I know nothing about rap metal and punk rap. Zero. So I do not see how my input here would be useful
I do not think you should call an editor you disagree with «a vandal ». This user may be right or wrong, or anything in between, but his track record does not immediately spring to my mind as being the track record of a vandal. So please mind the words. You may disagree... that does not make him a vandal. A vandal is not someone you disagree with, a vandal is here to voluntarily damage the encyclopedia
You have zero track record yourself. Any reason to trust you over him ?
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
What is your reason for stating that the content is compatibly licensed? Looking at the legal page, it seems that only content published after Nov. 2016 is automatically CC BY 4-ed. Prior content seems to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Do you have anything that explicitly releases that page under a compatible license?
Only very old usecases or archived discussions remain on the WIPO website that might be prior to 2017. The very very big majority of the content is post 2017. The treaties summary pages I work with were all reworked end of 2023 when they did a major rehaul of the website. This major update of the website broke many url of pages by the way, links I am slowly fixing one by one because they failed to maintain relationship between some old urls and new urls.
Incidently, I also contacted a few months ago the WIPO legal office to ask them about the exact copyright status of the old treaties and texts, after Wikisource editors asked me to inquire (so that they could put the old treaties on wiki source). I got the answer that « all the content published on the website was to be considered CC BY 4.0, unless otherwise tagged ». Yes... even those prior to 2016... (which seems very odd... I know)
About « how do I prove that pages I work on are post 2016 »... errr... well, I am personally sure because those pages basically did not existed as-is last year [1]. I am also sure because the website was entirely updated in 2023. And I am sure because the content of those pages is very up to date (definitely not 10 years old -). And they published statements about the work they did to clean up and complement all treaty pages [2]. Anthere (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm wondering about your message to Red Tailed Hawk on 2023-12-05, where you apparently explained that you don't always attribute CC BY 4 content. As I'm sure you're aware, that attribution isn't optional. Failure to add it does, in fact, constitute a copyright violation. Could you clarify your statement? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it is a sentence such as « The treaty entered into force on August 19, 1980 »; even if I might have technically copy pasted it, I believe the sentence is too short and not creative enough that it deserves attribution. So no... I will add a source for the information, but I do not add an attribution tag for such as short and bland statement. I only add attributions when it is more specific and long. Anthere (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]