Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

  • See WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name.
  • See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
  • See WP:OS for oversight.

Request for Page Protection of Wikipedia[change | change source]

The article Wikipedia has had some persistent vandalism lately. I would like to request page protection for this page. Thanks. A2 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Not what I would call persistent, and the recent vandal is now indeff'd. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection of Vandalism[change | change source]

Many users and IPs think it is funny to "vandalize" Vandalism I would like to request page protection for this page. Thanks. A2 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Generally speaking, pages are only protected if the vandalism is persistent, i.e. it is constantly vandalised. That page really does not receive much vandalism, so protection is unnecessary. I would recommend that you have a read over the protection policy. Thanks, -Mh7kJ (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Error with TWINKLE[change | change source]

When I try to revert an edit on a page it gives me : Grabbing data of earlier revisions: The wiki is currently in read-only mode . Why is that? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an error with Twinkle. A message like that appears when the database is locked by the developers for maintenance work.--Glaisher (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ban appeal by Aaqib[change | change source]

Aaqib (talk message contribs page moves deleted contribs edit summaries count logs block log block email)

Hi all, the above editor wishes to appeal his indef ban (which was imposed in July last year). I am not quite sure how much of the present community still remembers this case; relevant links which I can find are below:

--Chenzw  Talk  02:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes[change | change source]

  • Well, I'm well disposed to allowing this user to return. His English may still have problems, but his attitude is good. Also, we have been IMO lenient towards one or two other problematic users, and we need to be even-handed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support unban - when I proposed this ban last year, it was with the hope that he can take the time to reflect and gain some experience elsewhere. I don't think there's an immediate problem with lifting the ban - after all, like what Macdonald-ross said, reapplying the ban is always an option, if something untoward happens. Chenzw  Talk  12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but you should really stick with Goldenburg111 globally. Also on the understanding that the ban will be reapplied if there are further issues (per Glaisher). --Rschen7754 05:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, all. I've not been active for a while here on Simple so I obviously was not apart of the ban discussion last year. However, I did read through the ban discussion and a few diffs, and thought long and hard. And with that, I feel I can contribute to this discussion. I feel we should lift the ban. The editor is showing signs of being more mature and more easily understood. He claims to be able to listen to instructions now. So I feel we can assume good faith and allow him back, especially with the ban so easily re-applied. However, I would impose, and forgive me if I don't know if this is automatic or not, a 6-month period where one edit out of line results in an automatic re-ban. I believe he should also be assigned a mentor for those 6 months. I see no need for topic bans. Thanks for reading. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 11:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No[change | change source]

Other comments[change | change source]

  • A key issue is listening to what administrators and experienced editors say, and working within our guidelines. Anyone returning from a long ban who just continues as before would be most likely banned indefinitely. He can expect be watched pretty closely for a while, of course. We expect returning users to be careful that their work is done in a proper manner. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

QD:G12 for lack of attribution[change | change source]

Are you all ready to start quickly deleting transwikied articles for lack of attribution? Although we haven't done that before (at least not that I've seen), they seem to qualify. I think it might be worth a notice at Simple Talk before we start routinely doing this. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the difficulty comes from those articles with a very short introduction followed by a long table and/or long, complex infoboxes. The introduction by itself (if simply phrased) would not attract attention, but the table and/or infobox are the result of long hard work in the other wiki. A number of cases have been proposed for QD, and it has been difficult to decide on them. One thing is certain: if we decide to delete them (and we probably should) then we will lose a lot of new articles! But on the other hand, there's no real point in having them as they are. They are not simplified. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
To me, an infobox isn't a factor in whether an individual article is complex. If we think an infobox is too complex, that's an issue with the infobox template, not the article that uses it. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say infoboxes and tables are generally not complex even if they are long and full of detail as long as the wording itself is simple. Also I don't know if infoboxes on individual pages themselves meet the requirement for needed to be attributed as they are just a list of facts that don't show originality of thought. The actual template itself however would. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I really think we admins need to be consistent about this, and right now we're not. I see at least one admin deleting on these grounds due to lack of attribution, and another admin declining such QDs. It's not fair to the editors to be inconsistent like that. Would all the admins please weigh in here? The only comments so far have been about being unsimplified, which is not the point of this discussion. The point is whether attribution is given. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, well the letter of the law is quite simple: everything on an English wiki page is copyright. Everything except material from Commons. Even infoboxes have taken human work, sometimes a great deal of it. So if you ask, yes, theoretically we are obliged to delete it if it is not attributed or so changed that copyright is not at issue. Our real problem is the gap between the "anyone can edit" policy, and the realities of the world. So our policy should be to delete all pages which use material more or less unchanged from any published sources except those which are known to be not under copyright.
There is an option which we might consider. Since most of the unattributed material comes from unregistered IPs, we could prevent them from starting new pages. With registered users, we could insist they learn how to attribute as well as simplify. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Re your sentence "So our policy should be to delete all pages which use material more or less unchanged from any published sources except those which are known to be not under copyright.": that's right for many sources, but not Wikipedia. Text on Wikipedia is copyrighted, but the licenses everyone agrees to when they edit here specifically allow for verbatim use of content. Remember that copyrights do not mean that a work cannot be used: they mean you need permission to use it. With non-Wikipedia sources, we usually don't know what the copyright holder would allow, so we don't allow any use without evidence that it has been authorized. Wikipedia's licenses allow its content to be used very freely, as long as credit (which we call "attribution") is given to the source. Therefore, the issue is attribution, regardless of whether something from English Wikipedia is copied exactly. When attribution is given, the only reason to change text from Wikipedia is to make it simple, if it isn't already simple enough.
I now agree with this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As for infoboxes, I'm not sure whether you're talking about the templates themselves, or the information they display. If the former, then I'd agree they should be treated the same as articles. If the latter, then probably not. Infoboxes mostly give basic facts -- a name, a location, population figures, various dates, etc. I don't see anything copyrightable about that.
Ah, I think this is covered by your 'verbatim' point. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. What I meant here is that there's no intellectual property when you just give a list of data, which is what infoboxes are used for. The underlying template code is a different matter. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is, in principle, copyright in data, though in practice many data are in the public domain. Here's one very simplified source: [1]. Here's another: [2]. We are covered on the basic factual data in the public domain, but use of tables, charts and other devices invented on En wiki do require attribution because they are not trivial. Today I copied over a chart from En onto our Mohs scale of mineral hardness, and put an attribution onto the talk page. I think this is required. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The chart you copied was not just data. It was also formatting and an individual way of presenting the data. I was only talking about using infobox templates. They are different: they let you plug values into a predefined format. The types of values we typically plug into them are not copyrightable (a person's name, geographical coordinates, etc.). If the format itself is copyrightable, that is an issue for the template, not for articles that use it.
But we need to get back to the point of this discussion. Either we are going to quickly delete transwikied pages that have no attribution, or we are not. So far you, Mac, are the only admin who has responded to that point. No admin would have to delete such pages, but we cannot have some admins deleting them and others removing the qd tags (at least not without fixing the problem). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as whether most unattributed material comes from IP editors, I'd want specific statistics on that. Wikipedia has consistently refused to discriminate against IP editors, and I wouldn't want to see us do that discriminate against them. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am with Auntof6 on this. The requirement for copyright is originality of thought. A simple listing of data is not copyrightable in and of itself. The template itself (ie the formating) is and the attribution for that would be on the template page not the individual articles. Infoboxes are completely fair game to copy over. As are in most cases table which are laid out in a manor which would be expected of them. I forget the exact legal wording off the top of my head but basically anything that is done in a manor that many people could be expected to lay that data out if they all did it without knowledge of anyone else doing it is not copyrightable. An example (thought not of a table). But a sentence like "An apple is a fruit." or "Paris is the capital city of France." are not copyright eligible. As for the table you copied over, you don't even need a template from that. As long as you put in your edit history that you copied it from the english wiki article then you are covered by the attribution requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We have many hundreds of unsourced articles - some are copied from other Wikipedias, some are shortened and/or simplified versions of them. Are they all going to be put up for deletion, including non-controversial articles such as those about settlements? Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We probably have tens of thousands to be honest, for years the only requirement was that you simplified. At that point we considered it a different article without the need to attribute. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Many articles consist of a simplified version of the lead of the en article. Do these count as transwikied? How about the many articles here which have the infobox (but not the body of the article) from the en article copied to here? Do they count as transwikied because part of the article (the ibox) has been moved without simplification? Jim Michael (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The backlog is a secondary issue. I think the above discussion establishes clearly that simplification is a separate issue from attribution, and so (I think) should be a separate item on the list of QD reasons. Aunt and DJ seem to say that if an article takes plain fact data from an En wiki article it does not need attribution because copyright does not come into it. Otherwise, everything else does need attribution. As someone who often makes decisions on the QD items, I am keen to hear what others think. I don't plan to make borderline deletes until I find out where the borderline is! Aunt gives a broad hint that many admins have not voiced an opinion so far. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As what Auntof6 and Dj have mentioned, content is eligible for copyright protection only if it exceeds a certain threshold of originality, where "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author". Mere facts are not copyrightable, which instead are more likely to fall under fair use (and should be cited). Template code itself should be copyrightable because they are the result of a creative process from the author(s) of the template. For articles, I believe that when we deal with articles copied from EN (without attribution), we would need to evaluate whether significant effort has been put into the simplification of the article text. If there is so, I suspect it probably qualifies as fair use and will not require attribution of the EN version. Perhaps someone else more knowledgeable in law would like to verify. Chenzw  Talk  16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Two cents after a quick read (let me know if I'm way off base and I'll leave it in more capable hands). We did previously have Category:Pages requiring attribution that a few editors and I spent quite a while clearing out ages ago. If I'm not mistaken, we went ahead and added the attribution and tried to simplify and change pages where we could. Would it not be worth the time to fix the pages/infoboxes instead of deleting them?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What lies behind the discussion is the thousands of pages (mostly biographies) put up with an introduction and infobox from En wiki and nothing else. Sometimes a few words are changed, but essentially they are short copy-pastes. Leaving the backlog to one side, any admin working through new changes or new pages will be faced with deciding whether to delete or not. They come up all the time in Requests for QD or Requests for Deletion. I think we are homing in on something like "if an unattributed page has more than straight facts (including infobox) it is to be deleted if the extra content is a copy-paste". Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That leaves undetermined how much changing/simplifying needs to be done in order to avoid it being deleted due to being regarded a copy-paste. There are many articles here that are of that type. Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
We're not discussing the copy/paste issue (A3), we're discussing the copyright/attribution issue (G12). Those are two separate QD options. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Have we determined they are two different subjects yet? While there seems to be a general agreement to that effect at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, we haven't heard from that many editors. Also, the conversation seems to have bogged down somewhat. Can anyone say we have consensus yet? As for deleting pages for G12 versus placing the attribution there yourself, where are we at? New users aren't so much a problem, as we can place the {{subst:uw-encopyright}} template and do the first few attributions until they get started. Actually, this isn't even a hard sell as the users are protecting themselves as well sewiki against copyright infringement. But what do we do with the chronic cases who simply ignore repeated warnings? Can we get some direction in how to deal with them? Some qualifying pages nominated for G12 are deleted while others are quashed (the inconsistency Auntof6 mentioned). I don't see a pattern yet. If we must attribute, even for those who don't feel like it, isn't that like the guy at the end of a parade with the shovel and bucket (after all the horses have passed by)? And, if we delete pages, isn't that more like a rejection slip? Go back; fix the problem; try again. Most editors here have had pages rejected and bounce right back to produce better pages. It might not hurt to mention something to that effect when we QD a page. It might encourage them to try again. Rus793 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
They are two different subjects. You can bring over an article word-for-word with attribution, but not simplify it enough: that's A3. You can bring over a simplified version, but not give attribution: that's G12. Of course, you could have both in the same article, but they are separate things. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, Rus, "sewiki" is the Northern Sami Wikipedia. You could refer to Simple English Wikipedia as "simplewiki" or just "here". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me try again. Your position has been that A3 and G12 are two different subjects. On July 22 (your talk page) you said the same thing and added "I agree that the wording could be clearer." You brought the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy based, at least in part, on that conversation. There, one of the things you said was "I see his point that A3 can be interpreted as meaning a copyright issue." Do you think we're at a point of agreement that they should remain separate issues? I know that's not exactly one of the two questions under discussion, but it's clearly implied by comments under both sections. I know there are only a handful of editors participating in the question, but do you think we have a consensus at least on keeping these separate?
Northern Sami Wikipedia, huh? I didn't even know there was one. Thanks for the tip, that was a nice way to put it. Rus793 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Asking me if there's a consensus to keep them separate implies that someone has suggested combining them. I haven't seen such a suggestion. The fact that they are two different QD options says that they weren't intended to be the same. If you think G12 and A3 should be combined, I definitely disagree. We need to be able to delete pages for each of the issues separately. The QD criteria are each about specific, individual issues. I'd really like to keep this discussion about just the copyright/no attribution issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we agree that basic factual intros and infoboxes are not subject to deletion on grounds of lack of attribution. Although I know there have been edit wars about infoboxes -- and therefore not all their content is simple data -- nevertheless I accept the general view as stated. If we do decide to apply A3 more vigorously than at present, then it might be wise if we thought about how to tell new users what they should do. I am struck by how many start editing here without reading any of our guides. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Some articles here consist only of a basic intro and an infobox, some of which are unsourced; some of those are BLPs. Are they not eligible for deletion if the information is simple, true and neutral? Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary[change | change source]

OK, there has been a lot of discussion. We have to be consistent, one way or the other, or it's not fair to the editors. Could we have each of us admins just add our name to one of the lists below: support deleting transwikied pages on G12 grounds because of lack of attribution, oppose it, or undecided. Whatever we decide might eventually be overruled by a higher authority, but for now we can at least decide which way we will be consistent. I know that Voting is evil, but right now it might be the best we can do.

No discussion in this section, please: that should go above. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)




  • Auntof6
  • I am not really sure what we are !voting on....are we voting on whether we keep or remove that speedy reason? -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Not on whether to keep it, but whether to use it to delete transwikied articles when attribution is not given. There have been QD nominations on grounds of copyright violation where the issue was absence of attribution. Some admins have processed those, and some have declined them: we need to be consistent about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I think its up to the admin depending on what their reasoning for declining is. I generally decline most if not all of them and just put the attribution on them. But that is because I am more likely to want to save articles if they are easy to save than delete them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Look, I can't close this, but it seems to me we have to get on with business on the RfD page. Looks like it's a "no consensus". I'm unhappy at the number of admins that did not take part in a discussion which clearly needed other views.
      What will happen? Admins will use their judgement, as before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User conduct: Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse[change | change source]

This user is a disruptive user on the Simple English Wikipedia, modifying pages. The user may be blocked. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


I mean, you are a disruptive user. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Already taken care of. Thanks for the report. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Another user conduct: My birthday is September 16th[change | change source]

This user recently added a comment saying "Hey baby, I love you!", which was placed on Wikipedia:Rules, that comment is completely not acceptable for an encyclopedia, so I placed the QD A1 notice on the page. See this revision. The user may also be blocked. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7D06:70F8:7EFE:F051 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to say about Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse[change | change source]

Edittools not working[change | change source]

I've been trying to help another user who has a Scandinavian keyboard that lacks the [ ] and { } keys. In Settings, I'd like to be able to turn on Edittools, which is listed in the Gadgets menu under Editing Gadgets. It doesn't work, though. I've entered a comment on a seemingly related issue in bugzilla, but suspect that the problem is related to this project, and not to wikimedia generally. has exactly what we'd want, listed there as "Old Edittools". Can someone fix this or point me in the right direction to find help? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Take a look I think you will find it there and working. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this happening right now? 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:249C:1A20:814A:E14E (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Helder 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the replies. Replying to @Djsasso: and anon:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:249C:1A20:814A:E14E: I see that it is now called Old Edittools here in simple.wikipedia, but it doesn't work for me. Could there possibly be some other option or gadget that I need to turn off or on that is interfering? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That is my fault....when I verified I totally looked at the wrong thing. I was thinking the special characters for some reason. Attempting to fix right now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I've rolled back to what we had yesterday for now. Going to have to look further into this. Not sure why the css isn't working. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribution not working[change | change source]

Recent developments, a no consensus vote on using G12 for lack of attribution and three test cases submitted for RfD, have shown we don't have an effective policy in place. In discussions, it's been suggested an editor can place attribution on a page for another editor, but I'm no longer sure this is the case. By placing the attribution on a talk page (or in an edit comment), you might justify keeping the article (frequently unsourced stubs), but the originator still violated copyright law by not placing the attribution there themselves. For example, you can pay someone else's fine for speeding, but they still are responsible for the offense (and the points against their license) themselves. They may also have created a violation of our agreement with WMF. A serial copyright infringer is unquestionably a liability to this wiki. Allowing this to continue also undermines efforts to get new users to comply with attribution on transwikied pages. Why would they comply if it gets ignored or someone else does it for them (sometimes) and there is no penalty? Then, why follow any other rules here?

The 2007 [Resolution:Licensing policy], begins with the statement: "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." In the resolution itself, it does not offer an alternative to deletion of files uploaded under an unacceptable license (acceptable licenses, including free content licenses are defined under the section Free content licenses). Unless I'm wrong, our Exemption doctrine policy is still in development. If so, is a provision for another editor to step in and attribute an uploaded file under CC BY-SA 3.0 even an option? Or would this be a case of circumventing the WMF licensing policy?

In WMF's Terms of Use, two provisions would seem to apply to this situation. First, under § 7 c. Importing text: "You agree that, if you import text under a CC BY-SA license that requires attribution, you must credit the author(s) in a reasonable fashion. Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text. The attribution requirements are sometimes too intrusive for particular circumstances (regardless of the license), and there may be instances where the Wikimedia community decides that imported text cannot be used for that reason." It doesn't say you or someone else, it says "you". Secondly, under § 8. DMCA Compliance: "The Wikimedia Foundation wants to ensure that the content that we host can be re-used by other users without fear of liability and that it is not infringing the proprietary rights of others. In fairness to our users, as well as to other creators and copyright holders, our policy is to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the formalities of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Pursuant to the DMCA, we will terminate, in appropriate circumstances, users and account holders of our system and network who are repeat infringers."

For an example, one editor alone has something like 175 unattributed articles (spot checking indicates most are transwikied articles) and refuses to comply. After some reading at WMF and enwiki's copyright policy, I'm not convinced it is permissible for another editor to attribute for someone who fails to do it themselves. Also, if an editor takes the responsibility upon themselves to attribute one or two articles for an infringing editor, aren't they then responsible for all the non-attributed articles the infringer created? I'm perfectly willing to encourage new editors to attribute and, before I looked into this at the WMF, to attribute for them as an example. Attributing for someone who refuses to do it themselves (if deemed permissible) might save some stubs, but at the same time seems to be encouraging the user to ignore policy. This is a small wiki and nothing goes unnoticed here for very long. We seem to be between a rock and a hard place (current practice versus the policies of WMF and Simplewiki). Why would a patroller even nominate a page for deletion (for lack of attribution) if in many cases it will be declined? Why would a patroller place a warning message on a new user's talk page if they don't know if an administrator will support them, or make them (and the policy) look foolish? Is there any way we can get some kind of agreement on what this wiki will do about this problem? Rus793 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think some of the issues are whether Attribution is a full copyright violation, or a licensing violation. Copying a page from another wiki, providing the article is properly sourced is an attribution issue, not a copyright issue. Now how to handle it. While deletion is probably the best solution, since I do agree that attribution is the responsibility of the article creator, I do not think it should be a quick delete, but think we shouldn't have to wait for an RfD to go through either. Not to muddy the waters there at all. I know we do not like making more bureaucracy but, I think we should have a process in place much like Wikinews or En.Wiki with a proposed deletion. Wikinews has one for copy violations, that says article can be deleted after one day if there is no re-write without the violation. We can have the same thing but the grounds would be attribution. Attribution is more along the lines of plagiarizing, and should still be deleted but only after fair warning ie. user talk page notification, and time to fix 24 hours like Wikinews seems fair. Re-Writes should first be blanked, and commented in change summary re-write in progress, so it does not get immediately reverted, otherwise deleted after 24 hours. The re-write causes another issue though. What to do with the first draft that is in violation. Do we revision delete it so it is no longer visible, or since it is no longer the main page leave it and do nothing. If we revision delete it, then we will need a new policy and RevDel reason # for it. Then we have the issues of repeat violators. After how many do we consider disrupting editing, and start imposing sanctions. The whole issue of attribution has many different things that it effects, but we need to address these issues. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It is completely permissible for another editor to do it because its our wiki that in the end has to have the attribution. Once the wiki here has attribution it isn't unattributed. And it certainly isn't a copyright violation as the licensing requirements have been met. Yes, the original editor is required to attribute, and if they continually refuse to do so then the way to resolve the issue is to block them for violating the terms of use. However, someone else adding the attribution resolves the main purpose of the attribution "The Wikimedia Foundation wants to ensure that the content that we host can be re-used by other users without fear of liability and that it is not infringing the proprietary rights of others" Once it is there regardless of who placed it there then the potential problem of liability is gone because attribution has been given to the original source. As mentioned by Enfcer once the attribution is there the licensing issue is gone because we have indicated where the original source of the material is. All we require for attribution is that it is there. Once there it then resolves the licensing problems and we are fully compliant. And that being said a very large number of articles you have been tagging as issue, have not actually been issues. "Why would a patroller place a warning message on a new user's talk page if they don't know if an administrator will support them, or make them (and the policy) look foolish?" I don't think an admin wouldn't support you in warning a user that wasn't attributing properly. That is a far cry from an admin taking the productive approach and fixing the article instead of serial tagging it. "Why would a patroller even nominate a page for deletion (for lack of attribution) if in many cases it will be declined?" A patroller shouldn't just nominate articles for deletion, especially on this wiki, if a patroller can fix the article they should do so before nominating unless it is so far beyond help that it would take too much time. In the case of attribution, it can usually be fixed in the same amount of time as tagging it for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I should note, since I noticed you incorrectly warning people today that a simple note that says "Copied from English Wikipedia" is enough to satisfy attribution. The page you are pointing them to is just giving templated examples on how you can do it. It is not required that you use the template or that you link to a specific version. Per the terms of use "it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary". The templates here were actually originally created for people to use when they forgot to do it in their initial edit summary since you cannot go back and edit your edit summary. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the context of the "CC-BY-SA" license, not attributing is a copyright violation. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia holds the copyrights; those are actually held by the original editors of the copied article (a copyvio harms Wikipedia's ability to redistribute as well as taints any article linked to the copyright violation). For that reason attribution has to be linked to the authors of an article. That is accomplished by an attribution statement in either the edit summary or by using one of the attribution templates in the copied article's talk page. Both instruct that the attribution template have the article name at the other wiki and the version number. The version number in effect credits all the authors up the time it was transwikied.
The instruction to use a template in the talk page is is in Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. That template, in turn, is referred to by the notice Template:Uw-encopyright found in Wikipedia:User talk page warnings. The instructions to attribute in the edit comment is in the guideline Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. Which set of instructions I stay with depend on which set the new editor was first contacted with. If I or another editor gave a warning/notice regarding attribution, then for consistency, I remained with that set of instructions—the two you said were wrong. If I or another editor first contacted the new editor with the warning Template:Uw-encopypaste, which includes the guideline How to copy from another Wikipedia, I continue with that instruction. This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier. We have two different sets of instructions and so far, I've been given three different opinions by three administrators. So no matter what I do in this situation, someone thinks I'm doing it wrong. All I am trying to do is get new editors to start attributing their transwikied articles. Rus793 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect in thinking that the article isn't linked to the authors of the article if you just say English Wikipedia, all that we need to do is link to where the author can be seen. As such indicating that it was imported from English Wikipedia indicates the source we received it from which then credits the editors responsible for the edits. You can see examples of this all over the internet and television whenever they reuse portions of wiki articles. If you look at the instructions of those templates they specifically mention that the version number is only recommended, not required. Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution just lists some ways in which the attribution can be achieved, they are not the only way it can be achieved. They are just examples. As per the terms of service, you just need to link in a reasonable fashion, if someone says they got it from English Wikipedia that is reasonable as the exact authors can be found from that. I agree the absolute best way to do it is with version numbers, but it is not wrong to just point them to the page on English Wikipedia. Getting new editors to attribute isn't a bad goal by any means, but throwing everything up for deletion when it can easily be fixed is biting new editors. Problem repeat offenders is a separate issue and can easily be dealt with by posting here and an admin can look into it and block if necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)