide a case where a user has been inapproiately blocked over material which turned out not to be a violation. I've asked you politely several times, and even answered your request to provide examples of users which had to be blocked which your proposed policy would have allowed to continue. I cant see how we can hold a reasonable discussion about this unless you can show us what problem you are trying to solve. --Gmaxwell 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg, you're now just making things up as you go along. Mark's version did not gather the most support. I outline the problem I am trying to solve below. But you know what the problem is, because you are largely the cause of it. It is the bullying of good editors who have done nothing other than to use an image in a way you deem inappropriate. The policy must distinguish between people who are being truly disruptive and people who happen to disagree with Gmaxwell. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it does to me.. I'll count again. In any case, you've become really accusitory here. Can you please cite where we've had a case of me ever using copyright violations as a stick against "people who disagree with gmaxwell"? ... Frankly your above post without substantiation is nothing more than a personal attack. I've asked you to cite the situation you were concerned about previously, in the hopes that it would faciltate discussion, but now that you've taken it personal, I must demand that you provide a citation. --Gmaxwell 07:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahad and put my version in... seeing the heat though I should have put it on the talk page - so I went ahead and reverted myself - my diff is here.

T | @ | C

06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Greg could explain why he feels every sentence he wants must be included; and in particular why he wants it to be so aggressive. I wonder whether he is aware of the widespread bad feeling his approach has caused, and the knock-on effects of it in terms of people's distrust of admins (even though he himself isn't one). It's time to stop the bullying over this issue. Most editors are reasonable, and if the issues are explained to them reasonably and clearly, they'll cooperate. But to go around threatening to block people causes people to react by digging their heels in, and that sets off a dynamic where someone who has done nothing wrong ends up being blocked. The dynamic shouldn't be started until other approaches have been tried, and this policy needs to reflect that. Think of how hard it can be to block even the worst of the known trolls, then compare how easy Gmaxwell wants it to be to block someone who may be using an image incorrectly, in his opinion. The situation can't be allowed to continue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? .... Slim, there is a version here which gathered the most support, I included it word for word. You editted in a version derrived from the one with least support. "The situation can't be allowed to continue", so you do have examples? I've only been asking you to provide one for days now. As I said, show me where someone has been blocked when something turned out not to be copyvio and I'll gladly help make sure the policy reflects that situation. Why do you refuse to work with people who don't agree with your idea of not blocking a user when they are wrong and insisting on their wrongness, but mean well? --Gmaxwell 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I can list the names of the editors who supported the other version, or I can start a poll, as you choose. If I do the latter, it will raise the entire fair-use issue again, which I would like to avoid, because it causes such strong feelings and is very divisive. But let me know if you think that's the way to go. You know what the example is and I won't play your games anymore. This policy page is meant, in part, to act as a brake on overly aggressive admin action. Just because YOU believe someone is wrong about an image doesn't mean they ARE wrong. Can you even see the difference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the capitalized words in your post and little else. How about we discuss this when you're not so upset? --Gmaxwell 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be so patronizing. A sentence needs to be found that protects people from you wading in with aggressive threats, and when you don't get your own way, either threatening to block yourself (which you say you don't, but here's an example [12]) and then summoning an admin to block on your say-so. I appreciate that if you deal with inappropriate images a lot, your job might be frustrating, but you might find you'd encounter less opposition if you'd change your approach. Anyway, this page is about the blocking policy only: not whether you're right or wrong about images, but whether people may be blocked because they are in a dispute with you. Being in a dispute with you, Greg, is not the same as being in a dispute with the Wikimedia Foundation. You like to pretend that it is, and you may believe that it is, but you are wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand a lick of what you just said. I'm not frustrated. I'm not here to argue about images. I'm not in a dispute with anyone at this point. I'm not being patronizing, I honestly just don't know how we can have a conversation when all you are going to do is put words into my mouth, assign intentions to me that I've never had, and yell at me in caps. :( --Gmaxwell 07:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict X3) I am seriously afraid to look at the page's history, because if I have to make a couple of 3RR violation notices I'll be sad. Then when they don't get acted I'll have to cry, and I get snotty when I cry. I really really think that anyone who's had the letters R and V an any recent edit summaries had better go and check ye old electric fence, ok? -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(EC x4) .. not me.  :-/ --Gmaxwell 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you too, Mr. Sailing-close-to-the-wind. I did go and look now, and you've done five full reverts, three on the 17th (08:46, 09:03, 15:54) and two today (06:38,06:49). Three reverts is not an entitlement. Everyone needs to work together a little bit more, or no ice-cream. ^_^ -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um. You must be a student of the new math :) You've managed to count every single non-null edit I made. By the same metric SV's made 9. In every case but the last pass I was simply reverting it back to the prediscussion state while discussion was ongoing and in the last two to Mark's version which I believe had the greatest support here (and which is substantially simmlar to the prediscussion version). In any case you asked about 3RR violation, and indeed there has not been one, ... the tone of your reply implies there is. The page should have stayed protected until the discussion was settled, its not my fault that it was edited while protected then unprotected by a party to the discussion and edited to a clearly non-consensus version. --Gmaxwell 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that. I asked nicely that we stop with pointless reversions, and said that some people were walking a thin line. There are five diffs up there that show full reversions you've done. While you neither protected nor unprotected the page, do take responsibility for the edits that you made. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

08:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So this text still appears to have the same problem... It makes it seem like the act of repeatedly reinserting against consensus is not sufficient to block the user. I'd accept the notion that we could fall back on 3RR but that does nothing to solve cross-article copyright infringers (which have been most of the ones blocked thus far) nor does it deal with people who slow motion revertwar the images back in. --Gmaxwell 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think I see a version that I can accept that doesn't somehow say that, good faith or no, someone who persistently inserts material that is subject to a good faith dispute can ultimately be blocked. We have to agree to enforce the iron rule that none of us takes it upon himself to become Mediawiki's legal counsel and okay material where other editors have a good faith reason to dispute. Ultimately those who (in all good faith) refuse to back off and continue discussion until issues are resolved must be stopped by force in the interests of the wiki. It's not something to be done lightly, and as long as the threat is there it may never have to be used. But we have to be clear on this:

• It is never acceptable to persistently insert material of dubious licensing status, over the good faith objections of other editors.

That's why the threat of blocking must be there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with "the iron rule that none of us takes it upon himself to become Mediawiki's legal counsel." And that must include Greg Maxwell, who seems to have adopted that role for himself. I also agree with "someone who persistently inserts material that is subject to a good faith dispute can ultimately be blocked" (but with the stress on "ultimately"), though the version that was up before Maxwell reverted did say something like that, and it could have been strengthened.

But I also want, and I believe the community wants, one sentence that makes it clear (a) where the copyright status is uncertain/undecided, and (b) where the editor is acting in good faith, that blocks should not be used until other alternatives have been tried. Tony, if you can find alternative wording, I'll be happy to look at them, but there has to be something.

The whole point of the blocking policy is to stand between ordinary editors and bullies (otherwise we could do without a policy entirely and go around blocking at will). The policy as it stood a few days ago did not do that regarding images, and the result is that Gregory Maxwell has been going around threatening people very aggressively, and then (he claims) calling upon admins to administer blocks on his say-so alone. In other words, get involved in a dispute with Maxwell, and you face a block. That can't be allowed to continue, and the policy has to be worded to give editors some protection against that kind of aggression. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. How am I supposed to respond to this? Of course I've told people they would be blocked. It usually comes after they've said things equivalent to 'I can upload whatever I want' or 'Iran has no copyright'. Whenever I've said it, it has always been on the condition that they continue to do something which is unacceptable. Please stop making these claims about me. They are hurtful and unsupported by facts. It is a huge drain on me to need to waste my time responding to them for fear that I'll later be judged on your accusations rather than my own actions. ... and it's entirely off topic here. --Gmaxwell 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. That does help matters a lot (though I wish you wouldn't make swipes at Greg, who I think really is trying as hard as you are to make this a better encyclopedia). So you do agree that someone in a good faith dispute over copyright status may ultimately be blocked if there is no alternative way to safeguard MediaWiki's interests; what concerns you is that some parties may block prematurely. Okay. But I wish you'd leave your accusations of bad faith against Greg out of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

I think SV's concerns are valid. I also think that they are misplaced in this guideline subsection. How about we accept the "bare bones" version of the copyright guideline but strenghten the overall language about how and when blocks are applied? They are orthogonal, let's treat them that way. -

I like that idea in general... I still think we must be careful that we never make good faith a free pass to vandalize Wikipedia. I believe that we'd have an easier time coming to agreement on more general language. --Gmaxwell 07:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone think of examples where we block when editors are acting in good faith? I can think of only 3RR, and even then if we believe someone didn't realize or hadn't been warned, we're likely to go easy on them. But apart from 3RR, good faith always make a difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We normally take a user editwarring content which is against policy to be an example of a lack of good faith... in fact it's pretty much the only thing we do to separate the vandals we only warn from the ones we block... but your proposed text exempts reinsertion of removed material from being evidence of a lack of good faith... So we are left with nothing. --Gmaxwell 07:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're showing a complete lack of knowledge here about policy and editing the encyclopedia. We are in fact not allowed to block over simple content disputes. If an editor keeps on inserting unsourced material in violation of

WP:NOR, he can't be blocked for it. Now, if he kept on doing in against consensus for weeks on end, at some point an admin might point out that he was being disruptive, and then if he continued, he could be blocked under the disruption provision. But we can't just turn up, spot a policy violation, and threaten a block. That's what you've been doing, that's why it's unacceptable, and that's why this trouble has erupted. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

07:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

One case is where a user is banned after making legal threats. It's not that we think he doesn't necessarily have a good faith dispute with Mediawiki--he may do--but rather, that it isn't in Mediawiki's interests to accept contributions from parties with whom it is in such a dispute. Then there's the case of Maoririder, who seems to be acting in good faith but was blocked because he created dozens of very small stubs. An editor may also be blocked if he is running a bot (even if the bot is flagged) which inadvertently damages the wiki. These are just three cases that I can think of on the spur of the moment. I'm sure that if I thought for longer than thirty seconds I could come up with many more. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and one case that is related to the first--where I blocked Voyager12 because he refused to free-license his signed contributions. It was obvious that he had a good faith objection to the GFDL in that case, but just as obvious that we couldn't accept his contributions if he refused to comply with the site license. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But you often block or threaten to block without basis in policy, so that isn't a very good example. In fact, that's one of only a handful of cases since I've been an admin where I've wanted to unblock (and I don't normally get involved in undoing other people's blocks). The legal threat situation is a better one, but why do you think that's similar in kind to using an image incorrectly? We don't block when people insert unsourced claims about living individuals, and that could cause us more trouble (and has) than any image is likely to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, this is a bit much. You've tried to set aside a blocking precedent on the basis of your expressed personal opinion about the way that I block. My block log is there for all to see but I'd prefer it if we didn't personalize this policy dispute. Can you agree that this is what you're doing? Firstly you disagree with a blocking provision because you say that Greg is being a bully, then you discount an example of a good faith block (one of four examples that I gave) because you say I often block without basis in policy (an accusation which, incidentally, I believe is baseless). This really isn't the way to discuss policy, and it's hardly civil to make these rather serious allegations. Have you thought of going through dispute resolution rather than getting it all tangled up in the policy-making process? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you were the one who raised the issue of when you block. You can hardly complain when I respond in kind. What should be in the blocking policy is not a matter for dispute resolution. I'm an experienced admin, and I see a problem in the way the copyright policy is being enforced. I also see that it is causing enormous divisions in the community, as you do too. I am therefore trying to make sure the blocking policy doesn't contribute to the problem. That is a perfectly legitimate way to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You'll probably recall that I submitted the Pioneer-12 block to review on wikien-l [13] and on WP:AN/I (snapshot just before archiving). This block was widely reviewed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It was widely reviewed by the people who read the posts and e-mails, including me. That we didn't undo it doesn't mean we agreed with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, this is off topic. Discussion is wonderful, but we have user talk pages for a reason. :)--

Black

08:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(actually that was User:Pioneer-12, in case anyone wanted to look him up.) FreplySpang (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I got my Grand Tour and my Mars Probe mixed up! ;)

Er..what's the problem?

We all agree, you know that. Everybody agrees that editors who use copyright infringing material repeatedly can and should be blocked. We all agree that editors who don't legitmately understand what they're doing or disagree about the copyright status should not be blocked. But we agree, that as an unfortunate consequence, people who re-insert copyvio material after warnings, even if those people are acting in good faith. Now, that's where things get tricky, though. The way we solve this problem is easy: We add the following sentence, subject to modifications, to that section:

When editors are blocked for copyright violations, they are of course able to be unblocked by any sysop, should they promise to not use copright infringing material, and are subject to re-blocking should they do so.

--

No, I disagree. You then have a situation where Gmaxwell disagrees with someone. The someone reverts because Maxwell has been too aggressive. Maxwell calls upon one of the admins he claims do whatever he tells them. The someone is blocked, to be lifted if and only if he does what Maxwell wants. Definition of bullying, Sean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But if someone emails me because they were blocked for copyright violations, they explain the situation, and we work out an informal parole, then there isn't a problem. Maybe we shouldn't be considering how the polcy could be abused, but rather what works best for keeping those editors who deserve to blocked blocked, and those who don't deserve it, not blocked. I don't really know what Greg's objections are, but I'm trying to compromise.--

Black

08:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, if Greg is being a nuisance this should be dealt with as a matter of his bad behavior. Let's just not underwrite the whole of our blocking policy with a "It must never be possible for Greg to be a nuisance" clause. Hard cases make bad law. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Ditto for trying to correct bad judgement by admins via policy... --Gmaxwell 08:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

(Edit conflict X6, I think) Ok, so working with the idea that we can accept the smallest version of the copyvio guideline as long as there is some protection for nice guys somewhere... The current lead section "When blocks may be used" now reads:

Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans. There are several other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. Blocks should initially last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below.

I propose that this be changed to:

Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans. There are other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punative, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia. In an instance where there are reasonable arguments as to the good faith of the contributor, discussion is the first course of action. Blocks should initially last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below, and in most instances will be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior.

Howzat?

I'm not sure, but I suspect that "In an instance where there are reasonable arguments as to the good faith of the contributor, discussion is the first course of action" is redundant. We nearly always discuss first even in obvious cases of vandalism--exceptions being repeat vandalism during an organised outbreak, where it's appropriate to block first on the assumption that the vandal has already had multiple warnings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: no major objections, though. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put in bright blue the bit that Sean proposed. It's "fat" to me, and I'd trim it, but I'm trying to be inclusive here.

brenneman^(t)(c)

08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I agreed with SlimVirgin's suggested version when I read it yesterday, but at this stage, I can't even find it on this page. As I say, I suspect that that might be a reason why there isn't more input here from other editors here. Unless you're around to follow all the posts as they occur, or unless you're excessively interested and prepared to go through them one by one hours later, you lose track. Sorry. AnnH ^(talk) 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to archiving this discussion and making another more focused attempt? AnnH's point about it being a mess is true, but I suspect that there would be bruised feelings if someone refactored it. --Gmaxwell 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Box off the proposed versions, leave one as a {{

brenneman^(t)(c)

...is it safe to assume that my version is not unpopular? Or have people just not seen it yet? [[Sam Korn]] 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it. I think it's putting it a bit too strong to say that we shouldn't generally block people who are editing in good faith. Sure we should. You get hotheads in most disputes, without any suggestion that they're not acting in good faith. When their good faith exercise of their judgement disrupts Wikipedia, and persists after warnings, then a block may be in order.

A request for unblocking should be taken on its merits. A promise to cease the disruptive behavior is usually enough to convince an administrator to unblock in cases where the editor in question is well known and has a history of acting in good faith.

I am in favor of subjecting all of my blocks to review. I do this by placing a notice about my block, usually on

WP:AN, and invite comment or, if merited, unblocking. This helps me to be sure that I'm not depriving Wikipedia of a good editor longer than is necessary, or unnecessarily alienating an editor. What's the feeling on this? Is it a generally good idea? Is it so useful that it should be recommended in policy? --Tony Sidaway|Talk

19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add something closer to what was agreed on WP:AN, because with each edit this is getting watered down, to the point where it makes no sense. The point is that (a) where the editor is believed to be editing in good faith, and (b) where the copyright status is uncertain, and (c) where no complaint has been received, then (d) the editor shouldn't be blocked or even threatened with a block until alternative ways of resolving the issues have been tried and have failed. But all these factors have to be in place. If it's only good faith, that would mean someone repeatedly adding an image where the copyright status HAS been established (and it would definitely be a violation), or the Foundation HAS received a complaint, couldn't be blocked, just because they appeared to be acting in good faith, which is clearly nonsense. Good faith alone isn't enough. You could argue that, by definition, such a user wasn't acting in good faith, but the wording is important. Quadell's wording captured all these issues, and that was the version presented here and on WP:AN, so I'm going to add it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that anyone who disagrees with that isn't really fit to be an admin. [[Sam Korn]] 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that any block that isn't documented elsewhere should be reported at AN. In fact, I advocate setting up a particular subpage of AN to do just that. In the mean time, I have weaseled the policy to say "Generally, extreme caution should be exercised before blocking users acting in good faith." Is this better? [[Sam Korn]] 19:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Sam. I think we should not hesitate to block someone who persistently, through good faith but blockheaded actions and after warnings, refuses to stop disrupting Wikipedia. When it comes down to the certain knowledge that the guy isn't going to stop, we should (then and only then) stop him in the blink of an eye. Sincerity in this case doesn't stop the damage, it only means that you're not going to be able to persuade him to stop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my opinion that that person has ceased to act in good faith with regard to copyrights. [[Sam Korn]] 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg, your edit can't fly, because it effectively means that anyone who reverts you (even once) risks being blocked. That's precisely the situation we have to avoid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we at least agree on two things?

1. Greg cannot block anyone. He's not an administrator.
2. If Greg is somehow persuading other people to do the blocking on bogus grounds, this is a matter for dispute resolution. It has nothing to do with this policy discussion.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

First, he threatens to block people, [14] and they don't know that he's not in fact able to. I think with a safeguard in the policy, he won't do that anymore. Secondly, he told me that whenever he asks for a block, he gets one. If that's true, it must be because the blocking admins believe there are grounds in the policy. Therefore, it's important to get the policy sorted out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You sure talk about me a lot. :( At least you could pick the right diff where I actually told him he would be blocked if he violated copyright. What else should we be saying to users who appear to be insisting that it's okay to violate copyright because it is widely done [15]. No amount of funny games with this policy page will cause me to stop telling users who are breaking Wikipedia that if they continue to break Wikipedia they will be blocked. If thats really your goal here, you should give up now. --Gmaxwell 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who "break" Wikipedia? Could you say what you mean, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got problems with this version:

In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith, exercising caution with regard to the copyright issues and there is no imminent legal threat, the editor should not be blocked.

Two points:

1. An editor who persists in adding an item to a page when there is a good faith dispute over the status of that addition is, de facto, failing to exercise due caution in my opinion.
2. The question of whether or not an imminent legal threat exists does not release us from our duty to protect intellectual property rights.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. That user is not acting in good faith if he is opening WP to copyright problems. Failing to exercise due caution with copyrights is ipso facto acting in bad faith.
2. This is a list of three necessary and inter-reliant criteria, not three independent ones.

[[Sam Korn]] 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Blatent disregard for copyright puts both the contributor and the project at grave risk of civil and in some cases criminal prosecution, and must be avoided at all costs. While [WP:AGF|good-faith] mistakes are to be tolerated and corrected, deliberately restoring copyright violations, or continuing to make substantively the same errors may be grounds for a block in order to protect both the contributor and the project from unnecessary legal exposure.
• Where copyright and fair-use are in question, the issues disputed must be addressed objectively, with the rights to use the content questioned clearly established in concrete facts that lie beyond any reasonable grounds for dispute and/or doubt before using the questioned content. If there are ongoing questions, they should be addressed by community consensus. Knowingly disregarding a copyright dispute, being little different from blatent disregard for copyright, may also be grounds for a block for the same reasons as above.

Continued violations after notification shall be taken at face value as an argument against good faith in copyright disputes. Users are therefore advised to tread with extreme caution after being warned of a violation.

Administrators should err on the side of caution within the limits of common sense when determining if someone should be blocked, and encourage the users in question to discuss the issues at hand before proceeding further.

- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle. However, I am not sure that being this prescriptive is a good idea. The current text gives wide latitude to admins to respond to each situation as appropriate. This seems most sensible to me. [[Sam Korn]] 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

An abusive admin has blocked my pal on IP address 24.147.103.146. The admin is named Gamaliel. This admin has been reported in the past by 24.147.103.146 for copyright violation and made to revert. He must be holding a grudge. It may also be due to his POV on the Kennedys and his past invlovement in edit wars. The reason given for the block was an old RFC on Ted Kennedy. My pal added appropriate links to other Kennedy pages not mentioned in the RFC. The admin is pro Kennnedy so he blocked my pal. In any case, this is an abuse of his priv and I ask your help in bringing this to light. Thank you193.120.103.205 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was sure I had hit "save" but it must have been preview. Finishing up now. -

Ok, that's done. Revert if you don't like it, as usual. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} version

Hey look, someplace we can edit instead of the main page! Yea!!

I've got problems with this version:

In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith, exercising caution with regard to the copyright issues and there is no imminent legal threat, the editor should not be blocked.

Two points:

1. An editor who persists in adding an item to a page when there is a good faith dispute over the status of that addition is, de facto, failing to exercise due caution in my opinion.
2. The question of whether or not an imminent legal threat exists does not release us from our duty to protect intellectual property rights.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. That user is not acting in good faith if he is opening WP to copyright problems. Failing to exercise due caution with copyrights is ipso facto acting in bad faith.
2. This is a list of three necessary and inter-reliant criteria, not three independent ones.

[[Sam Korn]] 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems that creating an exception in cases of repeated insertions, because of good faith, instructs the reader that the repeated insertions themselves can not be considered to be an example of a lack of good faith. Any other reading makes the text of the exception meaningless. In any case, per

Doesn't template:nothanks already handle this? Stevage 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

EEK! I'l tell you what's wrong with that: "punitive". I hope you meant "preventative"? -

brenneman^(t)(c)

07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

By the time that they get asked three times and still persist, I struggle to define that as good-faith editing. [[Sam Korn]] 13:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Screw determinations of good faith: It doesn't matter.. persisting after the warnings is unacceptable behavior. We don't need to determine bad faith to block, all we need is bad behavior. The thing I dislike most about the proposed addition to the blocking policy is that it requires us to be mind readers. We can't tell what the persons intentions are for sure and we shouldn't have to. Assume good faith, block bad actors. --Gmaxwell 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This appears to me to be an attempt to legislate cluefulness on the part of blocking admins; as such, it should be considered harmful. Admins should be free to block users who post material in violation of copyright, where in the judgement of the blocking admin, the copyvio was not posted due to a misunderstanding or mistake. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to "latest version from talk"

I agree with this in principle. However, I am not sure that being this prescriptive is a good idea. The current text gives wide latitude to admins to respond to each situation as appropriate. This seems most sensible to me. [[Sam Korn]] 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay but too wordy. We must start with the presumption that admins have good judgement, otherwise no amount of policy will save us. As such, we don't need to say so much... the inclusion of so many words will only inspire silly disputes from wikilawyers and trolls. --Gmaxwell 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we've gotten down to quibbling, really. There seems to be consensus that ultimately a good faith editor who holds out against reasonable takedown procedure that is universal practise in IP cases in the real world may be blocked if this is the only way to enforce takedown.

SlimVirgin's input seem to be wholly based on the perception that you'll bully her over a copyright issue if this goes through. Could you state now that you won't do that? If there really is community concern over SlimVirgin's uploads or inclusions, this can be handled by others within the community. And of course she should feel free to follow dispute resolution on any relevant ongoing actions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only just seen this. I'm certainly not editing this policy page out of any concern that Gmaxwell will bully me, as I think I've already made clear, Tony. Greg has declined to supply a list of my image uploads that he says he's concerned about, and that wouldn't be the issue even if he had. But I am concerned to make sure there's a sentence in here that stops other people from being bullied, having witnessed it happen to someone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we maybe not get back into personalities, here? Please everyone stop talking about each other and focus on the guidelines. (That means I'm asking Gmaxwell not to respond to that.) -

brenneman^(t)(c)

03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we should try to separate the personal issue from the policy issue once and for all. I hope Greg will take the opportunity to clear the air and we can put an end to the endless sniping that has punctuated this discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg's problems with SlimVirgin's images more or less vanished into thin air when I asked him to present them so that I could fix them. It has to be a worry that an overzealous editor will harass a good-faith editor over copyright, not bother explaining what their problem is in language the GFE can understand, and then seek a block on the GFE for a putative copyright violation, claiming that they have "warned" the GFE, who remains mystified. I share Slim's worry that she is going to be harassed if Greg writes this policy and more importantly, her concern that other editors, acting in good faith, will be shown "no mercy" instead of common decency, when they are bemused rather than intransigent. Grace Note 07:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, that was rather too personal. I defer to Aaron. It was a mistake to bring this up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, I want to repeat that I currently have no issues to raise about SlimVirgin and copyright right now because she has removed the fair use images from user userpage. The only point I'd raised about her ongoing difficulties with copyright was on Jimbo's talk page (and not here) in response her concern that my involvement in this policy was that I was some sort of troublemaker. In counter I expressed a concern that SlimVirgin isn't the best editor to provide input on copyright related matters, based on the large number of incorrectly tagged images in her upload log. I was challenged to provide an example, so I provided one. SlimVirgin deleted the image and claimed that it was not tagged incorrectly (it was an image pulled from a website with copyright notices, yet the image was tagged PD).

As a result of that thread, Gracenote wrote on my talk page offering to mediate in regard to my concerns about SV's images [18]. How am I to assume good faith of gracenote when he is writing hurtful screeds about myself and other editors on the pro-Daniel Brandt forum while at the same time writing on my talk page with polite language offering to mediate. I found the contrast in his behavior is alarming, and all the more suspect because SlimVirgin had just turned down mediation by a neutral third party. In any case, his request was mostly meaningless: He was asking for a list of images, and yet I'd already said that large number every one of her early uploads was either currently incorrectly tagged as PD, or had since been corrected by another editor, the images were easy to find so no list was required. I responded politely in accordance with that position. Gracenote turned around and basically called me a liar. I regretted acknowledging his post at all. In the meantime, Zscout370 had apparently seen the discussion and he went through and corrected or deleted the remainder of her uploads, thereby closing the issue.

I don't know what bearing *any* of that has on the discussion here other than making it clear to me that if I voice my view in disagreement with certain editors that I will be relentlessly attacked with hurtfully worded untrue criticisms, and I will be left to waste my time (and the time of others so unfortunate to have to wade past this) defending myself or suffer the results of misrepresentations of the events being spread on pages all around the Wiki. This discussion is completely offtopic here and I would welcome someone to move it someplace better... I can't do it myself without being called a troublemaker and a troll. --Gmaxwell 20:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note's response wasn't as personal as your initial post, Tony, and his point is correct. I am concerned that someone will be blocked only after being "warned" by Gmaxwell, and will barely understand why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If indeed someone was incorrectly blocked after an interaction with me, your complaint should be with the blocking admin and not me. Since you've been asked at least four times to provide an example of a user who was incorrectly blocked due to an acceptable image being mistakenly considered unacceptable and you've failed to respond... I must assume also that you don't have such an example involving me. Is it incorrect for me to conclude that your concern on this matter is entirely driven by your worry about what might happen in the future because you believe me to be a bad person, and it is not at all driven by any events which have actually happened? --Gmaxwell 20:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How does that work, exactly? I've asked you about this once or twice. You do know that Greg is not an admin, don't you? Also you say 'only after being "warned"' by Greg. Well of course, if someone persists in the face of warnings then there is a problem that needs to be resolved and blocking or the threat of blocking may be involved. What of it? And why do you use scare-quotes around the word?

I'm trying to understand why you (and Greg) are personalising this, I had hoped to defuse it by getting Greg to assure you that he wouldn't be warning you. Someone else could do it if the community decided that you were in some way endangering the encyclopedia (for what conceivable reason?) so there's no need for us to bring personalities into policy as long as you don't persist in using a policy discussion to solve your dispute with Greg. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the disagreement here over the changes SV made to the policy was already burning before I noticed. I'd be glad to walk away from this, Tony, if you'll assure me that you will stay on the matter until you are satisfied with the result and not leave prematurely because of the hostile atmosphere. I believe that my retreat would at least remove a distraction. Ultimately it does not matter what the blocking policy page says because we will continue to block users who harm the project as appropriate, but at the same time I would not rest easily knowing my inaction caused the implementation of language which emboldens users who think it is acceptable to ignore copyright matters until we are given a takedown notice. --Gmaxwell 20:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsuprisingly, I support my own proposed changes to the lead, including the blue text that Sean suggested, coupled with the working version. -

I've done a little housework, just wiklinking and such, but the whole page really needs a good working over. It's piecemeal development is showing badly. -

brenneman^(t)(c)

06:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed section:

In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith, exercising caution with regard to the copyright issues and there is no imminent legal threat, the editor should not be blocked.

Although I think I know what you're getting at, it looks like the above as currently worded creates a blanket exemption such that if one single editor puts his foot down, caution goes out of the window.

If, say, in a case where we do not have a free license to material but there is a claim of fair use, suppose there are two people acting in good faith and one believes that the other has infringed copyright. Then that is precisely when we should be exercising caution and the policy we're forming already defines the appropriate level of caution as taking it down and discussing.

Someone who persists in reinserting the disputed material isn't exercising due caution and there is no place in our policy for the suggestion that he may, in making persistent reinsertions and ignoring clear warnings, even come close to doing so.

Same goes if there is a disputed free license or public domain--say we have reasonable grounds to doubt the authorship or the public domain status. He may have to be blocked in any of these cases. Caution here means acting to minimise potential damage--even if you're sure you're right and the other fellow is wrong.

On "no imminent legal threat", that's a straw man. We don't sit around waiting to be told to take down material that doesn't belong to us. Our discussions are public and a decision not to remove material that we are clearly aware isn't covered by a free license almost certainly will one day be used to build a copyright case against us. We should have a policy in place to ensure that the likelihood of that happening in any given case is low. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The passage in question, which I've restored, was reached by consensus here yesterday. It's a reasonable and necessary caveat. It protects good faith editors in situations where blocking may be misused by provoking an editor under the pretense of image misuse, copyvio, etc., something that has happened in the past sadly. Let's stick to

WP:CON. FeloniousMonk

18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I ask Greg and Tony to abide by consensus and leave this compromise version in. Some version of the "good-faith editor" sentence was approved on this talk page by AnnH, Quadell, FeloniousMonk, Mel Etitis, WillBeback, Sean Black, Grace Note, Sam Korn, Aaron Brenneman, Fubar, Karmafist, WhiteNight, and SlimVirgin; and on

WP:AN also by Tomer, Deco, DESiegel, and Zereshk. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything that says we shouldn't or cannot do that, if we should have to, is not a compromise. It's death to the caution policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In the situation you describe, if several admins were removing the image, and the editor persisted in restoring, he would either eventually give up, or he could be blocked for disruption after a suitable period; and we can judge when the behavior becomes disruptive in these cases as we do for any other.

However, what some of us want to avoid is the case of an editor/admin arriving very aggressively to remove an image which is possibly being used correctly, with an aggressive edit summary; a good-faith editor getting annoyed because of the aggression and reverting to restore the image; and the aggressive admin blocking (or aggressive editor calling an admin to block). I saw a similar change of events recently and I want to make sure it doesn't happen again, or if it does, that at least there's no basis in policy for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. The current wording wouldn't stop us treating the actions of an intransigent, if good faith, editor as disruptive. I'm still wary of your use of personality clashes to make policy, but if the written policy proves inadequate it will be overtaken by events in any case. It's the way wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, please assume good faith. No one is using a "personality clash" to make policy. All that happened is recent incidents involving Gmaxwell brought my attention to this issue. Now that it's been noticed, I feel some protection of good-faith editors is needed.

One of the earlier versions made clear that three conditions had to be in place to protect an editor from a block i.e. (a) the editor is generally someone who acts in good faith; and (b) the copyright status of the image is genuinely ambiguous (not just not an sourced or untagged image, but one of ambiguous and uncertain status i.e. arguably being used correctly), and (c) no complaint has been received by the Foundation, then the editor should not be blocked or threatened with a block until alternative methods of persuasion have been tried. Perhaps Tony would prefer something closer to the original proposal, below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation (or where a complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith, and the copyright status is uncertain, and where no complaint has been received, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

I should add that if you do prefer something closer to the above, please argue it here, Tony, rather than reverting against consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the "copyright status is uncertain" thing. Surely if the copyright status is uncertain, this is precisely when the good faith editor needs to show a little commonsense and remove it pending verification and discussion. But since we all acknowledge that someone disrupting Wikipedia could be blocked for that, I don't see a real problem, just a quibble.

They are dissrupting the article not wikipedia so they can't be blocked under that provision.Geni 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Our policy on vandlism states:

Copyrighted material vandalism

Knowingly adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles in violation of Wikipedia policy is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policy in this regard, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the relevant policy and copyrighted nature of the material have been established.

So technically I could block after the first warning. I generally give two (I don't normaly block though most people give up after you remove the material yourself).Geni 20:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, vandalism implies malice. Here we're talking about non-malicious, just basically stupid, behavior over doubtful material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you fail to remove the image/explain yourself after my first warning you are wilfuly ignoreing policy.Geni 20:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The section you quote talks about "[k]nowingly adding copyrighted material." As Tony said, we're talking here about when a mistake has been made, not wilfulness, and where it isn't clear that the material is copyrighted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But how can it be a mistake if the user repeatedly inserts the material after he has been notified? --Gmaxwell 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But what qualifies as uncertain? One of earliest points I made in this discussion is that uncertainty is fairly rare (an image was either placed under a free license by the copyright holder, or it was not but is currently coverable by an acceptable fair use justification per WP:FUC, else the image is not permitted). Keep in mind that all eligible works are now copyrighted by default. I and, apparently, everyone else has been unable to find a user that was blocked while a legitimate discussion about fairuse was on-going. As a result the only use I see for this statement is for users to evade our copyright policy by insisting that the use us uncertain when it clearly isn't. An example case of an incorrect uncertainty claim would be claiming that the copyright status of an clearly modern image used as decoration on a userpage was uncertain because although the copyrighted source website had been emailed requesting a license grant, they had not yet responded. --Gmaxwell 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to go into particular examples here, because there's no point in being diverted by the particular when we're discussing the general. The thing to bear in mind is that just because someone disagrees with you, or with any other one person, that doesn't make them wrong, and they shouldn't be blocked for disagreeing, so long as the other conditions pertain. If they're clearly wrong, others will arrive to revert, and there will be no problem, just as with any other disputed content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is my view that blocking shound not be employed when an editor in good faith believes that materiel can be properly used. For example, when there is an arguably but not conclusive claim of PD-status, or when self-created images were uplaoded without a tag before it becoem common (and required) for uploaders to use {{GFDL_self}} or a similar tag. While it could arguably be legal to use fair-use images on user pages in some circumstances, (I think it is pretty clear that it sometiems, if perhaps not often, would be legal) current wikipedia policy forbids this, so an editor inserting or reverting to such an image after the policy has been expalined to that user is IMO not acting in good faith. In any case a block should be a last resort. If a revert war ensues, an inserting editor could in any case be blosked for 3RR, disrupive editing, or editing against consensus, so a specific block rule for copyvios is not needed in such a case. The copyvio block provision, as I understand it, is intended mostly for defiant or persistint insertion of pretty clearly copyriht protected contentt (or images with no source or license data which we must treat as copyrighted, and which there is no good reason to suspect are actually PD). I would favor soem version of the "Good faith exemption" language staying in the policy. I do not currently ahve a strong view on which version it should be. DES ^(talk) 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have certainly seen images taged for deletion as {{no-license}} where there was plausible, but not certain, internal evidence that they were PD-old. There is also the tricky case of stuff published in the US after 1923 but before (IIRC) 1955, which would still be under copyright if renewed, but which is PD if the copyright was not renewed. In cases where there is an honest dispute as to whether an image (or a piece of ext, but this usually seems to involve images) is in PD, blocking should not be used, at least until/unless the inserting editor is actually reaching the point of distuption or 3rr. DES ^(talk) 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• • DES, Sure there can be confusion about PD lapsed stuff, but what the policy is about is people who edit war over copyright, not discuss it. I think we need to think about this policy in light of the sort of things that actually happen on the Wiki: Right now people will upload something obviously copyrighted, and insert it in articles, userpages, wherever. Places where no sane person can make a compelling fair use case for that work... We remove it and say "Thank you for your contribution but we can't accept it because ..." to which they say "No one is going to sue us over it, everyone copies this stuff, plus it's pretty, get a grip grandpa". At that point they reinsert the material, and perhaps add a dozen more pieces of material. We come back and say "Hey, we explained this to you already... There is a lot of content on Wikipedia so little liabilities add up, and more importantly we actually care about being Free. So if you keep adding that stuff we're going to have to block you to make you stop.". Now, on this page we have a choice: Do we leave out the good faith language? Then we block the user and tell them if they agree to quit it we'll unblock them thus solving the problem and hopefully correcting the antisocial behavior. OR Do we add 'good faith' language? Then the user say "no way man, you can't be certain that this isn't legal because you haven't gotten a take down request. I say it stays and you can't stop me". In which case an admin who is sane (or Jimbo perhaps) goes ahead and blocks the user because the user is exposing us to legal liability and because ignoring the warning alone demonstrates unwelcome behavior.. and then there is a week of screaming by policy mongers, RFCs, etc, the end result is bruised feelings and nothing changed (because we can't tolerate, nor will the Foundation allow us to tolerate, copyright abuse) .. and the user left with a justified dislike of Wikipedia (our written policies are misleading) and no correction of their behavior (other than them being blocked.. lets hope they don't make socks). Which set of outcomes would we prefer? --Gmaxwell 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, Gmaxwell, that in the kind of case you descrive (which is I will admit more common than truly good-faith disputes over copyright status) a block after a polite warning or two is justified, and i don't favor language that can plausiubly be interpreted to forbid such blocks. (Any wording can be twisted to mean anything, but overly tortured inprpretations will simply be ignored, thei is a wiki, not a court and while I am quite process-freindly i want it to stay that way). I do think there is legitmate concern over blocks being used to quickly and too reflexivly, when there is a legitimate dispute. If this has not in fact happend, wonderful. But I have seen what seems to me overly aggressive removal tagging (particularly a problem because image deletion is irreversible), and It seems to me that the sort of well-intentioned people who do this would also tenmd to block too quickly and authomaticaly. I am more than happy to work on improved wording that celarly does not apply to the kind of case you discuss above. I am not wedded to any particualr wording. Others may have their own views. DES ^(talk) 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't speak up for anyone else, but any image I tag I ensure is in my personal archives. I'm able to recover most deleted content from Wikipedia in any case... but I think I've only had reason to do it twice. The incidence of inappropriate deletion is far less common than you might suspect. In the case of fair use images, if we didn't know the source the image is useless to us anyways, so it should be fairly easy to recover them. --Gmaxwell 23:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I found several such images when patrolling the speedy delete tagged category. (In the specific case i am thinking of the images were published over 150 years ago, the source was cited but the pub date was not. Their look and the date on related iamges from the same pub made the age pretty clear on short thought, and another editor later confirmed the PD staus.) In fact whenever I patrol the images in that category at least 1/3 of them and usually more than 1/2, I remove the speedy delete tags from as IMO improper. But then, the ratio is not that different on the listed articles. A lot of people are IMO much too quick with {{db}}. You may be an exception -- I don't think many if any of the images I had untagged were ones you had tagged. But i still feel that some form of the "good faith" wordign is needed. i am willign to discuss how it can be worded to reduce the cahnce of improper wiki-lawyering. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Greg, is that you're one of the people who edit wars over copyright, rather than discussing it, and very aggressively, which gets peoples backs up, so they dig their heels in, and then things escalate needlessly. In cases like that, it's to be hoped no one will end up being blocked, that's all, regardless of the substantive issue (unless they violate 3RR). In one of the cases I have in mind, the disagreement started over a post-1923 but pre-(IIRC) 1955 image, which the user genuinely believed was PD. It's cases like that, where the user is arguably correct, that I think most of us have in mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Link, please, to this edit war? The only time I've ever in my time at Wikipedia been in an edit war over anything is with you. --Gmaxwell 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And don't be coy with your case, you're talking about User:Sansvoix who was warned multiple times by each of four users and whos ultimate response was to replace his userpage with a link to a historical version containing the image. He only bothered to make the claim that the image was PD *after* he'd been blocked and not in the warning stages [19] prior to that he was claiming that his use was educational thus okay [20]. All of the users who brought the issue to him were polite to the point of being apologetic and explained the situation. Well, Doc's response to the user linking has history as a workaround was not quite so forgiving, but the users action was pretty over the top. Even then an offer was extended to unblock if he stopped reinserting the image. The case is a pretty good example of blocking only being used as a last resort. That you've cited this case as a cause for your cautionary language is reason enough alone for us to reject the language you propose. --Gmaxwell 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to personalize this in order to undermine it. Please concentrate on the general point, which is that blocking or threatening to block a good-faith editor, where there's a genuine dispute about the status or provenance of the image, and where the good-faith editor is arguably correct (provided no complaint has been received, of course), should have no basis in policy, and is likely to lead only to needless escalation. As others have pointed out, editors who are being genuinely disruptive or who continued to revert and violate 3RR can be blocked anyway.

Rather than requiring me to repeat myself in arguing against such blocks, perhaps you could argue why you feel special blocking powers are needed for images, over and above the usual disruption and 3RR provisions. Why do you feel the latter are insufficient? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel special protection is needed for copyright violators over other vandals? 3RR isn't sufficient because it doesn't matter how slowly they reinsert the material. Disruption is vague so it using it as a criteria causes disagreements ... As far as your complaint that I'm making it personal, I am shocked by your audacity. Slim above you start with "The problem, Greg, is that you're one of the people who edit wars over copyright," then tell me I'm trying to disrupt the discussion when simply ask you to substantiate your claim. ... In any case, you completely ignored my point about Sansvoix, it remains that you're trying to get language inserted over a single case you feel strongly about but where few would agree with you. When our only example is an example of how such language would be abused, how could anyone support it? --Gmaxwell 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I apologize for mentioning you and particular examples, and I'll try not to do it again while discussing this policy. Regarding your point about disruption, experienced admins block for disruption all the time, and have a fairly good instinct for when an editor crosses the line from irritating behavior to disruptive behavior. Not that everyone will agree all the time, but even so, that's currently how it's done. Please explain why that's deemed good enough for a whole host of behaviors, but not for disputes about images. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios threaten the integrity of wikipedia. I do not want to have to rely on the the dissruption cluase when it would be trivial to set up objective criteria for blocking for copyvios.Geni 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The volume of the offenses needs to be taken into account. Bulk carelessness often causes more harm than sporadic malice, due to the prescribed assumptions of good faith. — Apr. 21, '06 [10:55] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I haven't spoken up in this yet because (a) it's all I can do to keep up with what everyone else is saying and (b) I'd prefer to stay away from the interpersonal ugliness. But it's getting to a point where silence = consent. I do not agree with the "good faith" sentence because I believe it creates too much wiggle room. It's better now than when it said "clearly", which was even wigglier. But it still has too much opportunity for wiki-lawyering. FreplySpang (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You've spoken up quite a lot about it elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've mostly withdrawn from this argument as well to avoid getting further entangled in the interpersonal issues, but I think I stated my position somewhere back in the archive, and here I am in agreement with FreplySpang. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been doing the much the same as Mindspillage and Freplyspang. I have been reading the conversation here most carefully. I also agree with what they're saying. Kim Bruning 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moi (as in I have not been reading the conversation here most carefully, prefering instead the much easier route of drawing conclusions

being sought. El_C

02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too on this. The good-faith thing is just going to cause problems, wikilaw, fights on AN/I etc etc and for no particularly good reason. Just expect admins to use common sense, and AN/I-roast them if they don't. Or block war over it. But don't give people such a get-out-of-jail-free card right up front. Basically, don't allow good-faith to be used in bad-faith. -Splash^talk 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. "Assume good faith" always holds, civility always holds, mentioning them explicitly in policy like this is at best redundant and at worst invites trouble. My problems with the language are threefold, and largely echo Splash: 1) We can't know motives. 2) We must stop unacceptable patterns of behavior even if they are done in good faith. 3) We have to assume our admins are reasonable people, and if one is not, the problem is the admin, not the policy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Mindspillage, we could get rid of this policy page entirely, and just assume our admins are reasonable people and trust them to block when they judge it's appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if you're trying to persuade me to the other side, you're barking up the wrong tree with that line of thought, as I wouldn't mind that at all! Still, I suppose it's difficult to have a sit down and a guiding chat with over 700 admins now, so a couple written guidelines are a good thing... but let's not go overboard on them. We know that certain things hold, always, stated or not. Assume good faith. Be civil. Don't be a dick. Follow NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Am I missing any? Oh, probably, but you know what they are, especially if you see someone running afoul of one. Do we state all of these in every policy we have? We don't, and why not? Why don't we have to say "if the person was acting in good faith" for 3RR? If some POV pusher thinks others' repeated removal of his screed is vandalism? He was acting in good faith, wasn't he—he just wants the truth out there. And, well, you still have to block him. You try to talk to him first, explain why it's removed, you don't act like a dick about it, but still, he was acting in good faith and you had to block him because he was doing something harmful. What's the difference? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the version above that was originally suggested? The good-faith sentence is intended for cases where the copyright status is not clear. We're not allowed to block for vandalism that might not be vandalism. We're not allowed to block for a 3RR violation that might not be a 3RR violation. Similarly, the suggestion here is that we don't block a good-faith editor in ambiguous or uncertain cases until other methods of persuasion have been tried. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Original repeated here for ease of reading:

Editors who repeatedly add to articles text that has been plagiarized, or images the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation (or where a complaint from the copyright holder has been received by the Wikimedia Foundation), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy. In cases where an editor is acting in good faith, and the copyright status is uncertain, and where no complaint has been received, the editor should not be blocked. However, when a formal complaint has been received by the Foundation, and the editor is aware of it, the editor's attempts to re-insert the material shall not be considered 'in good faith' even if the editor believes the material to be acceptable.

Ah, perhaps this is where I disagree with you, then. I think if an editor complains in good faith—there's that troublesome phrase, by which I mean "has an honest and credible dispute over it", as this isn't intended to empower people who are merely trying to be a pain—the other party is obligated to remove it until the matter has been settled. And one who refuses to do so after being asked is being disruptive, whether in good faith or not. We err on the side of conservatism with copyright policy. Discussion can still continue while an image is not in an article, but it hurts us less to remove from an article or page a dubious image that turns out to be OK (and then can be reinserted or reuploaded) than to keep one that turns out not to be (and by this time has ended up in all our image dumps and mirrors), so this is what the policy should be based around. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the blocking policy, not the copyright policy, so we're not discussing when or whether it's harmful to have an image on a page a few hours longer than necessary, but when it's okay to block an editor for disagreeing. If having the image on the page is obviously harmful, then someone else will arrive to help the first editor remove it. If the image-retaining editor violates 3RR, he can be blocked. If he doesn't, image gone and no harm done. If the editor who wants the image to be removed can't find anyone to help him remove it, that might tell him something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR is a bit too restrictive. Done in slow motion, copyright violation is still disruptive. How about someone who is warned for multiple images, and only reverts any one of them once or twice? Someone who repeatedly uploads clearly unacceptable material even after warnings? These are things 3RR doesn't cover that are still harmful, and are a little broad so that someone might question whether it generally falls under "disruption", so I think we do need this separate section (if we are going to have policy at all and not just leave it to admin judgment, alas!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is where we disagree. Someone who repeatedly uploads material that is clearly in violation, and has been warned, can be blocked under the disruption provision. Experienced admins can exercise their judgment as to the point at which the behavior becomes disruptive, just as they do with many other types of behavior. Of course someone might question that judgment, but someone might question any admin judgment, so that's not an argument against using the disruption provision. No one has yet come up with an argument as to why that would be insufficient. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do we list anything specific and not just call it all "disruption"? If I were to guess I'd say the addition of this section was because someone had a legitimate dispute or concern over whether inserting copyvio could be considered disruption and it was decided that it'd be best to make this clear. (But I don't actually know.) Removing the section entirely would be OK with me, too, so long as blocking someone for causing disruption by it wouldn't get an admin roasted all over

WP:AN/I for blocking against policy; I think it's widely recognized that the behavior is inappropriate, going by seeing previous threads, but it's hard to be sure. I think having nothing at all about copyvio specifically and leaving it up to judgment of whether or not it's disruptive is better than having overly loophole-prone language. However, the policy does say that blocks for "disruption" are generally considered controversial, and rightly so, as disruption is a broad category; this should be a clearer case to make, which justifies giving it a separate mention. Mindspillage (spill yours?)

16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems that seems to me to have grown worse over the last year or so is the number of editors who feel that their understanding of Wikipedia is so much greater than that of others that they're entitled to lecture and scold anyone who acts in a way of which they disapprove. It's an unpleasant sight, and very off-putting to admins and other editors subjected to it or merely observing it. SlimVirgin is, I think, trying to make such aggressive behaviour a little less likely by wording the policy so as not to give the appearance of supporting it. that's why I and many others have supported her. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There have already been incidents where good faith editors have been unduly dressed down and even threatened in just this way. I believe at least one editor has abandoned the project because of it and another has seriously considered leaving. There needs to be some small counterweight to the overly aggressive enforcement. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But as I stated to SlimVirgin above, we already have these counterweights. They're in other policies, which still hold. I've made blocks for copyvio before that did not meet 3RR. You could call them blocks for disruption, but really, it was clearer than that. I'd like to think that I've always been civil and reasonable about it: not because there was anything in the blocking policy saying I had to, but because the atmosphere of the project is made clear by the other policies that state that we must be. What I don't want to have to do is have every copyvio block I do (not that I do much blocking for anything lately) dragged over AN/I with "oh, but the user was doing that in good faith!". To make myself more clear: we should take corrective action against people who place improper blocks or who treat others with disrespect. There should just not be language here in a form that will encourage warring over cases that should be clear cause for blocking to prevent further damage. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"[E]very copyvio block that I do." How many copyvio blocks do you (or expet to) do? How many copyvio blocks are being done? Are these blocks significant enough to warrant a section in

WP:NOT)? El_C

21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

- Amgine 04:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I copied from the old version this: "For admins and bureaucrats, being blocked also restricts their ability to use rollback, to delete and undelete pages, and to protect and unprotect pages. They can still add and remove blocks, and bureaucrats can still make someone a sysop."

I also made a note in the intro thus, but it was removed with the edit summary "Actually, admin powers are still usable when blocked; any prevention from using them is enforced socially, not technically."

I'm not fussed either way, but if the second one is correct than the first one needs to be fixed in the body at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Effects of being blocked.

The text you added was correct. See bug 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a new section about this, which basically reflects what we're already doing: "Users who post personal details about other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident and whether the blocking admin feels it was isolated or is likely to be repeated." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd change this to "users who breach Wikipedia's privacy policy may be blocked for any period of time, including indefinitely", and make sure the privacy policy covers this. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I don't know what the privacy policy says exactly. I'll take a look now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really cover this. The only people who could breach it, I think, would be the Foundation because it's their policy. It doesn't cover what any troublemaker who creates an account might do. Do you see a problem with the wording of the section as it is? It's what the de facto policy seems to be already, at least so far as I've seen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically IP addresses may be considered personal information, so people with checkuser would be breaking this particular rule. We have enough problems with wikilawyers and we don't want to phrase something in the blocking policy which would give them ammo. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Talrias. I'll add something about that. Take a look in ten minutes or so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I added: "Nothing in this provision should be taken to apply to admins with check-user access, who may make certain information available within the terms of the check-user policy." I don't know what's allowed to be revealed under check-user (very little as I understand it), but that sentence should cover all eventualities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This section needs some sort of justification: Why do we think posting personal details is destructive to the project? Why do we want to ensure that people who do it don't continue to do so? To me, the reason is threefold.

First, posting personal details can be a form of harassment, for which see elsewhere. The target doesn't want to be discussed in such detail, and the details are not noteworthy; therefore, posting them is a misuse of the encyclopedia system for the purpose of causing suffering.

Second, posting personal details can be a form of threat, of the "I know where you live" sort. It's an expression of power and dominance over the target -- not necessarily a threat of physical violence, but certainly a threat to intrude even deeper into the person's life.

Third, posting personal details is always an excessive entanglement in personalities. The project works best when we keep ego out of it. What we do here should be about the content, not about struggling with one another. Making things personal towards each other is almost always a mistake. --FOo 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following to the policy, under "Copyright infringement":

Please note, however, that fair use images on user pages are disallowed. As the editor may not initially be aware of this, the image will be removed. If the image is readded, then we will protect the user page for a while. If after unprotecting the user page the editor insists on readding the image, they will be blocked until they agree not to readd the image.

I think that this is fair. I have made a note on Wikipedia:User pages also. Now to update protection policy. Please don't remove this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make up policy on whim. Say something about no fair use in userspace, but don't prescribe a full-blown procedure in official policy. -Splash^talk 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the procedure? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You invented it all of a sudden without any apparent discussion, and incorporated protection as part of the blocking policy (a mandatory part, no less), and the phrasing was very prescriptive when less prescriptive language will do the job ok. -Splash^talk 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't part of policy, tough, but I'll be implementing it anyway. Those who use fair use images on their user pages will have this happen to them, and I will encourage admins to implement what I have written. Just because it isn't written here doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. This is a reasonable warning about what will happen if you add fair use images to your user pages and insist on putting them back. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu, the policy already says how users will be treated, so to add your sentence would almost amount to a contradiction. I'd say most users don't support the aggression around the removal of these images, though they do support the policy; but because they oppose the aggression, it makes people look as though they oppose the removal. So for the policy to remain supported, it needs to be enforced very politely, in my view, with blocking used only when the behavior becomes disruptive, and at what point behavior crosses the line into disruption is a judgment experienced admins make every day. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, that's why I phrased it 1. Warn, 2. Protect, 3. Block. Not as it was later changed, 1. Block. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tabu, you're absolutely out of line to rollback like a vandal. You can do it whichever way you like, but don't go inserting your personal methods into Wikipedia policy on a fancy, without any discussion and by use of administrator tools to enforce your personal whimmery. Thanks. -Splash^talk 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my personal whim. That was a mechanism to avoid people using fair use images, in the most fair method available. Your change is, to be frank, not as fair as my revision, and in fact encourages far more draconian measures. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy can't be a straightjacket, with mandatory and specific actions for all circumstances. -- SCZenz 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it needed modifying. However, given that it seemed that we were encouraging admins to block immediately, I wasn't happy with the change. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been discussed here before, but it seems that some admins do block users who contact other users on their talk page (apparently having found them through categories) to ask them to vote in things like AfDs. I've received such messages, and I tend to ignore them, unless it's something that I would have been interested in voting on in the first place. When such requests come from a total stranger, I find it at worst mildly irritating, but I never block for it. I find it a bit controversial to do so. I always welcome messages from wiki-friends who have worked with me on other articles, telling me that there is a vote taking place on a certain issue at a certain page. And I certainly don't blame them if they don't inform those who are likely to vote the other way. Sometimes it's not clear where to draw the line between spam and genuine requests for support, made by editors who share your view. You might think someone was a stranger, when it might be someone who had often read your comments on talk pages, but had not contributed much. I classify it as spam if it begins with, "Hi, I notice that you have listed yourself as a Catholic, and I thought I would tell you that there is a vote . . ."

I'm definitely not trying to start another discussion of the evils of user categories and user boxes; such discussion belongs elsewhere. What I want to know is whether or not it is generally considered a blockable offense to spam talk pages with requests to vote, and whether or not that should go into the "Blocking policy". At the moment, it doesn't seem to be there, unless we argue that it's covered by the rather loose term "disruption". I'd like some clarification, and if there is agreement about this, it should be in the Blocking policy page. For example, if a block is appropriate, how long should it be? Should warning be given?

Thoughts? AnnH ^(talk) 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a block is only warranted if it's done habitually even after the user is requested to stop, and if it's clear spam. In that case, it's covered as a discretionary block for disruption. Such discretionary blocks should always be discussed, so I would never perform such a block without a also bringing up a discussion at

WP:AN/I, but we don't need additional specific rules in blocking policy. -- SCZenz

23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following solution: show the "you're blocked" message if/when the blocked user tries to submit or preview the changes, in that moment he/she already has had the ability to see the source code. But don't obstruct his ability to read the source text. --62.57.93.138 12:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users are still allowed to read pages, and view the source code, and they are allowed to copy and fork pages. They're not allowed to alter the Wikipedia version. And even then unless a vandal decides to sue, it's not an issue. — Dunc|☺ 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they're allowed to read opaque versions of the page (see GFDL section 1 for transparent/opaque definitions, the versions offered to them are missing wiki markup so it could be said the're opaque). And section 3 says if you're distributing 100+ copies of your document you have to make the transparent versions available.

And for the second part of your message: not all blocked users are vandals, and sueing over this would be stupid, since the technical solution seems easy ... --62.57.93.138 13:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is part of the reason that Special:Export exists. -Splash^talk 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You actually can still get at the source text (use special:export) though the non-obviousness of the method and the fact you have to rip away the extra wrapping may mean its not sufficient to comply. I agree this should be fixed but i guess the devs have other priorities :( Plugwash 13:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole blocking system is stupid. They should be given a view source page with a nice block message, and the autoblocker bull should be removed. But, this isn't a GFDL violation as far as I'm aware...it doesn't require us to give the source. --

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!

) 14:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the GFDL requires a transparent copy which is useful for editing. Our export feature meets this requirement. In fact, for older revisions on english Wikipedia it is impossible to get a bit identical copy of what was submitted from anything we distribute to the public due to charset conversion, yet this is still okay license wise. This is a less strict requirement than what the GPL mandates (prefered form) which export might not meet if our text were GPL rather than GFDL. Ideally we should provide as close to the source as possible. I'd strongly support turning all pages into 'view source' for blocked users, but the problem is that we would then have to perform the blocked check for every view... not very server friendly. --Gmaxwell 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=whatever&action=raw would meet the requirement too. I would suggest leaving the edit link alone, and just notifying them that they're blocked, and show a view source page. But mediawiki's HTML output is still useful for editing, just not very useful for putting back into mediawiki...and of course, mediawiki markup isn't very useful for anything but putting it back into a wiki.. "Not useful for editing" to me means PDF or similar. --

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!

) 17:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(another edit conflict, identation dropped)

Thank you, i hadn't noticed the Special:export feature but... as user Plugwash notes the output of it is a bit "different" to that of the original source, additionally to the xml headers, it translates some characters to html extrans (that stuff in the form &blabla; where blabla is lt, gt, amp, aacute...) so maybe it could be considered the transparent version of the document or maybe not, i don't know. See yourself: Special:export/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. And use "view source" of your navigator or you'll see no line-breaks.

It's almost sufficient to solve the problem i was initially having: i was trying to get the code with my tor proxy connection for making translations to other wikis offline and submission of changes afterwards with my "normal" IP. But the HTML extrans thing... surely will make things a bit more difficult --62.57.93.138 14:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are the HTML things a problem? MediaWiki is ok with them, and browsers are too. Or am I missing something? -Splash^talk 14:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in special:export the web browser seems ok with them but then i miss the line breaks, else if i use the "view source" feature of the browser it gets open into an editor that doesn't translate the things. And i don't really want to have the fun to mentally translate them, something as "Il·lustració: 4 > 3" will get turned into (& and ; omitted) "Ilmiddotlustraciograve: 4 gt 3" --62.57.93.138 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's just the conversions > -> >, < -> &lt;, & -> &, and " -> ", it's just the normal XML escaping that would happen to any text embedded within a XML file. Any XML parser should be able to reverse these escapes, and it's even easy to do by hand. It's also very easy to get directly to the element with the text with a XML parser (//text on XPath, document.getElementsByTagName("text").item(0) on DOM). Hope this helps. --cesarb 14:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is you don't see these when you normally edit a page. If someone puts a & in a page, the next editor doesn't get the "amp" thing. Ergo by the translation of transparent of the GFDL section 1:

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

It could be argued that it doesn't satisfy that definition --62.57.93.138 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It can also be argued that it does; almost all generic text editors have a search-and-replace facility which can with only four search-replace passes remove these escapes (the software doesn't seem to add any one beyond these four; if you are seeing more, it's possible that it's your browser doing the conversion, or that the page's original content does have the escapes). It's a format (

XML Schema

) whose specification is available to the general public, and it's fairly straightforward to revise with generic text editors.

But anyway, that doesn't change the fact that there's a bug here; trying to edit while blocked should have the same result as trying to edit a protected page, or trying to edit while the database is locked: showing the view-source mode. Do you want me to file it on bugzilla, or do you want to file it yourself? --cesarb 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do it, thanks in advance for doing it, and thank you for all the responses from everyone --62.57.93.138 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

bugzilla:4990 --cesarb 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, If you view the HTML source of an edit page, you'll find that the same conversions are done there: they are required for embedding arbitrary text in HTML or XML. You won't see them in the edit box itself, since your browser decodes them, just as any XML parser would do. If you choose to parse the XML returned by the export function manually, you also need to decode the text manually; in any case, this is not hard to do. We also provide a transparent copy of all pages on Wikipedia via the

database dumps. I believe this alone should be enough to satisfy the GFDL requirements. I do, however, agree with you and cesarb that the behavior of "edit this page" while blocked could be improved, and support cesarb's suggested change. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As a temporary measure until such time as we get more sane edit page behavior how about someone (i'd hope this talk page is being watched by sysops) adds a link to the action=raw page to the blocked message? Plugwash 17:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

With action=raw the characters are not converted to HTML extrans (&blabla;), solving all the problems exposed before, if you modify the block message please put that in a visible place (i didn't notice the actual special:export link in there at all) --62.57.93.138 18:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will do it soon. However, I will add it next to the Special:Export link; changing the presentation of that page (MediaWiki:Blockedtext) would need more discussion, since we're not supposed to go making changes in the interface without discussing them first. You can propose a better wording at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext. --cesarb 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now it has a link to action=raw next to the link to Special:Export. --cesarb 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Muito obrigado! :-) --62.57.93.138 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In the vein of

Now at

Wikipedia:Semi-block. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk

) 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of a response would seem to indicate either that these moves would not trigger an autoblock or that nobody who knows has read my question yet. I plan to start making the moves on Monday. Slambo (Speak) 11:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My response would be two-fold; first, you shouldn't trigger it as long as you make moves smartly. It's probably not a good idea to move thirty at once, but about 10/minute or so should be fine, I assume. Secondly, if you do get blocked, the bot will post a message on the Administrators' noticeboard, and you'll be unblocked within just a few minutes, no harm done. Ral315 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When did it become acceptable to block those you are having a dispute with outside of the article namespace [21]? I think the older text suffers a bit from the receding definition of an 'article' which used to be more synonymous with 'page'. Does anyone think that a dispute in the article namespace is materially different than one in a template or policy page in regard to a prohibition against using block which are more likely to be, or at least likely perceived to be made out of misplaced motivation? If so, why? --Gmaxwell 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I for one don't think it acceptable to block someone with whom one is involved in an editing dispute, regardless of namespace. In the case I had in mind, the sysop in question was desysopped for (in part) blocking a user during a dispute that involved not a single mainspace article—so I suspect that I am not alone in my opinion. Unless there are objections, I propose this wording:

"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops should not block editors with whom they are engaged in an editing conflict.">

—Charles P._(Mirv) 00:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to the GNU tar manual at

The instructions on Special:Blockip were enough for me, even before we had the default options. Basically, indefinite and infinite won't expire (but indefinite would be for blocks that might be removed). The other formats are "next Wednesday", "15 minutes", "1 hour", "2 days", "2 weeks", "1 year", "4 months", "1 January 2007".

Would anyone, who is educated in the blocking policies, consider this disruption? Canadianism 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has categories for blocked impersonations by the user they impersonate. Can anyone find out if any impersonations have been using the Cyrillic alphabet?? Let me see if I got this list on what letters can be used in Cyrillic impersonations (missing Latin letters indicate letters I don't know how a Cyrillic letter can be used to form an impersonation)

• A to A (Cyrillic)
• B to Ve (Cyrillic)
• C to Es (Cyrillic)
• E to Ye (Cyrillic)
• Ghayn (Cyrillic)
• H to En (Cyrillic)
• I to Ukrainian I
• J to Je (Cyrillic)
• K to Ka (Cyrillic)
• M to Em (Cyrillic)
• N to I (Cyrillic)
• O to O (Cyrillic)
• P to Er (Cyrillic)
• R to Ya (Cyrillic)
• S to Dze
• T to Te (Cyrillic)
• U to Tse (Cyrillic)
• Shcha (Cyrillic)
• Ha (Cyrillic)
• Y to U (Cyrillic) or Che (Cyrillic)

Anything else?? Georgia guy 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well 3 (number) and З (Ze (Cyrillic))
• b (latin) and Ь (Soft sign)
• m (latin) and т Te (Cyrillic) in italic

abakharev 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Also quite a number of cyrillic letters look like the Greek ones, but I don't think many usernames have Greek letters abakharev 23:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many

Greek letters can also be (and are) used for this. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

From [22]:

Now about indefinite vs. infinite blocks: the MediaWiki code is definitive on this. The terms are semantically identical. You really shouldn't be blocking this kind of user, with a mix of good faith edits and what are essentially pranks, indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Such edits deserve immediate indefinite blocking. If such a user apologizes then, optionally we might let them back. This isn't a playground, it is an encyclopedia project. --Jimbo Wales 22:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited the policy accordingly. (cause I agree, it makes sense, AND jimbo also thinks so; not just cause jimbo said so) WAS 4.250 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, wiki-fiddlers...I'm a moderator on a reasonably large wiki devoted to an online game. We have a repeat vandal there who creates an account, vandalises three and exactly three pages, then quits the account, changes their IP address, and makes a new account to start the whole business over again. How can we get rid of them?--Mobius Soul 17:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to deal with this. Just keep reverting the vandalism and blocking the accounts. —Guanaco 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There's always writing to the ISP. -

brenneman^{T}{L}

10:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I am speaking out of turn, or if this policy has already been discussed and/or voted on in the recent past. I would ask you all to consider my points above and vote here to determine if there is consensus for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setanta747 (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Try to convince Sceptre of that. He usually works from a school IP and needs to routinely unblock his IP to be able to contribute. Anyway, most schoolkids will not start up again if blocked for 1 hour. I think that we might want to stop using the cautious four-tier warning system with repeat school IP troublemakers, one or two warnings should be sufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • A possible solution to Sceptre's problem might be to take note of a couple of notable exceptions - those IPs from which regular (and 'normal') editors contribute. And I would support your suggestion. What I'm really thinking of is being more strict on the problem, and see if that helps cut down on the amount of vandalism that editors like myself have to continuously undo (revert, leave a warning template, report consistent offenders). Its a process that can take time - time which could be more valuable in actually spending enhancing articles rather than undoing vandalism. --Mal 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that treating this symptomaticly is a drain of editor's time. Have we attempted to work with the schools on this at all? They should care if the students are mis-using the school's IT facilities. A note to the affect of "vandalism will be reported to [email protected] with the time and IP address" would be useless or not? Would they care for example, if we blocked for longer periods and the student's who wanted to acces the source were unable to do so? -
  brenneman^{T}{L}
  01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not having access to the source is in fact not a concern. Blocked users can still access the encyclopedia, and read all the articles, check the history, and so on. They just cannot edit articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you have an account, does that circumvent the block on a shared IP? If it does that seems the ideal solution (except for not being quite congruent with the stated spirit as of now) to me, block and advocate getting an account. I support this idea of a policy change. ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• all preventable by requiring user accounts tied to verified email accounts and blocking that one account.Rlevse 14:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been

bold and noted editors who have commented here that support a change - though not necessarily changes that I have suggested. Feel free to change the edits I have made in that respect, if I have made errors in my presumptions. --Mal

00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've undone that, too much like voting. -
  brenneman^{T}{L}
  01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • That's what my intention was - to see consensus clearly, I was suggesting that we vote on the subject. --Mal 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Too soon. We've got to chew on it first. First this section grows, then eventually someone goes and starts a page, and its talk page grows, and about five screens down on that page there's a vote. At least, I believe the usual process is something like that for proposed policies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

<-- I think it may be early to hold a straw poll on this. As it's a pretty major change in the way things are done here (some might argue it goes to a fundamental principle), a LOT of discussion would perforce need to happen before a straw poll would be appropriate. Major policy changes (such as I judge this to be, believe it or not) end up getting their own pages, getting mentioned in a lot of places, chewed around for some weeks or months and only then get a straw poll and end up having hundreds of folks express an opinion. That's my take on how things are done, but I could be wrong. That said I really think it's time to give this some consideration, and applaud those raising this issue. But lets not overhastily try to rush to decision. That has scuttled great ideas before, again IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone read or considered Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal? This could help the problem tremendously, to remove the collateral damage associated with shared IP. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The real solution is to not block registered users who use a blocked IP. Similarly, we could require that a user accont was created before the block occurred, or that they be approved individually. Even reporting it to the school would do nothing. Why would they care? And how would they be able to tell who it was if the whole school shares an IP? All of the real solutions to this would probably require a fix from the developers, so in the mean time, we should be very minimal when blocking school IPs. Note that a fix of this manner would also benefit Chinese wikipedians who could use blocked IPs if they had an account. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• My school ( 205.204.242.21 ) was banned for constant vandalism. It should be so that a user can make edits no matter the IP the user is currently on, as long as the user is logged in. It will work as long as the user does not share his/her password.

Since email verification has been enabled, it has become impossible for blocked IP ranges and unverified blocked usernames to email the administrator who blocked them - their only option is the {{unblock}} template. The "you are blocked" page continues to suggest emailing though. This needs to be changed! BigBlueFish 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes it clear that you need an account to email. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any allowances in the blocking policy to block a user that has uploaded hundreds of images to Wikipedia using misleading license tags? I have spent several hours tagging all these images and cleaning up, and there is still many more hours of work to clean the mess (orphan images in tens of articles, etc.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I should certainly think so. It constitutes an copyright violation and goes against the fair use policy. However, it depends on weather or not anyone told this fellow of his incorrect tagging; if no one notified him of falsified copyright summeries, then he can claim a circumstance of ignorance. However, if he is, and he's being purposely misleading and utlizing deliberately falsified upload summeries, he could very well be idenfitely blocked. This is not playground or a web-gallery, and copyright violations are a serious matter. No one should triffle like that. No one would dare. -

Talk

16:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith for now, and assume (with a big effort) that this fellow did ot know. I have him on my watch list and at the first instance of misleading license info, I will issue a block. Problem is that now we have hundred imags to cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The question shouldn't really be about good faith, it should be "can we trust this user not to screw up our work". If the answer is yes, we move on. If it is maybe we observe. If it is no, we block. It doesn't matter if someone is malicious, a patahlogical liar, profoundly stupid, or just frequently edits drunk... We should block all the same. :) If it makes you feel better, at least we *can* catch and clean these up. The much greater problem is the large number of people who come by and only incorrectly tag one or two images. :( Care to share who this user is? If the images are not in use perhaps it would just be easier to mass delete his uploads. --Gmaxwell 21:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see King of the Dancehall (

Talk

22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:Brian O Herrity for a week for doing this. He was uploading a lot of images under GFDL-self, but they were obviously copyrighted images (watermarked etc). He had been warned and Orphanbot made a number of posts on his talk page about properly adding sources and licenses etc. My question is, now he's back and he's uploading images again (he uploads a lot and adds them to articles - this is pretty much all he does), except now they appear to be the correct license, but there isn't a source. I've already had a complaint from another editor to look into what I can do as an admin, but I'm honestly not sure. He's been previously blocked and warned a number of times before so can I, at some point, block him for not providing sources on his images? If it was a couple times or whatever, this wouldn't be a question at all, but he uploads a lot and never does this. Warn again then block/ban? How far can I got here? I don't want to have to babysit this guy's image uploading habits. K1Bond007 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Its really simple. If he can't follow copyright policy, block him and place the images on IFD. His diregard for warnings immediately blinks a red light for disruption. We are not here to play games for gallery festooning. -

Talk

09:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. K1Bond007 22:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To the degree and extent you have a recalcitrant editor who simply will not desist from making intentionally damaging edits, it's worthwile to consider that he/she must change their attitude or they can never be allowed back. It's a carrot and a stick approach. If someone wants to edit here and if their desire to have editing access is strong enough, then, denial of access (it's a painful thing to be denied what you desire), will have a salutary effect on their attitude (eventually, unless they are deranged). The psychic pain (the means) of denied access is indeed punative, but is only being applied towards a protective end. The ideas do not conflict, one merely needs to take into account common sense princples of stimulus-reward and apply them accordingly. Merecat 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We used to have something that said: "In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia."

This is our policy as I understand it and as I have practised it. If instead I should have been out to punish people, then obviously I've been doing it all wrong for ages. Can anyone clarify as to why we've unshipped that, in my view, vital framing of this policy? --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The ability to block should serve only to protect the project, never to punish a user. A user is only blocked as long as is necessary to prevent disruption or vandalism; if the user is likely to stop sooner rather than later, the block should end sooner. //

talk

) 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, SlimVirgin removed it here and then later here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because a block is regarded as punitive doesn't mean it isn't also preventative, and vice versa. The two ideas don't conflict. The fact is that if someone violates 3RR and was warned, he's likely to be blocked for 24 hours even if he says he's stopped reverting. In cases like that, which we see every day, there is nothing directly preventative about the block, although indirectly there is, in the sense that the punitive application of 3RR will hopefully prevent that person from violating it again in the future. This shows there's no hard and fast line between these things, which is why the sentence made very little sense and so I removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pathoschild, you reverted me again on the grounds that the punitive sentence is the "traditional intro". In fact, it was added on January 21 this year without discussion by Aaron Brenneman. [23] Could we please leave it out until we discuss it further? As it stands, it is factually incorrect and actually meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it "factually incorrect"? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, if a user violates 3RR and has been warned about it, he is almost always blocked for 24 hours, even if he's stopped reverting and confirms he won't revert again. This means the block is punitive, in the hope that punitive action will prevent another violation in the future, which shows there is no hard and fast distinction between punishment and prevention, and we shouldn't try to introduce one here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From

WP:3RR

—

Blocking is always preventative, not for punishment. Historical incidents are of no interest - please do not report anything other than current and ongoing problems.

That seems, to me anyways, to just restate what's being stated here: In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but regardless of how many pages it's on, do you take my point that in fact it makes very little sense, and also that it does not accord with how blocks are actually handed out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense: blocks should not be used as punishment, they should only be used to prevent damage to Wikipedia. As far as whether or not sysops are actually using blocks this way: I think that has more to do with this change being recent (at least here; I don't know when/if this was added to

WP:3RR). It might also be a problem (with some sysops anyways) of not recognizing that they were given a mop/bucket instead of a badge/gun. =) —Locke Cole • t • c

07:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that, if someone violates 3RR, they should not be blocked if they say "I've stopped reverting now"? Because to block them in that context would be purely punitive and therefore not allowed? If that's what you're saying, almost all admins regularly violate the blocking policy. 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Well, yes, and I've done it before, but with the stipulation that the administrator has good reason to believe that the user really will stop. For instance, this could be someone for which it was quite out of character and they express remorse, someone who wasn't warned and was unaware of the policy, etc. It's a judgment call admins should make. But even 3RR blocks are not meant to be punitive.

t

07:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, yes, it depends on their history. If they've never violated 3RR before and didn't receive a warning (or received it after the reported 4th revert), it might be worth giving them a break just so you don't drive them off. If someone is a repeat offender, then no, of course you'd block them. It's common sense (at least to me). FWIW, I'm also a proponent of considering the "up to 24 hours" language of

WP:3RR (that is, handing out 24 hour blocks is boring and unhelpful; better to try short blocks first (1-6 hours), with the understanding that if they immediately go back to reverting on the article after their < 24 hour block expires, they'll have likely just violated 3RR again (and be subject to another (longer) block)). The idea there is that the shorter block will encourage them to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, just not on the article that got them into trouble (of course telling them this is important too; explain that they got a short block so they can go find something else useful to work on, not so they could come back as soon as their block expires and revert war again). Obviously it won't work for every case, but it's worth trying.. —Locke Cole • t • c

08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well if I'm completely outnumbered here, I'll give in gracefuly. I'd just like to make the point that, if we have two people revert-warring, one a respected and careful admin, and the other a known troll, and if both violate 3RR (the admin by accident, let's say, and the troll deliberately), then both would be blocked, and there would be uproar if only the troll was blocked. Examples like this do show that the blocking is, in fact, being applied punitively and blindly. But I've made my case. If no one agrees with me, I'll stop going on about it. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd only at this stage take objection to "without discussion" as the page was being heavily watched at the time and I made notes both before ^{06:27, 20 January,} 07:21, 20 January and after^{13:05, 22 January} making the 13:10, 21 January changes to the page.

brenneman^{L}

06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The page was being watched at that time over the image blocking disagreement, so I didn't notice this punitive v. punishment sentence. It wasn't meant as a criticism of you, Aaron, when I said it hadn't been discussed. The comment was simply directed at Pathoschild who was saying that my deletion of it had been made without discussion, so I was pointing out that the insertion of it in the first place hadn't been discussed. But regardless, I'm trying to make a point about the meanings of the words. There is very little dichotomy between punitive and preventative. If we're simply trying to make the point that admins shouldn't go pouring over old history to find reasons to block someone, we should say that instead, rather than drawing on a distinction that only seems clear until you think about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Punishment can protect

To the degree and extent you have a recalcitrant editor who simply will not desist from making intentionally damaging edits, it's worthwile to consider that he/she must change their attitude or they can never be allowed back. It's a carrot and a stick approach. If someone wants to edit here and if their desire to have editing access is strong enough, then, denial of access (it's a painful thing to be denied what you desire), will have a salutary effect on their attitude (eventually, unless they are deranged). The psychic pain (the means) of denied access is indeed punative, but is only being applied towards a protective end. The ideas do not conflict, one merely needs to take into account common sense princples of stimulus-reward and apply them accordingly. Merecat 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're describing a preventative application, though. You're blocking a user to stop them from abusing their editing privileges, not because you think they deserve it. //

talk

) 17:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• To my mind it is protecting wikipedia: the idea of the 3RR is that continuous reverting of articles is damaging to Wikipedia and therefore the arbitrary policy is enforced to protect wikipedia against such damage. Your comment regarding blocking a user to stop them from abusing their editing privileges being preventative is wrong; the editing privileges are Wikipedia, and therefore the abuse is to Wikipedia, and the block is to protect Wikipedia. If 3RR was not enforced, Wikipedia would be heavily damaged; therefore its enforcement is protective. It's a big picture policy. Hiding talk 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading your comment, I think you just supported my argument. Blocks are preventative (or protective, which is the same idea), not punitive. :) //

talk

) 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying that unless one is being blocked for spite, caprice or pique, etc. (hopefully that doesn't happnen) then a block ought to be intended as punitive. It's intended to bother the "blockee", albeit only enough to make them want to change. This of course, does not apply to permanent blocks such as to BigDaddy, WillyOnWheels or various vandal-bots. It's a permanentban which is solely preventative as there is no hope of redeeming a permanently banned user. Wiki editing is like a big game of red-rover. We are trying to catch and hold onto as many viable editors as we can. The key is viable. One only ceases to be viable, if and only if, after careful and proper inquiry by sober minded custodians of the wiki, it's determined that they cannot be trusted at the minimum acceptble threshold. Merecat 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we fix the software so that a blocked user will show up (to admins at least) as a blocked user right away, rather than requiring a posting on the user/talk page? A glance at the block log will show many instances where a vandal or sock has been blocked by three, four, sometimes five different editors, each unaware that another has already taken that action. This wastes time, especially taken in the aggregate. If a user is blocked, I'd like to see it automatically pop up in some way on his page before I go to block him myself. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That'd be great and would be a useful step toward handling block-conflicts. It probably wants filing on bugzilla or something (and I guess is probably there already?). -Splash^talk 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently found myself blocked because the IP that I was using (which is shared by the entirity of Dartmouth College) was blocked. Is there any way to block IP addresses without blocking registered users from that IP? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)