Misplaced Pages

Hello. Why at OTRS Garmin must was get moral damage from some users yesterday .... Not this is major. Possibility to use online The Beatles materials is actual (having sanction of the government of the US - projects for the good). What do you think, tell me please. Thank you! - 2.93.62.144 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

I need to see some evidence. A simple assertion isn't sufficient. And I'm not clear what the government of the US has to do with it, they do not hold the copyright. However, if I get an email from either the US government or the British government, I will be happy to pursue it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry: 2 minutes ago connection disappeared (and IP changed because of this). The same user writes. Opportunities, which are found via website of the US government, are created with main aim: deletion of different troubles of the civil society (deletion of contradictions, including). All of this is higher of any copyright in the world. Section http://www.serve.gov/about.asp (About) gives us understanding of such aims. This is the protection of the government in the relation of citizens. One of the main troubles (in some cases), is copyright - everybody understand this. Copyright holder can be the big enemy of: knowlege, education, culture, research, moral development and so on. Simple example: cruel monopoly of copyright holders on the creative work of The Beatles is the great enemy of knowlege in the relevant articles of Misplaced Pages (cruel owner forbids usage of online materials: all articles in this context are about nothing). Enemy of people: using online materials in Misplaced Pages, we can make lower impact of poverty (and a large number of other moments) . To delete the such troubles, exist sites: http://www.allforgood.org (All For Good), http://www.serve.gov (Serve.gov), http://www.nationalservice.gov (National & Community Service) ....

Clicking http://www.serve.gov , we read the program of President Obama (left):

United We Serve

"The President is calling on all Americans to participate in our nation's recovery and renewal by serving in our communities. There are many ways to get involved. America's new foundation will be built one community at a time - and it starts with you".

Near (right) we see one of the methods to implement these aims: "Find Volunteer Opportunity". And we seek our opportunity for the usage of search results (implementation of the program of President). Thank you ! - 2.94.199.14 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for sharing that. I was frankly puzzled about what was going on, now I understand.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okey (sometimes connection can disappear). On our main issue: what can you say? By the way, long time ago our people understood the such thing: probably, at Misplaced Pages exist people with interest (they are from the copyright holders, they are payed editors, which love rollback). They are not terrible if we use projects for the good. And our protector is the US government (and partners of this government). Thank you! - 2.94.199.72 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC).

• On this stage we need to be free of threat of lobby in favor of copyright holders. In the case of the such activity is need take action and remove danger (you as admin can do it). At last the celebration of Knowlege can become reality (very possible): We wrote message to the main department of the British Council and now we saw reply:

Dear John, one of our offices in China will be able to help you. You'll find contact details on britishcouncil.org/china-about-us-where-we-are-in-china.htm.

Now we will send relevant message on address to one of these e-mail addresses (see above .htm) and will tell about this to the Center (to make all faster). Sense: the British Council will give the personal permission (on address of OTRS, in first). Please give me know about this event, when getting of the such permission will become reality. Thank you! - 2.94.199.72 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC).

• Hello. We tired to wait. What about permission from any site who on this page: http://ru.wikipedia.org/Правительство_Российской_Федерации (article about government of Russia)? May to try. Thank you! - 2.94.187.222 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC).

No, it will not be granted. Misplaced Pages respects copyright.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I respect your opinion. But very interesting things exist at Misplaced Pages (Russian). Link in the article The Beatles leads by 2-3 steps to almost 1000 online songs by The Beatles for free and without moderation even. Site in black list of EN and RU Wikipedias (but Russian admins do not want look for new source of info and crime in continue). Respecting of copyright.... In the Russian section not exists of the such respecting. 2.94.233.90 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC).

• Sorry, did you got the permission of the British Council, or no? I can not understand sense of letter for me (of the British Council). - 2.94.233.90 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC).

I did not see anything from the British Council. Was it incldued in an email to OTRS? If so, I'll look again. Unfortunately, I am extremity busy at the moment, I had a full day of work both weekend days, so have not done much on Misplaced Pages this weekend, and will be in NY for the next three days with limited internet access. But if it was sent, I will check when I return home. Should I check the string of emails from you, or was it sent separately? If separate, will I find it if I search for British Council?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked all emails received at the permissions desk at OTRS in the last year mentioning "British Council". There were none from the that organization discussing permission of any kind.

• Hello. We saw this letter yesterday. Letter from 22 June (we check this e-mail not often). We asked about details, sending reply to understand better (we understood a little, as I wrote yesterday to you). Hour ago we got almost the same text (this is not bot - it is from human on 100%: almost the same - not the same, the more). I feel not very comfortable, if I will write all text here (respect confidentiality in the relation of the British Council). I write main sense (from main e-mail of the British Council in Hong Kong):

"Thank you for your e-mail to the British Council Customer Services. Due to the nature of your enquiry, we have forwarded it to the related personnel again for their reference. I hope the information is able to assist." (in letter from today appeared, including, the word "again"). Thus, our issue in progress. Of course, you need check your e-mail (and OTRS) oftener. Separately permission will be, or in string of emails from me - I do not know else. Currently is need to wait of something good, and not only we can wait (this is important for many people: we try for society). If something new, please give me know.

Them messages (every) contain golden words:

"The British Council is the United Kingdom's international organisation for educational opportunities and cultural relations. We are a registered charity; 209131 (England and Wales) SC037733 (Scotland). We create international opportunities for the people of the UK and other countries and build trust between them worldwide. We call this cultural relations."

Thank you very much! - 2.94.120.212 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC).

• Hello. Important question (can be important): Can be used the project under other license (more strict license)? Because exists big difference: 1) sell or no (work); 2) change or no (work);. Very big difference ! (this moment can impact to the opinion of the British Council). Please give reply in the nearest time. Thank you! - 2.94.119.198 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC).

• Hello. Is there something new at the OTRS on our issue? Thank you! - 2.92.76.34 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

It would be helpful if you could identify the subject line of the email, so I could search for it. I searched for every email containing the phrase "British Council" which took quite some time, but there is nothing new. The most recent on is 46 days old. If you didn't include the words "British Council" I wouldn't have found it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do not know also. May be to try seek info using some other method: the British Council could pass this issue to another agency. Thank you! - 2.92.76.34 (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

• Hello. I found this now: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:OTRS_noticeboard&diff=503546150&oldid=503545849 (our social networks). Someone wrote:
  

This is the real community, see: http://musicbrainz.org/artist/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d/relationships / http://my.mail.ru/community/beatles-gold-tv/131D0B9D72565564.html (The Beatles Coalition for Cultural Diversity).

Russia ratified law about joining to WTO http://www.mk.ru/politics/russia/article/2012/07/18/726819-sovet-federatsii-ratifitsiroval-protokol-o-vstuplenii-rossii-v-vto.html (exist several stages till finish) several weeks ago and now is need to implement agreement http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm (TRIPS). People from the Federal Security Service http://en.wikipedia.org/Federal_Security_Service_(Russia) can implement integration into the such communities after asking of access. They have agreement with copyright holders on reciprocal basis (deletion of illegal content in return for some concessions in favor of human rights). Agents from this community http://my.mail.ru/community/beatles-gold-tv/131D0B9D72565564.html suggest favor for Misplaced Pages (to reach global results in this scope). Thus, all on legal grounds (and owners agree, because they get benefits also). Thank you for attention.

This is the truth (agents have agreement with owners via integration with such communities). If there is the chance - is need to to use. I think so and sure. I ask you to consider this matter. Thank you! 2.94.13.193 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, but there is nothing in those link explaining how you came to acquire the copyright to Beatles Music.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• About "you" - not we. I know only about this issue. And not more. Earlier I was member there (some time ago). I know about method to implement TRIPS in Russia. But I did not knew about usage of the such method in relation of this particular community. I do not clearly about mechanism. But if try to explain: concensus was found - owners and agents. Agent in the such case is the representative (and he acts on behalf owner and has full agree of owner). May try send letter with hope get reply. But I have doubts about getting of reply (the more, I am simple user). Agents do not have right to distribute info to provide needed security in accordance with legislation. And other side also does not has the such right else more (sides must have respect each other on international level (international law). In Russia and not only in the such cases often is used method of notification via copy of message for other people and organizations, which are copyright holders, including (to provide full control). In our case, this is the common sence on legal grounds - to be higher of any limitations of the security. I am simple user and I have no chance get reply from agents totally (as I wrote above). I know very a little about this issue in Misplaced Pages (two hours ago I knew). But you are not simple user and you have possibility get reply (OTRS). I ask you to send letter for agents with request to get permission. If they will send copy of your message (them reply for you) for owners - this means: agents really are representatives and they have right be named as copyright holders (have right to act on behalf of them on legal grounds). This is the validation and possibility get favor in the same time. Sorry for such big number of different details: I am jurist and I can not act by other way (when try explain). Can you do it (request to get permission)? Thank you! 2.94.137.76 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Hi! In response to a comment you made on the editor's talk page I left this comment:

The editor has not been treated badly. The editor is throwing a fit of epic proportions because the community disagreed with his/her assertions. This editor has also rebuffed all attempts to discuss the situation reasonably. This type of behavior is disruptive to Misplaced Pages.

If you review all of the material in this case, you will find that he/she is not the one who has been treated badly here, but has in fact been the bully/aggressor/harasser. There is no excuse for such behavior on Misplaced Pages. Thanks -- Taroaldo (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I reread your comment. And it appears "the editor treated badly" you referred to was J. Spadaro, (although it's still not totally clear). That renders much of the above comment null. I left the last part because the response by the community was not "over the top" given the seriousness of the actions taken. Taroaldo (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can revert your strikeout. I meant Guyovski. Repose in progress. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I responded at the talk page, thanks for informing me that you responded.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Strikeout reverted. Taroaldo (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

After e/c. Answering your Q at my talk page here 'cause it's a convenient thread: hmm, that is what I wanted discussed at AN, the question of what our written policy is in these situations, as opposed to whether or not the specific editor should be blocked. The fact that the discussion resulted in a unanimous (or close to it) decision to indef block certainly indicates our practice, so if current policy wording isn't sufficient we should be updating our policies (as they re descriptive not prescriptive). The answers you got at AN are pretty much what I would say, the relevant P'n'G are NLT and HARASS. It's a tricky case though. I think you are correct that it is not prohibited to do things that have RL consequences, but from NLT, if you're going in that direction, you generally have the trade-off that you're no longer an editor here, until the off-site matter is resolved. Now of course you can file complaints all day long from the privacy of your own home and just not tell anyone, and there are legitimate reasons to go off-site too. Heck, I've contacted my share of school network admins and gotten "tell me who" replies from the principal, and we have a project on WP:ABUSE reports, we report threats (WP:TOV) which probably get idle-brained 13-year-olds visits from the police, etc. There are a few lines you can't cross though. One is to use an off-site report to influence a content dispute and/or to augment a behavioural accusation on-wiki. I think there's near-universal agreement that you just can't do that. Now, the blockee here is claiming that was not their intention, but I think the timing shows they were still pursuing the dispute (under the guise of not wanting to pursue the dispute) on-wiki when they informed the other editor od their off-site report. That's a bit like walking into a bank waving a loaded gun and saying "I'm not robbing you, I just want you to loan me some money". Another line would be if the subject of the complaint was contacted by the off-site agency, so if you complain to the police about me and don't mention it on-wiki, if the police do call me you can expect me to request that you be blocked. I suppose that line would be case-by-case, depending on whether or not the on-wiki subject of your complaint looked reasonable to other editors. And another line (or zone) is how well an inclination to take/escalate problems off-wiki fits with suitability to edit here. This is actually a pretty wide zone, for instance we have quite a few editors who post at Misplaced Pages Review (could be defunct now, not sure). I do believe that posting there has resulted in RL consequences for people who edit peacefully here, just because it's (in our terms) an uncontrolled environment. And not to pin anything on WR specifically, but there are some real whack-jobs out there who apparently show up at your workplace and such-like. But we do tolerate people who further their grievances off-site, so it's really not all that clear. Generally though, I think that people who feel the need to pursue disputes off-wiki tend to end up working only off-wiki as a result of a (real, not this editor's confusion of terminology) ban, the two things seem to go hand in hand.

In the specific case at hand, when I first saw the edit in the course of dealing with the blockee's WQA report, my instinct was to block. The aggravating factors I considered were 1) the target was a (apparently) real-named editor. I am not generally sympathetic on that (you can't look me up in the phone book under Max, F.) but choosing to use your real name here should not expose you to gratuitous attacks over minor content disputes; and for a one-week-experience editor, combined with the on-wiki battle behaviour the ADL report was a very significant indicator of an ongoing problem with the editor. In mitigation, I considered that it was not a clear legal threat (hence my wish to clarify at AN, but I wouldn't have tied it to the specific editor); that the editor was quite new and could be cut some slack while also being given a quick education; and that the inbdications of battle behaviour would soon enough resolve to blocking anyway if it continued, new editors really do choose their own path eventually, to either cooperate or fight their way out the door. As it turned out, this editor seems to have chosen being "right" over being an editor here. Of course, in the hour and a half it's taken me to think through and type all this, everything may have changed when I save the page.

So two messages here: Beware asking me questions, as you may get an immense wall-of-text reply. ;) And yes, I do have some questions as to how well our P&G are worded on this, so if you can think of any wording changes or clarifications, that would be my objective for the AN thread, to get a clearer sense of where exactly the community stands and codify it. A newbie getting whacked is one issue (which their intransigence pretty much resolves all by itself), the other issue is whether we have good wording that would either support or refute my initial instinct to block. Your thoughts are welcome. (Do try to keep it brief LOL ;) Franamax (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to self - no more asking Franamax questions. Seriously, though, thanks. I want to respond, but it will take me some time to organize my thoughts.

• The following is a cross-post of the comment I made at this talk page (feel free to remove it if you don't think it fits with this discussion on your talk page):

This is an interesting topic for discussion. It is not uncommon for one or more parties to remain unsatisfied after DR has run its course. It is not a stretch to see that, in this case, Guyovski would have continued to remain unsatisfied after the full DR process because the claim that the dispute over the "holocaust denier" edit constitutes anti-semitism on the part of another editor is baseless. Would it be considered fair to complain to the ADL after a full DR process which (hypothetically at this point) found no basis for the accusation? And what would be the ramifications within Misplaced Pages if the accused editor sought remedies outside of Misplaced Pages? LEGAL exists for some very important reasons. What would be the effect on this section of LEGAL, and on trust within the community, if spurious and disruptive allegations are allowed to gain traction?

The community has an obligation to make every effort to ensure that editors can do good faith work in the encyclopedia without being mercilessly dragged through the mud.

Taroaldo (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(Taroaldo, you raise excellent points, but the following is a response to Franmax, although I touch on your point)

Our DR process needs work at the detail level, but at a high level, I like it. Very roughly stated - pursue disputes locally first (with the other editor, with the admin, on the relevant talk page), and only if that fails, escalate to a low level DR board - WQ, 3RR, various notice boards, always cognizant of the distinction between content and behavior, which drives differing venues. If that fails, escalate to AN or ANI, or RfI (not necessarily in that order) and then only to ArbCom, then, if not satisfied to Foundation, but don't expect much there. We like to presume that this ends it, but this is where external venues become acceptable.

Here's where I would distinguish between clearly legal remedies - contacting a lawyer to sue, versus non-legal. Take the first route, only if you recognize that you will have to suspend editing privileges for the duration of the resolution. (As an aside, some non-legal actions ought to result in the same suspension, but at the moment, I think those should be debated on their merits, and I won't go into details now, but some ought to result in suspension, some ought not.) I hope, other than possibly my ill-defined parenthetical comment, that we are on largely the same page.

Where we depart is whether a report to ADL is a prima facie example of a legal threat.

Let's look at the responses of a few contributors:

• "While not a legal threat" clearly concluding no
• "Is it a breach of WP:NLT" not a clear yes or no, but obviously not a clear yes
• "I honestly don't know whether there is anything wrong with the following" not a clear yes or no, but obviously not a clear yes
• "The ADL should (hopefully) not be expected to take the complaint too seriously." not directly on point, but hardly support for the notion that it is clearly a legal threat.

Plus, drumroll,

• "IMO it's roughly akin to a WP:LEGAL threat," It's close to yes, but this isn't horseshoes, hand grenades or ballroom dancing so close translates to "no".

In fact, there aren't many (any?) unequivocal yeses. If this were an AFD, I think we'd conclude the consensus is no.

Yet I agree with you that there was a consensus to block. However, I think that consensus was driven by the broader accumulation of a refusal of the editor to engage in proper DR. When they don't know the rules, it is our obligation to tell them the rules. When they hear the rules and still refuse, blocking is warranted, but for refusing to engage in proper DR, not for making a legal threat *As an important aside, to tie up one loose end, I posted above I was considering a reversal of the block. That was when I thought the block was precipitated by the first ADL report. However, I now see that it was precipitated by the second. I write off the first as a newbie misunderstanding. The second, no excuse.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC) my talk

• Hi, I answered your message on page with my take on this saga. Let me know if you've seen it, and then I'm going to archive it. Guyovski has had more than enough air-time. Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I did see it; thanks for your considered response. I mulled over whether to continue the discussion, but real-life intrudes, and I think the matter is ready for a rest.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and understanding. E4024 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)