Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 16 May 2011

• WP:AN/B
• WP:AN/Δ

Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 FURG BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry Block review of User:Betacommand I have blocked Betacommand Betacommand is making automated edits User:Betacommand socks Betacommand 2011 Betacommand sock (2014) 2017 Advisory RFC

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This a centralized page of discussion pertaining to User:Δ, formerly User:Betacommand, and his bots User:BetacommandBot and User:Δbot (User:Deltabot). These discussions were previously on the Administrators' Incidents Noticeboard, but haved been moved here in the interests of space and navigation. This page is for participating and discussing in a civil manner all matters that relate to this user and his bots.

Please do not use this page to attack these users instead of participating in civil discussion.
This is not a complaints department. If you have a private matter that concerns this user, please discuss it with Δ on his talk page.

Δ content policing again

Δ is once again going ballistic with content policing according to his idiosyncratic standards. A few examples:

New Zealand dollar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), eight blanket reverts within 24 hours:

Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), six reverts within 24h:

Ranks in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), three in 24 hours:

While this behaviour might be tolerable if he were actually enforcing clear-cut policy, his primary justification seems to be WP:OVERUSE, an essay he himself wrote (!), and an extreme interpretation of even that. For the specific case of fair use images of banknotes in currency pages, his blanket removals go against the existing consensus that these images are OK, and they are strongly disputed by many members of the community, as per the long discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Currency notes. For Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, he has repeatedly removed the images despite considerable evidence that they are in fact PD! And to top it off, he uses highly misleading edit summaries, eg. describing clearly sourced and attributed fair use images as "copyvio", and regularly threatens users who revert his changes with being blocked.

This behavior is not tolerable, and us tolerating it harms Misplaced Pages. It's time to restrict him again or, preferably, just ban him entirely and be done with it. Jpatokal (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My experience on Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, is that he ripped the article apart by removing all of the images (without notifying any relevant parties - Indonesia Wikiproject, numismatics, etc.), then reverted no less than six times, in clear violation of 3RR based only on his personal interpretation of 'overuse'. His behaviour towards others - slapping me with warning templates, reverting first discussing later, is in clear contrast to what he tolerates himself, as shown by his removal of warning and discussions above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If copyvio is claimed, or overuse of fair use images, or unexplained 'fair use', then the point is, that the burden is on the person who wants to include the images. Yes, that needs first a full removal of ALL images, but unexplained re-insertions are not to be done, the images have to stay out until proper proof is given. Those removals are hence exempt from 3RR as the insertions are against a part of non-negotiable parts of policies. As far as I can see, that is NOT done, and Delta here is in the right with the removals. Properly clean up the pages, clean up the images, make a selection of what to re-include, and to be safe, discuss the re-insertion, and then perform that. Also, 'considerable evidence' is not enough, it needs to be proper evidenced, and images can not be used as such until that is properly done. --Dirk Beetstra 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In short, no. WP:3RR only allow exceptions for "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." (emphasis in the original) This is quite clearly not the case:

1) None of the images above were copyvios by any standard, Δ just likes to use that word in his edit summaries. (And if they were, the correct response would be to tag them for deletion, which Δ has not done.)

2) WP:OVERUSE is an essay, not policy.

3) WP:NFCI explicitly lists currency as one of the approved uses of fair use images. There is no consensus on how many per article are permissible; all of the latest Δ's claimed violations were well within the latest WP Numismatics proposal of obverse and reverse of each current note.

To put it another way, if Δ's reverts were indeed "unquestionable", there would not be lots of editors like me questioning them! Jpatokal (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out at this stage that the WikiProject's opinion of the matter is not massively important. If the WikiProject guidelines say one thing, and the NFCC say another... J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm .. almost .. the Foundation has clearly stated that the use should be minimal, and that part is not negotiable. OVERUSE is an essay based on that principle and the underlying policies (WP:NFLISTS). Yes, there is appropriate use of non-free images, but that they are allowed does not mean that you are allowed to overuse them (images have to comply with both WP:NFCI ánd WP:NFLISTS, claiming that they comply with WP:NFCI alone is not enough). Overuse may be a questionable term, but if that is claimed, either it has to be solved, or all have to be removed and a selection has to be made. Asking an editor who may not know the specific topic to solve the problem is not a solution, barring that, the editor should remove all and ask relevant people (generally, the uploader) to solve the problem. Undiscussed re-insertions of that are disruptive.

Copyvio may be the incorrect term, but basically, fair use of images is still copyvio. You are using a copyrighted image, just that law allows the use of them under fair use (but the Misplaced Pages board has decided that they will go further than that, since fair use images are still not free!).

And yes, there will be more people who complain when their images are rightfully removed, than that there will be editors who are rightfully removing them, of course there will be 'lots of editors like me questioning them'. --Dirk Beetstra 11:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)(update --Dirk Beetstra 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

That gives a ridiculous amount of leeway for any editor who claims that anything violates any policy on the flimsiest grounds to delete anything. For example, ANZ Bank claims the copyright on a certain shade of the color blue. Using this color without permission would be a copyright violation -- does this give me the right to remove all images from Misplaced Pages that use that shade, or a sufficiently similar shade, as decided by me? And if my edits are reverted, can I revert them back with impunity (since I'm exempt from 3RR) and report anybody who counter-reverts to ANI (as Delta likes to do)? Surely you will agree that this would be ridiculous -- but how is it any different from what's happening now?

WP:NFC's minimal rule states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (emphasis mine) In my opinion, one image of a currency note does not convey "equivalent significant information" as one of image of each note, but obviously Delta disagrees. Are you really telling me that drawing this line is "unquestionably" easy? If yes, what is the limit -- one, two, four, ten? What if the notes come from different series and look radically different? What if there are three or four series in circulation?

What's particularly pernicious is that, if Delta removes a fair-use image from an article, it becomes an orphan and is automatically deleted in a few days. There is currently an RFC to settle the policy issue of how currency note images can be used, but this means that, even if the RFC decides in favor of keeping the images, they will be long gone before the discussion is complete! Jpatokal (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatokal, yes, that is the case. If someone finds a copyright violation here on Misplaced Pages, it would be wrong to leave it there. WP:COPYRIGHT is NOT negotiable. And so are parts of WP:NFC. And there are a few more of those policies which are not negotiable. It is just a few, most of the things that we mass delete or blank are by our own free choice - not implied by forms of law, or by the Foundation. We have mass blanked such articles, deleted such images, and articles and images are deleted or blanked on a daily basis because of that. Yes, if one editor finds a certain kind of copyright violation, and would go around deleting that, then yes, that editor would be right, that is not disruptive editing, however, if an editor then knowingly reverts that, then that should be reverted on sight. --Dirk Beetstra 07:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. As it happens, the blue boxes on your home page may violate ANZ's copyright, so I've taken the liberty to changing them to a safer shade of pink. Admittedly my eyes may not be quite what they used to be, so maybe it's not exactly the same shade, but better safe than sorry right? My action in defense of WP:COPYRIGHT is not disruptive, after all, so don't you go reverting them back now. Jpatokal (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive reverted you, any further WP:POINT actions and you will be blocked. Colors cannot be copyrighted. see Threshold of originality. ΔT 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Colors most certainly can be trademarked (in some countries), see eg. . I'm surprised, Delta, I really am: if you are qualified to instant judgments on the copyright status of post-2000 Indonesian bank notes, how could you not know something this elementary? Jpatokal (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

/facepalm Copyright is not the same thing as trademark. Please review your legal differences. ΔT 11:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! It was fun while it lasted. And did I just detect a faint glimmer of humor there? Maybe you're not quite the robot you pretend to be after all. *hug* Jpatokal (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a great person to work with most of the time, people who refuse to listen just get the steam roller approach because its the only thing that they understand. I am not a crazy anti-non-free content nut job. My perspective is minimal usage. I agree that with currency related articles images are important. However if the money is non-free we cannot use an image of every unit. Take 1-5 (depending on the situation) and use that as a sample, you can get 95% of the same meaning though to the reader without being a guide. Drop a link at the bottom if the page to the associated bank's website with more detail and further images. Misplaced Pages is not a guide, and few articles really need 10+ non-free images. ΔT 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindly remove the protrusion from your rear end. If Jpatokal wants to make a WP:POINT on some other user's page that really is no concern of yours, and I hardly think you are in a position to make threats. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in that position, however. No more POINTy edits, please. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a case of 'may violate copyright', non-free images violate copyright, however, some may be used under fair-use, but then, that use should, per policy, be minimised. And regarding changing my userpage, please read WP:POINT. --Dirk Beetstra 11:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

'Minimised' is undefined. The images are either used or they are not, since they **are** used, what is 'minimal' is currently a matter of interpretation on an individual basis and not grounds for breaching 3RR in face of disagreement as to whether usage is sufficiently 'minimal'.86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is deemed overuse, then the reinclusion needs to be discussed, not the other way around. First discuss for each case what is minimal, and then reinsert. Reinsertion without discussion is disruptive and reverting that is hence not subject to 3RR. --Dirk Beetstra 11:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but it is highly disruptive to go around to arbitrary pages saying 'hey you have got too many non-free images, I'm going to remove them first, ask questions later'.

You are also misinterpreting 3RR. There is no 'disruption' exemption, the exemptions are (inter alia) for '***obvious*** vandalism' and for 'Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.'

There is neither obvious vandalism nor unquestionable violation of the non-free content policy. 'Unquestionable' means just that, if there needs to be a discussion it is by very definition NOT unquestionable, and there is therefore no grounds to breach 3RR. 'If it is deemed' is a good sign that what we have got here is not 'unquestionable'. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly more seriously, the fundamental mistake you (and Delta) are making is assuming that an extremely complicated topic like copyright and fair use, not to mention the Foundation's willfully vague guidelines for them, is clear cut: things are either Right(tm) or they are Wrong(tm), and that it's possible for a single editor to make the call on all cases. As you can see from the RFC I linked to above, this is not the case at all, and there is a wide spread of opinions on the topic -- and, horrors of horrors, at time of typing the "one image per note is OK" camp seems to have a slight edge at that.

This is precisely the reason why only unquestionable reverts are allowed. If I start uploading photos from Getty Images onto WP and plunking them into articles, there would not be a sliver of a doubt that I'm acting against WP:COPYRIGHT and you would be justified in reverting me as many times as you need to until I get banned (which would not be long). But this is not that case. Jpatokal (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the inclusion of the images is based on a justifiible use .. show me, for each of these pages, that justification. As long as no justification for the inclusion of images (whether it be one or 100) can be given, inclusion of the images is disruption. I know it is a thin line, but this is the undiscussed inclusion of non-free material which is deemed fair use. Please make sure that before you (or others) revert again, that you have that justification and explanation discussed, and link to that justification. And that RfC is by far not as clear as you say. --Dirk Beetstra 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no ground for Delta's breaching 3RR on the basis of putative 'disruption'. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you do not have a justification for the inclusion of the images? --Dirk Beetstra 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the various talk pages for that issue. There is quite some volume of text on it already, I don't see any sense in repeating it here, considering this is the 'Disruptive Delta' page. Once again, he has no justification for reverting in the manner he has done. If you have an objection to the images themself or to the multiple users reverting him there are more appropriate forums for that. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you can not justify that a page on a certain countries banknotes (where images of the banknotes are non-free) has to show every banknote - in many, many cases the number can be drastically reduced, and hence, there is overuse on these pages. (Re-)inclusion of all those images is hence disruptive and ignoring the core mission of this encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra 12:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, many users believe that you can and should show every current banknote, since they are all in use and it is necessary to recognise them in order to use them.

And for the third time (at least), this page is AN/Delta, and the issue is breaching 3RR/edit warring, for which there is STILL no valid justification, regardless of what you feel about the whys and wherefores of using these images. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, if there is no justification of inclusion of those images (many editors may be agreeing with it, but that is not a justification), then including those images is disruption, and there is no issue with Delta, but with the editors including the images. In short, if there is no justification for having all, there is overuse, if there is overuse, it should be minimised and re-inclusion should be justified. Delta is hence completely right in removing all the images, even repeatedly, since if there is no justification for the inclusion, it is a violation of our NFC policies. Hence, it is excempt from 3RR etc. etc. I have now asked that you properly justify the use of ALL the images on the affected pages, if that justification holds and is proper, thén, and only then, reversion by Delta would be wrong. I hope you understand. --Dirk Beetstra 13:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If I read the RfC, then there are also a significant number of users who say that you should not use all the images, but just a selection. But well, that one has not come to an end, yet. --Dirk Beetstra 13:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am arguing with a brick wall evidently. Let me break this down for you:

1. Many believe it is necessary, justified, whatever word you want to use, to illustrate an article about a currency with images of that currency.

2. Some users believe that doing so is 'excessive'.

3. Some users believe that doing so is 'not excessive'.

4. There is no definition of 'excessive' in Misplaced Pages policies nor any formal policy on currency images.

5. It is forbidden to break the WP:3RR except where there is an UNQUESTIONABLE breach of WP:NFCC.

6. There is no UNQUESTIONABLE breach of WP:NFCC given points 2-4 above.

7. Therefore Delta should be banned for continually edit warring and breaking WP:3RR.

No matter how much you try to weasel away from the issue with words like 'disruption' and 'violation', there is no exemption from the clear, stable and longstanding 3RR policies for removing images disputed overuse. The question of users having to justify the images inclusion is separate and pertains to those users, not to the blatant violation of the rules by Delta. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not weaseling away, there is no justifiable use of so many images, and if there is not a justifiable use of so many images, then the should, per WP:NFCC be removed. It then does not even matter whether some users believe that doing so is not excessive, it is not justifiable. Maybe I am arguing with a brick wall? --Dirk Beetstra 13:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted my justification on the RFC. I understand that it is your opinion that it is not justifiable, but that does not change the essential point that this matter is not settled and there should be no edit warring in breach of 3RR by Delta. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is no general justification for this, it has to be justified for every page seperately, and yes, it is not settled, but do understand that there should also be no unjustified (re-)insertions, that is also not acceptable. --Dirk Beetstra 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Δ, may I ask why you wish to speed up archiving of this page, and your justification for reverting my restoration of the previous settings? Jpatokal (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no speeding up, Jpatokal. I have re-instated the settings. --Dirk Beetstra 07:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving was already active. Δ's changes mean that each thread is archived as soon as possible (vs. default of two at a time), and that all threads are moved to the archive, leaving a blank page (vs. default of leaving the last five threads visible). (See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained). So, again, why? Jpatokal (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I dont like Stale discussions. ΔT 10:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't like you trying to hide discussions, and this is a page about you, not your page. Default archiving settings restored. Jpatokal (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot job to replaceimage redirects

Just a note for the record.

Looking at Betacommand's contribs it is clear he is running a large-scale job with the edit summary "adjusting filename after rename" to replace image redirects (e.g. ). This is problematic in two ways:

1. Bot jobs should be run on bot accounts, not on main user accoutns, and especially not on this user account.
2. The entire task seems to go against WP:NOTBROKEN.

I have asked Betacommand for a link to the required VPR discussion for this task; under his restrictions such a discussion is necessary for any task involving over 25 articles. I find it strange that, if the task had consensus on VPR, they would not have handled it via a bot.

On May 12, Betacommand also violated his editing speed restriction during at least one ten-minute period. I have warned him about this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not one, Ive made over 2,000 edits cleaning up the mess without any issues. In fact Ive gotten one thank you, and a barnstar for doing it. Cleanup up the file names makes it easier to track NFC usage, unused NFC, and makes wiki code cleaner by using the correct filenames. I invoked WP:IAR and other than your complaint about not following exactly to my restrictions progress has been made. Its not a bot, just me working through a mess. ΔT 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A task that requires 2,000 edits should be done by a bot. This is a clear violation of your editing restriction, but I will not block assuming you cease immediately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, Ive got another side project that Ive been working on that requires over 15,000 edits and they really cant be done via a bot due to complications. If there where issues with my activity someone would have raised a complaint already, however their hasn't been any real issues raised and it does server a major purpose with regards to the difficulties of working with file usages and file redirects. ΔT 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the approval for this "side project" of yours? Titoxd 19:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe he's saying he began to perform edits on the side project. Until he plans to begin, he doesn't need approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Its general article cleanup focusing on those articles with deleted/missing files. And to my knowledge I do not need permission to just edit normally, which is what Im doing. Ive already cleaned up about 5,500 pages and Ive got another 11,000 on my to-do list. ΔT 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oh good Christ. WP:NOTBROKEN???? Riiiiight. Look, just one of these fixes Δ made uncovered that File:Ltte emblem.jpg (a non-free image) was used 50 times. This never showed up on a report before because it was being used as a redirect from File:Ltte emblem.jpg. So, you make a post to his talk page regarding some edits, and less than 20 minutes later come here to make a report about his behavior? Aren't you jumping the gun just a little? Plus accusing him of running a bot? Oh wait, you back pedaled from that by saying it "should be done by a bot" so therefore he's in the wrong again? Oh wow. Ok, I guess you'd better block me right away since I performed dozens of removals of a NFCC violating image in two minutes. Can't have someone running around doing work that should be done by a bot, afterall. The work Δ's done in shifting the pointers to the images from redirects to the actual image locations has been invaluable, uncontroversial, and broken absolutely nothing. You might as well arrest him for helping old ladies cross the street. Here come the pitchforks. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Community sanctions are not enacted just on a whim, they happen because an editor repeatedly fails to show good judgement. It doesn't matter whether the end justifies the means - for this editor. Of all the ways that Beta/triangle could have accomplished the task, they chose one which violates their restrictions. If someone has in the past repeatedly got into arguments with little old ladies while helping them across the street, breaks the odd ankle while doing it, and defiantly refuses to change their ways - then yes, they can't help anyone across the street anymore. Franamax (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• My point is this can easily be addressed without having to bring out pitchforks. Has anyone presented evidence that this type of edit has done any harm? Not so far. Yet, according to Δ there's more than 2,000 of them. I can attest that they are in fact helpful, and don't violate WP:NOTBROKEN. I'm not debating whether an editing restriction was violated. I am debating that it's necessary to go overboard on this. A reminder to seek approval first, along with a request at WP:VPR regarding this set of edits is all that is required. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My position is that the edits of this sort that are already done are already done. But now that it has been explicitly pointed out that they violate the editing restriction, Betacommand needs to stop immediately. In other words, I did give a reminder to get approval, and to follow the edit restriction. The reminder is backed up by the editing restrictions, which are in place exactly because Betacommand has historically not followed best practices about obtaining consensus for his edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• The reminder is fine. I would have no issue if he was blocked if he continues to perform the edits without getting approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Two notes: 1) has Beta ever actually gone to VPR even once ever to seek approval for a task, as outlined in their restrictions? I'm genuinely unaware if that has ever happened; and 2) as Beta has indicated they intend to seek the lifting of sanctions, the signal purpose of this thread (sans a call for pitchforks) is to indicate once again that Beta doesn't give a fuck what the community thinks, they're determined to press ahead regardless. Demonstrated compliance with my point 1) would invalidate my point 2), but absent that, I'm not seeing why there would be any agreement to lift the sanctions. Franamax (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fran, yes I have posted to VPR for issues in the past. I do care what the community thinks, to me the community are those who spend a majority of their time editing articles, and improving the encyclopedia. You might want to re-focus your attention back to what counts, instead of spending about 65% of your time here on the drama boards and other non-articles. Since I have changed usernames I have made it a point to focus on the main space, and stay off the drama boards. Most editors don't monitor the drama boards explicitly because they are full of drama. With the file name issue that Ive been clearing up, Ive had zero complaints on the actual task, Ive gotten one thank you, and one Barnstar. Ive racked up over 20,000 edits since the new name with only one incident which I was trying to fix when I was blocked. Ive made it a point to improve the encyclopedia, and avoid issues, which I have done fairly well at. So please stop assuming what my intent is. The negative attitudes that always seem to greet me when ever I post to a drama board tends to make me avoid them. Instead of attacking editors why don't you try and work with them, to improve the encyclopedia, and avoid the unneeded drama? ΔT 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have not asked for approval, you do not seem to feel that there is any need for you to ask for approval, and you think that people should just shut up and let you do whatever you think is right. Jpatokal (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• And this is helpful....how? I'm confident you intended to add plenty of light here, and not any heat. But, my meager faculties are not up to the task of parsing out how this is light, and not heat. I'm sure you can help. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Since that apparently was not clear enough: it seems that Δ has violated his community restrictions, does not seem particularly apologetic about it, and intends to continue doing whatever he wants to regardless of the restrictions. If this is indeed the case (and is there much doubt?), per his 2nd arbitration case, he may be blocked at will to make him stop it, and "in the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes", he should be referred back to ArbCom for further sanctions. Jpatokal (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

More content policing

An anon has noted here: that Beta destroyed three articles about current British coinage. He has defended himself claiming he is 'enforcing policy'.

Now this is all very well, but I do think that the hit and run approach he employs is contrary to good manners and also to building a useful 💕.

Removing current circulating coin images seems to be contrary to the public interest and that indeed of the Royal Mint, which exercises copyright rights on behalf of the Crown. It states that coin images may be used for advertising and promotional purposes.

Now that many images have been auto-deleted it seems unlikely that past content contributors will feel inclined to return to Misplaced Pages, since numsimatics pages without images are close to useless. Indocopy (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Royal Mint's copyright is incompatible with our licensing. There's no middle ground. Sorry. As to "destroying" articles, hardly. I could just as well argue that you seek to destroy articles by including so many non-free images, especially since it contradicts our mission. Enough hyperbole please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question have been stable for over half a decade until they were destroyed by Delta. That's not hyperbole, that's just what happened. Article was stable and useful, images were used in accordance with copyright holder's wishes. This is not something like a sports article reusing many professional ($$$) photographs, these are images that the copyright holder is happy to see reproduced.

I am afraid that you and Delta are living in some sort of alternate reality - of course there is a middle ground, Misplaced Pages has millions of copyrighted images in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indocopy (talk • contribs)

Bullshit, before you start quoting random numbers, we have 400,707 non-free files, across 354,668 articles. That is only 9.75% of our articles that contain non-free content, and no where near a million non-free files. ΔT 00:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS just because an article is stable doesn't mean its right, take a look at an old scandal that landed us in hot water, it was posted for 4 and a half months. ΔT 01:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that File:British_50_pence_obverse.jpg states that "Reproductions on Misplaced Pages of Bank of England currency notes are made by permission of the Bank of England, ref. FCA/9292C", so we have explicit permission from the copyright holder to use these images. The only conceivable reason for removing them is thus a highly contentious personal definition of "overuse". Jpatokal (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• It would seem that both of you have a misapprehension of how images are managed here. Both of you are arguing in favor of liberal inclusion of images because they fit within the copyright holder's permission. No such class of images exists here on Misplaced Pages. In fact, it's a criteria for speedy deletion. In effect, what you are asking us to do is void our speedy deletion policy in this respect, and also ignore Jimbo Wales' statements from years ago regarding permission-to-use-on-Misplaced Pages media. As to the articles subsisting for half a decade in the form they were in, as has been mentioned elsewhere the duration of a mistake on the project doesn't make it any more acceptable. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on accepting free-as-in-beer media, but please don't be upset when it comes it contact with our policies and mission here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem very confused here. Speedy deletion applies to images without fair use notices, but all the images in question have the proper notices, and this noticeboard is entirely the wrong place for any such discussion anyway. What is at issue here is the tremendous disruption caused by Delta through mass removals of images from articles with what seems to be an unauthorized bot, justified solely by his idiosyncratic interpretation of NFCC. Jpatokal (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time, and read the fucking links:

F3. Improper license.

Media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Misplaced Pages use only" or "used with permission" may be deleted, unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. Files licensed under versions of the GFDL prior to 1.3, without allowing for later versions, may be deleted.

• {{db-f3}}, {{db-noncom}} F3 states clearly for Misplaced Pages only images will be deleted on sight. ΔT 01:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)