Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, attack page.--Sean Black 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright
Creating a page for discussion of an issue is great and welcome. But inviting some, while excluding others, in this manner is factionalism. Rob 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter nonsense. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, WP:CSD. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A6 doesn't apply, I'm afraid, because it's a user page, not an article. Angr (t • c) 15:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It is my user page, I am encouraging others to join me in changing the way wikipedia deals with copyright. I will not argue this point here.Travb 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you are not willing to discuss it there, either, since you removed my comment. Hence my vote below...--Stephan Schulz 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just moved the page, and will update the template: User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Travb 14:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Angr, you beat me to it.Travb 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete do I have to type utter nonesense out again? -- Tawker 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you do, because you can't spell "nonsense". – ugen64 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the proper place to express dissatisfaction with Wikipedia policy is on the talk page of the relevant policy. Angr (t • c) 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under WP:CSD ("Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject"): I see no particular reason why this criterion should be restricted to the main namespace. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We preserve incivility in userpages for the record, unless the incivility involves threats or violation of privacy. Deletion in effect "hides" past incivility on the part of an editor from the Wikipedia general population, a very bad thing.  In general, sins are not whitewashed around here. Xoloz 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with Angr. Also see my comment above. --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete seems that it could turn into a bit of a witch-hunt, almost to the extent of violating NPA -- certainly violates AGF. The JPS   talk to me  15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a forum for like-minded wikipedians to organize effective resistance against untrained wikipedians who have no understanding of the law is not how to make policy. Take it to WT:FU. Dr Zak 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but reword. I rather doubt Travb's analysis of the issues is right, but who am I to impose that. If he and whoever is likeminded want to develop a policy alternative, that's great. The talk page of the relevant policy (per Angr) is so cluttered up with (largely naive) discussions on individual instances that it is unlikely to happen there, and Trav should be free to use his User page to the betterment of the encyclopedia with a wide degree of latitude. Let's AGF and hope this evolves to constructive learning and/or discussion and not just disparagement...it's too early to tell, even if the first sentence is rather suspect (per Dr Zak). Note, I have never used any fair use images and I personally don't plan to. Martinp 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Angr. There is a much less disruptive process for suggesting changes to Wikipedia policy. -- Tantalum Telluride 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is asking for trouble └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I must be crazy, but what is disruptive about this article? There are no personal attacks, no threats of disruption (At least right now)... Just a want to organize a group against strict copyright. No different than Inclusionist/Exclusionist, Userboxen and No Userboxen... Etc. If he continues to remove comments, bring that to WP:ANI. Until then, let's WP:AGF. -- Avillia ( Avillia me! ) 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Finding ways of intentionally running counter to policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation is disruptive. (One of the two foci of the page is the fact that admins speedy orphaned fair use images that were only used in userpages; this runs counter to the 9th clause of fair use policy designed to keep the Wikimedia Foundation out of legal trouble. Every dollar spent on legal advice is a dollar not going to the servers.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but reword per Martinp. There are complaints on this page, but no obvious personal attacks that I can see.  The page may be incorrect in its analysis, but it is not uncivil: no admins are named directly, and the worst charge leveled is that some people don't know what they're doing.  This is a potentially valid way to criticize, although the critic is wrong on the merits here.  I am a little worried about the "conspiratorial" tone, but no else has signed this yet, so we're dealing with an essay at present.  Incidentally, CSDA6 does NOT apply, nor should it.  We do not delete userpages strictly for incivility: often, a record of that incivility needs to be kept, so that it might be rebutted.  We have deleted userpages for threats, but here there are none. Xoloz 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no trouble with the core idea of the page. But I don't like a page that only allows one-sided support and whose owner deletes even fairly neutral comments. --Stephan Schulz 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in his user space, who cares? It doesn't attack anybody in particular, it barely says anything at the moment. --Fastfission 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Totally unacceptable. Administrators should not be attacked for enforcing copyright policy. If Travb doesn't like the copyright policy, he has the right to fork. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the attack? The page looks, at the moment, like a place where things are to be discussed, not an attack page. It seems to want to discuss changing policies, something for which there are no rules against here. --Fastfission 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I realise that this is coming a bit late, and the discussion is closed, but it would be worthwhile trawling through Travb's messages to many, many editors. One example can be found here:
 * "Hello, this message is because of your comments at Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2. Because of the abuse of authority of User:Ta bu shi da yu, Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".
 * Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on our own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. User:Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images."
 * I think that this is somewhat instructive of why it might be construed as an attack against an admin (myself). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotes factionalism and violation of copyright laws. --Carnildo 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Any divisive policy issue promotes some degree of "factionalism", that shouldn't be a pre-emptive way to shut down a discussion. It doesn't seem to be advocating the violation of copyright laws -- it seems pretty clearly to say that it wants to review whether our policies are in line with copyright laws. No harm there. --Fastfission 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A6 does not apply here, and I fail to see how this promotes the violation of copyright laws in any way, shape or form.  This page is within userspace.  Please try to assume good faith.  Silensor 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's in his user space ffs. bbx 19:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. To "[form] a group concerned about heavy-handed copyright interpretation on Wikipedia" is perfectly alright, just keep such grassroots efforts off the servers here. Kimchi.sg 19:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's inappropriate about it? What resources is it using in particular? Come on. --Fastfission 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. At the moment I don't see this as an attack on any particular admin but a forum on whether or not policy is being properly applied and whether or not the policy adequately reflects the law. Those are perfectly fine questions, no matter what one thinks about either the law or the policy. The page currently points out that a number of admins have been deleting a lot of content based on their understanding of the policy and the law. It does not identify anyone in particular, nor does it assume malice on their part. --Fastfission 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.