Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

An all encompassing complaint regarding the disruptive editing behavior of User:Dolovis

First of all, let me begin by saying to any admins, if this is in the wrong place, feel free to close or move it. Perhaps it belongs at WP:RFCC, but I feel this user has had so many issues brought upon him that I should take it directly here. Over the past few months, User:Dolovis has become increasingly disruptive across Wikipedia, to the point that I have decided to bring a complaint to ANI that covers, to the best of my knowledge, all of the issue that in my mind deem this user as a disruptive editor. This complaint largely stems from a diacritic removal campaign he is currently engaged in on the bases of following policy. However, this user has been told on multiple occasions that his interpretation of policy is incorrect. His current ploy involves the mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles (85 in the past week), to English character titles, ignoring the fact that no new consensus has emerged on their usage, which would suggest that their current usage (no consensus to move) remain. As I mentioned, this user has also engaged in other forms of editing that I would consider disruptive, as I have pointed out in the following list that I believe encompasses all of Dolovis’ misconducts (although I don’t doubt for a second that I have missed many additional misconducts).

Diacritics controversy

Page moves while a discussion is on-going

Despite the on-going discussion on the usage of diacritics in biography article titles that has not gained a consensus of either pro or contra diacritics, Dolovis has begun a highly controversial campaign of mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles. Since he initiated the discussion on 17 May 2011, he has moved a total of 103 articles with diacritics in their titles, listed here. More alarming is the 85 he has moved in the past week alone. He claims that anyone with a problem should follow WP:BRD, and while that would usually be the procedure to follow, can someone explain to me who has the time to list 85 page move requests in one week? I don’t. One user recently listed multiple page move requests at a central location (Talk:Martin Ruzicka), and Dolovis has argued that “each move must be judged on its own merits”. Like I said, I’m not sure who has the time to initiate 85 separate discussions. This is highly disruptive, as Dolovis knows no one has the time to do this.

Reply comment: The page moves that Nurmsook refers to are actually "Undoing" page moves made contrary to the established policy of WP:Article titles. I have not been doing the mass-page moves. It is, in fact, quite the opposite, as hundreds (thousands?) of biographical articles have been systematically moved from their WP:COMMONNAME WP:ENGLISH WP:Article titles to their non-English form. It is well-established policy to Undo a controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Dolovis (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Talk:Martin Ruzicka is another mass-article move discussion started by another editor for 10 articles that were created with English titles. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move discussions while a discussion is on-going

In addition to the moves Dolovis is making, he has continued to make WP:POINT requests for article moves. Since the naming conventions discussion was initiated on 17 May 2011, Dolovis has requested 8 page moves, again, a number highly disruptive as it is extremely difficult to keep track of all of these requests. You will notice that each move request that had a high level of discussion was closed as no consensus (Talk:Pierre Pagé, Talk:Jakub Petružálek, Talk:Anže Kopitar, Talk:Petr Sýkora, Talk:Tomáš Divíšek, etc.). If the page move requests he is making are consistently reaching no consensus, wouldn’t that suggest that pages should remain where they are? Not move 85 in a week? Is it not disruptive to repeatedly canvass the Wiki community for their opinion on a subject that has already been made?

Reply comment: The discussion which I started on 17 May 2011 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) has steadily devolved into a quagmire of POV repetitions with no consensus in sight which might change the established policy of WP:AT or WP:EN concerning the use of diacritics in article titles. When the situation calls for making a move request, the proper procedure is to open a WP:RM to seek a consensus on the issue. It is false to say that my RM are always closed as "no consensus". One example of a "support" consensus is found at Talk:Eric Castonguay. Dolovis (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I said each request with a high level of discussion closed with no consensus. Your example includes four participants. I certainly do not consider that to be high level of participation. Dolovis' blatant misinterpretation of my words is a prime example of how this use misinterprets policy. He chooses to take what he wants from it, and demean anyone who disagrees with him. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that you're being overly sensative about this. You seem to be personalizing everything. You're making accusations here on AN/I, asking that another user's editing be restricted, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised that the other user is defending himself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please point to where I asked that another user's editing be restricted. Stop distributing lies about me. Like I said, I came here to get uninvolved admins opinions and certainly have no issue with Dolovis defending himself against these accusations. But when he does defend himself, I'll make sure to fact check his defense. That is my right, just as defending himself is his. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ehrm... "Page move ban for Dolovis" isn't a restriction, I suppose. Ridiculous.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the edit history. That section was not one that I added. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous ANI controversies

1. Dolovis previously brought a user to ANI here. Of note, Dolovis was removed of his Twinkle rights because of abuse of the tool at this discussion.
2. Another example of Dolovis' use of ANI can be found here
3. Dolovis' controversial accusations of Darwinek, shown above, is another example of an ANI controversy. Not to mention his second set of accusations against the same user, also listed above.
4. Of course, another ANI was recently posted here regarding Dolovis' conduct.

Reply Comment: I have been editing on wikipedia for 14 months. I have made some mistakes, I have learned from them, and I have moved on. Dolovis (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry

1. Without any sustained evidence, Dolovis make a bad faith sock puppetry accusation of a long-time Wikipedia user and administrator. That quick-ending discussion can be found here. Dolovis simply made the blatant accusation without adding any additional commentary once his claims were disputed. His claims were identified to potentially be retaliation to a content dispute (note that Darwinek is the same user that Dolovis twice took to ANI on dispute claims).
2. Dolovis was accused of and blocked following a sockpuppet investigation here.

Reply comment from Dolovis: The sock puppet allegation raised by Nurmsook was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User and User talk page misconduct

1. Dolovis has acted inappropriately at his own user and user talk pages. In one instance, he banned a user from his talk page (Evidence) despite being reminded that he cannot do so per WP:UP#OWN (Evidence). In addition, he proceeded to threaten administrative action when the user made a comment after this supposed “ban” (Evidence), which is in clear violation of WP:TALKNO.
2. From 12 February 2011 until 31 May 2011, Dolovis claimed on his user page that he held rollback rights, when he in fact does not and was actually denied use of the tool when he requested it. This, again, is in violations of WP:TALKNO.
3. Some time ago, a user reached out to Dolovis following a dispute between the two editors with an apology. However, Dolovis took this apology, placed it on his user page, and is essentially parading it around to show others something along the lines of a “I told you so” or “I was right” type statement. This may or may not be against any policy or guideline, but it certainly is highly inconsiderate and the user in question has taken offence to its placement on Dolovis’ user page.
4. Dolovis again violated WP:TALKNO when he blatantly accused another user of ethnocentrism (Evidence), a claim to which the other user was highly offended by (Evidence).
5. Dolovis engages in censorship of his talk page, something Wikipedia is not. While he has the right to request other user do not post to his user talk page, I argue that his approach to end discussions at his own discussion, even if other user may still have something of value to add, something that doesn’t fall in line with the spirit of using talk pages (Evidence), (Evidence).

Reply comment: I disagree with the perception presented above, but that being said, it is my talk page and how I engage others on my talk page should be given a wide range of latitude, as it should be given to all editors. I have read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and I believe that I have acted well within those guidelines. I do try to avoid harassment and vandalism directed to my talk page. I am open to constructive criticism on this topic, and will continue to try to make my talk page a place for informative and constructive discussion. Dolovis (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal

1. Dolovis has conducted disruptive tag removals. In one instance, another user placed a {{merge to}} tag on the article Ivan Svarny. Without following the proper discourse of discussing the merge on the talk page, Dolovis removed the tag altogether, forcing the other user to undo Dolovis’ edit (Evidence).

Reply comment: The tagging editor User:Fly by Night mass-tagged about 16 articles for merge. The tagging editor was clearly using improper an interpretation of WP:MERGE, and I removed just one of the 16 tags and sent him a note here to engage him to discuss the issue as he had not started any discussion on the talk pages of the effected articles. Fly by Night replaced his own tag and proceeded with the mass-merge request anyway, which had a unanimous community consensus against the merges as demonstrated by the discussion on that issue. Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no improper interpretation. I quoted the rationale " If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.…" several times. You had created over 100 one-sentence, one reference, presumably notable, BLPs. I saw from your edit history that many of your older creations had been untouched for 30+ days. If none of those had been expanded, then why should the new ones? So, by the quoted criteria, I tagged your 16, one-sentence, one reference, presumably notable, BLP's for merger into the club article of the players' team. There was also no unanimous consent. In fact, myself and several admins brought a case against you here. Several people support sanctions on Dolovis's editing. There was eventually a consensus that no editing santions should be taken, but there was a broad agreement that his conduct was unacceptable. Here's a link to that discussion This all shows that Dolovis either sees, or chooses to represent, things very differently to how they actually are. Notice above where he supposedly sent sent me a note here to engage in discussion… That was clearly a reply to a message I sent him! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Final commentary

I firmly believe that this evidence proves that Dolovis has consistently been engaging in disruptive editing since his arrival at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Dolovis' disruptive habits are not limited to the areas I have listed above. Dolovis has been widely criticized for creating, in some instances, unreferenced BLPs and other one-line stubs that he likely will never go about editing, regarded by some as content forking (I should note that I do not have an issue with his creation of stubs (I am an inclusionist), but still feel that the issues other users have with it should not go unnoticed). Additionally, Dolovis can be highly confrontational and aggressive towards other users, something not held in high regard by the spirit of Wikipedia. Frankly, the only reason I decided to bring this users habits to light is that I was shocked that no other user had done it before. In my opinion, Dolovis' abuse of Wikipedia is far and beyond a prime example of disruptive editing. Prone to engaging in disputes with anyone who disagrees with him, this User never makes the slighest attempt to reach a compromise or listen to someone else's opinion. Anytime he feels he has any sort of leverage he takes it. In fact, Jimmy Wales recently posted how he is opposed to diacritics, and Dolovis has since been parading this quote around as is anything Jimbo says, goes. He also recently begun edit warring with another user, and was warned of this on his talk page by User:Bearcat. The fact that Dolovis has been able to go about disrupting Wikipedia so blatantly alarms me to no end. How someone can make 85 controversial moves in one week and get away with it sickens me. I hope administrators will see the evidence I have posted and do something about it. This user does not edit at all within the spirit of Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:TL;DR. This has too many individual issues and particulars for examination at ANI. You were right; it should be handled through WP:RFCU. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about the "too many individual issues". The main complaint is that Dolovis moves articles from titles with diacritics to titles without diacritics. I have a solution (below). Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I am not the one who is moving articles contrary to policy. I am not the instigator of these moves, but I have undone many moves made without discussion and against the policy of WP:AT; and it appears that Nurmsook, who is a strong and vocal supporter of encouraging the use of diacritics in article titles, may have a COI "difference in perception" with my vocal support in favour of following the established policy of WP:AT and WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the type of conduct I have referred to that pushed me to submit this ANI. Dolovis IS instigating these moves. He appears to forget that every page has an edit history, and a quick check of this history shows that most of these pages he has moved we originally created at their diacritic location. This is not a case of a move "undo". Further, Dolovis' consistent use of the term "Conflict of Interest" towards those who oppose his editing habits is perhaps his most evident disruptive habit. He disagrees with anyone who thinks what he's doing is wrong. I have never once stated that I am pro-diacritics. On the contrary, I have stated multiple times that I don't care if they stay or go. My problem with Dolovis' editing habits is his blatant misunderstanding of policy that has resulted in him moving 103 pages. Frankly, him saying I have a COI and blatantly lying about my position on diacritics is absolute slander. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply not true. A quick check of this history shows that most, if not all, of the page moves I have done/undone were originally created at their English title location. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (although, Nurmsook does have a point about using COI. It's a really minor point though, since you're hardly alone in that misapplication of the policy.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll do the research myself, because I hate being accused of lying or hiding evidence or blurring facts. I don't want to spend my night diving into this, so of Dolovis' page moves since 22 June 2011:

• Pages originally located at diacritics titles: 19 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).
• Page originally located at non-diacritics titles: 0

Just because I have accused you of undoing page moves, doesn't mean you need to say I am lying. Sure, maybe I was wrong to say that most of Dolovis' page moves were originally at diacritics locations, I'll admit that. But for Dolovis to state that all of his page moves were originally at English titles is horribly false. When I get involved in policy debates, I do my research. Trust me, as a grad student, research is my life. The url's of page history are there. Check the evidence and then tell me I'm lying. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Six current example of move/RM abuse I am trying to defend against is found at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj where there is yet another request for multiple moves away from the commonly used English name. Nurmsook makes the argument in support of these moves stating “No established usage means they shouldn't have been moved in the first place”, however, contrary to Nurmsook's assertion, all of the articles were created with English titles. If that statement represents Nurmsook's true position on the issue of diacritics, then he should be supporting my efforts to “undo” these controversial moves away from their established use. Dolovis (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk about misrepresenting the facts! Every single page taht you linked to above was at a page title that didn't use diacritics and was moved without discussion by others to a page title with diacritics. Who's actually being disruptive, here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same edit histories!? Why are you shedding some sort of disruptive light on me when all I'm doing is presenting facts! Some of those pages that I linked were created at diacritic titles, and then moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles. The others were also created at diacritic titles, moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles, then moved back by another user, but then moved back to non-diacritic titles by Dolovis. Each of the 19 articles I linked were created at diacritic titles. Which ones do you think were not and I'll be happy to clarify them for you, diff by diff. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

False.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Your answer makes it pretty clear that you are just refusing to admit that you are wrong, but know you actually are. Let me just take a couple of these and explain the article histories on them so you can see what I mean by all 19 originated at diacritic title. Honestly, edit histories don't lie, so to say I am based on truthfully conveying these histories is bad faith editing. Link #1, Revision history of Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey): Article was created at Tomáš Svoboda 20:50, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 23:00, 23 June 2011. HandsomeFella moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) 04:39, 26 June 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 09:46, 26 June 2011. Link #12, Revision history of Lukas Endal: Article was created at Lukáš Endál 20:34, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal 18:29, 23 June 2011. Both took different routes to get where they are now, but both started out as diacritic titles. Explain to me, now that I have shown you this very clear evidence, how these articles started at non-diacritic titles. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment: Rubbish. The edit histories for those two articles show that both were created by myself on January 3, 2011 using English article titles. Dolovis (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly misunderstanding how edit histories work. They track the movement of all pages. The first page move at these pages was from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title. It's very clear in the edit history that, for instance, the first move of the Lukas Endal page occured on June 23 and that move was Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal. The edit history very clearly identifies that. Because this is the first time the page was moved, we know the page originated at Lukáš Endál. If it, as you claim, originated at Lukas Endal, there would have been a move before June 23 of the page from Lukas Endal to Lukáš Endál. There is no evidence of that in the edit history. How can you claim that the page originated at Lukas Endal when it is evident, per the edit history, that it did not. This is a simple case of you misunderstanding how edit histories work. Any user here can see that the page originated at Lukáš Endál. It is documented in the edit history, and cannot be refuted. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment: while I don't expect much of anything to emerge out of this discussion, I believe Dolovis is going to keep coming to ANI over and over and over again because I find him to be a net drain on the project. Far too much time is spent dealing with his move wars, lazy article creations and general standoffish nature that could otherwise be spent doing something productive. I will also note that while Dolovis seems willing to be a non-diacritic warrior on article titles, he doesn't bother to anglicize the articles themselves. So tell me, if the player's name at the lead of the article is Tomáš Rachůnek, why is the article located at Tomas Rachunek? Dolovis can't even make up his own mind as to whether diacritics should be used or not. And these inconsistencies become little messes that, as is typical, someone else has to deal with. Resolute 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply comment to Resolute: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. For example, the article is titled Paul McCartney, not "Sir James Paul McCartney" as appears first in that article. Dolovis (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move ban for Dolovis

Proposal: Dolovis is banned from moving any article that has a title with diacritics to one that does not have diacritics, and vice versa. He may propose such moves at WP:RM for consensus to be established as to whether or not the page should be moved. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support this measure. I got drawn into the dispute today and can attest that his understanding of WP:UE is definitely a little skewed — and that he simply ignores any consensus that doesn't match his own preferences. Additionally, I can attest that I've had past interactions with him in which he ignored multiple polite requests to change something about his editing habits — so clearly some sort of escalation is necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat, will you please be specific and point me to the consensus that you are referring to. Some editors have been very quick to say that there is a consensus to support their POV, but no one has yet been able to show me the consensus that has changed the policy of WP:AT or WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is not appropriate for mob justice. Follow dispute resolution: Send it to RFCU and Arbcom. --causa sui (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "mob justice"; it's a question of an editor simply not following standard and easily enforceable rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You've described the two ends of the stick. Situations like this need a closer look than a complaint and a summary vote. For example, there may be more editors involved who need their conduct scrutinized as well. Also, it is outrageous that voting has begun before the user to be sanctioned has had a chance to respond here. (I'm aware of his previous comments on ANI). --causa sui (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I may be inclined to support the measure with the caveat that it was a temporary injunction pending the completion of regular dispute resolution channels. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What vote, where? I don't see one. I see a community discussing to reach consensus, yes, but no vote. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problem with it being a temporary measure whilst further avenues are explored. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support this temporary injunction while third party administrators can review the case. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Opposed - In the current environment this is an obvious partisan move, regardless of whether it was intended to be or not. If you want to join the diacritics debate then do so. Attempting to generate sanctions against those with differing opinions than yourself, in the middle of a debate, certainly isn't the best example of collegial behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly not why I launched this ANI. As I have shown in my original post, this boils down to much more than the diacritics issue, something I have tried my best to stay away from, as I am impartial to if they should stay or go. Rather, this is a case of abusing one's ability to move pages. Saying I am lacking in collegial behavior despite an intensive research of Dolovis' editing patterns is rather disappointing. If you are arguing about action in the middle of a debate, perhaps you should be more inclined to support a page move ban. It is, after all, Dolovis who is blatantly moving pages while the debate is ongoing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but perception is reality, you know? Also, I would be supportive of a page move ban if it included the other parties in the debate who have been moving pages in the other direction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Running to AN/I to try and place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate is hardly constructive.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, your bad faith accusation of me is very offensive. I did not "run to ANI" to "place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate". Absolutely not the case. I brought multiple issues to the table in the hope that third party administrators could add their commentary. I don't want to see Dolovis banned. I think he's a great editor, and being an inclusionist, I love the work he does creating articles for people that meet notability standards. What I am opposed to is his often confrontational demeanor and the fact that he has moved 85 pages in the past week. That's not normal. Please refrain from accusing me of whatever you think I might be doing here. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's actually the case, then why not participate in the RM's (even create them, if needed) and in the ongoing discussion on the WP:UE talk page? Instead, you're here picking on one participant in that debate. What about the other participants, who have been moving pages in the other direction? You say that I'm making an bad faith accusation, but you're provided the proof that you're not acting in good faith by singling out the actions of one editor in what is essentially a multi-party content dispute. The cries of neutrality here ring very hollow.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an endless argument with you. For the last time, I did not come here on the specifics of the diacritics issue. I actually have an almost bigger issue with how Dolovis conducts himself on his talk page or when he communicates with other users. Other users have come into this discussion and claimed that the page moves thing was the overriding problem; it's not. If I wanted to out Dolovis from the diacritics debate, I wouldn't have titled this ANI the way I did. As it states, this is an all encompassing account of his disruptive editing patters, not specific to one event. Check my history, check my background. I've been doing this Wikipedia thing for 6 years now. I have never once seen an editor that has been so overwhelmingly disruptive across the board that I decided to take my complaint to ANI. Go ahead an accuse me with whatever you like, but know that it simply is not constructive to this debate, and I know you are acting in bad faith making those accusations. This is Wikipedia, and everyone has the right to be heard when they feel a user as stepped outside the boundaries of what is acceptable editing practices. That is why I brought this here, not because of some silly diacritics dispute that has been ongoing since Wikipedia was first created! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Listing every event that the user has done something wrong is not appropriate, it's as if you're trying to start a lynch mob. Silverseren^C 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I am involved in the diacritics discussion. Silverseren^C 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I feel most of these actions all fall into the category of edit warring. There should clearly be a moratorium on any page moves surrounding diacritics, particularly by Dolovis and Nurmsook, whilst the discussions are pending. As these involve global interpretation, it makes little sense to tackle these page moves on a piecemeal basis; a global solution needs to be found. There are currently RfCs in progress, and Dolovis appears to be executing the page moves in an deliberately pointy and provocative manner. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Ohconfucius: What about undoing a controversial move? How is that pointy? I would think that it would be the first bold move that is provoking, not the editor (me) who is undoing that move. How would an editor invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The sum total of your actions here and elsewhere indicates that you have an active agenda of ensuring diacritics do not impact Wikipedia. Something does not become controversial merely because you or I or any one individual object; it does, however, so become when there are a number of people. Most people running into the sort of opposition you are facing would be right to question their own actions as "controversial". As to your "undoing a controversial move", it seems that it is intimately related to the issue of diacritics use. Two wrongs don't make one right; you are not a Wikipolice officer. WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISRUPT were written to cover what you are doing. You should self-impose a moratorium, not only on page moves whilst the discussion has not been resolved, but also mass creation of stubs of marginal "presumed" and not "actual" notability. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why my name was mentioned as a potential page move banee. I certainly have not been active in moving any diacritics pages. Rather, if I do stray into these discussions, it is only at RM. I simply brought an issue to ANI that has been ongoing for months at WP:HOCKEY, so this would be a clear case of shooting the messenger. I know I opened myself up to scrutiny when I brought this issue here, but the level I have received from users for simply trying to bring an extensive list of disruptive editing patters to light is really discouraging. I think I'll try to stay away from these sorts of discussions in the future. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not that there'd be anything terribly wrong with imposing such a ban on all parties involved in this round-robin fracas until the underlying issue was worked out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose specific ban on Dolovis, because in the two examples specifically called out above, Tomas Svoboda and Lukas Endal, Dolovis originally created the articles with diacritics before moving them to non-diacritic versions, and there was very little substantive editing besides his. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here the user is move-warring on an article created by another user, and using a misleading edit summary as well (more moves here and here). Prolog (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. While Dolovis's actions have clearly been sub-optimal, there must be at least to users involved to have a "move-war". Dolovis is not the only user who has been moving articles while the discussion is ongoing, so my proposal would be to either move ban everyone who has been involved in the move-warring, or move ban no-one. This is analogous to a 3RR report where multiple parties have breached 3RR; either block (in this case ban) all involved, or block (ban) none. It's wrong to just pick on one of the users involved because you think they were incorrect while the others were correct. Disclosure: I have been involved in a number of RMs involving diacritics and have agreed with Dolovis's opinion the majority of the time. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I'm baffled that so many editors oppose a page move ban. It seems that several of them have not informed themselves properly, and believe this is about punishing an editor for having the "wrong" views. It is not. This ANI is not about the use of diacritics – it is about user behavior. And a ban would not last forever. It would serve as a warning, so it would not be the end of the world for Dolovis. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system

While Dolovis still doesn't usually create redirects from the proper names for his stubs, when he does, he has an unusual error rate. With six of the last seven redirects, Dolovis made a "mistake" and created a page history that blocks non-admins from moving his articles (these diffs speak for themselves: [1][2][3][4][5][6]) This is just the newest way the user is gaming the system. And he does this while being the subject two active AN/I threads. Can we finally concentrate on the forest and not the trees? Prolog (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First I'll admit that I was the latest, though maybe not the last, editor that Dolovis got into an edit war with – though I never exceeded 1RR on individual articles – so I'm not squeaky clean. My only defence is that I didn't know of this forum, so I didn't know where to report him, or how else to stop him. My input here could thus be perceived as biased.

But I think this proves Nurmsook's point: Dolovis has a pattern of acting in bad faith, and he is pushing an agenda of ridding wikipedia of diacritics, at least in article titles. In his arguments, he has been misrepresenting guidelines to motivate his page moves and his reverts of others' page moves. (Speaking of reverting page moves, I thought Dolovis was an admin, and until I recently found out that a page move can be reverted as long as there is no edit history on the redirect, which he now has "fixed" by applying the above measures noticed by Prolog.) When you check the guidelines Dolovis refers to, they don't hold water, but it could probably have worked on more easily impressed editors. I think his actions motivate a page move ban and a page creation ban, let's say for a month (at least). But he could still keep editing, though. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention things like using db-author on pages that other people have already edited (in this example a redirect) so that he can move the page to his newly desired location. [7]. He has also db-authored entire pages that weren't redirects in the same manor in the past only to recreate them immediately after deletion at the new location without the diacritics. Clearly we need to look at the amount of various bad faith type editing not just the individual incidents here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis is correct, when he mentions that those articles were (years ago) moved to diacritics style, without the benefit of an RM. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume "RM" means "Requested Move" (forgive my ignorance). Why request a move when you can do it yourself? You don't request edits, do you? If you move in good faith, and in accordance with guidelines and recommendations, that can't be wrong, can it? And does it have anything to do with gaming the system? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence

This is the second time in two weeks that Dolovis has been brought here. A quick summary of the points raised are as follows:

• Creation of poor quality, poorly sourced BLPs and refusal to update and expand said BLPs.
• Engaging in conduct contrary to WP:POINT, especially relating to the use of accents in BLP titles (with possible connexion to the previous point).
• Deliberate misrepresentation of past communication and edit histories.
• Edit warring and acting in bad faith.

This list is by no means exhaustive. It is just the main points from this current thread and this previous thread. In both discussions, various santions have been suggested, and have not found consensus. This failure to find consensus has been misconstrued by Dolovis as giving legitimacy to his actions. (For example, shortly after the BLP discussion fizzled out. Dolovis carried on in the manner that had caused his conduct to be brought to WP:AN/I). However, it is clear that Dolovis's conduct has annoyed many users and has fallen below the standard that we expect on Wikipedia. I do not propose any sanctions against Dolovis. I mealy propose a "motion of no confidence".

By supporting this motion you would be giving a clear sign to Dolovis that his behaviour and conduct fall below the standard that is expected of an experienced and supposedly well meaning editor, and that you expect Dolovis to improve his conduct and to work with the community to further improve the project.

• Support − I forward the motion as outlined above. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What's the point of this? Start a RFC/U, that'd be more productive than this meaningless "motion". --Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  RFC and productive? What is remotely productive about a non-binding process that carries on for a month or two and that the subject of can utterly ignore?--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, but what good is a "motion of no confidence" that has even less meaning? Not only is it non-valid in Wikipedia, it's not even phrased appropriately. If someone thinks this is trouble enough, and RFC hasn't worked, then it's off to ArbCom ... a useless more-heat-than-light motion solves nothing. Dolvis clearly will not change his style (which appears to be what is wanted by some) without forcing it, and a silly motion won't do it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is clear: the lack of consensus for direct sanctions is being interpreted by Dolovis as the community condoning his conduct. Hopefully if he see that this isn't the case then he will change his ways. It's a bit unfair to call it "silly". If you've got a better idea then please, lead the way. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already gave my better idea in my original post ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Frankly, I'm baffled that so many editors oppose the page move ban suggested above. It seems that several of them have not informed themselves properly, and believe this is about punishing an editor for having the "wrong" views. It is not. This ANI is not about the use of diacritics – it is about user behavior. And a ban would not last forever. It would serve as a warning, so it's not the end of the world for Dolovis. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadly it was the same with the last case at AN/I about the BLPs. It was clear that some people had just read the last three posts and then commented. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That's what you get when you bring long, complicated user conduct problems to ANI. RfC has its flaws (a great many of them), but for long-term user conduct problems it's the best we've got except Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I have never brought any issue to AN/I. Both threads were initiated by others. It's the responsibility of people commenting to be fully informed. There is no reason to believe that people would read the thread in any more detail if it were posted elsewhere. The length of the thread is a reflection of the problems left in its wake − big stones make big ripples. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Meaningless proposal. If anyone here wants to advise Dolovis that they disapprove of his contributions they can do that on his talk page. If you want actual injunctive relief, dispute resolution is the way to go. See WP:RFC/U or WP:ARBCOM. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple and straight forward question: do you think Dolovis' behavior – as accounted for above – is ok? That is what the motion (and the page move ban proposal) is about. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely have no opinion. When an RFC/U is filed and the involved parties have each posted their statements I may consider forming one. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You demonstrate that you haven't read the links I gave. I, and many other people, have raised concerns on his talk page. But he refuses to do what is asked. I politely asked him twice to expand his BLPs, and he wouldn't. That's why people brought these two AN/I cases. He's been asked on his talk page, he's been asked on article talk pages, and he's been asked in two AN/Is. This is a text book example of why Wikipedia is broken. People can act like jerks all they want and when someone tries to do something about it, no-one will support them. 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This has zero to do with support. It might seem like you've gone to City Hall and said "there a 40ft wide and 12' deep crater in the middle of Main Street" and they say "we can't do anything unless you fill out form T567P-1b in triplicate, thank you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you "sincerely have no opinion", then why do you oppose? Are you trying do obstruct the ANI process? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You must have read my mind. I was thinking exactly the same. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Such a motion is not within ANI process. It is not binding and has no action called for. I believe causa sui is opposing the filing of the motion but has no opinion with regards to the substance of the motion, however I may just be putting words in their mouth. --Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it should be labeled "comment", and not "oppose". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Beyond this meaningless edit warring over diatrics, Dolovis' accusers believe that he's in the wrong for creating a large number of articles that pass WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. If you believe they're in a sad state, expand them. I can't believe that an argument used against him is that he's been asked kindly to expand articles and didn't feel like it. dimaspivak (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That really touches a nerve. Have you looked at his first 100+ BLPs? They all scraped through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. But NHOCKEY does not mean that they are notable, it means that they are presumably notable, i.e. not certain! In the first AN/I I linked to several BLPs that has been untouched (except for BLPPRODs) for over six weeks. He used a link to the same stat page to wriggle out of the BLPPRODS for multiple articles, i.e. one team's stat page for all of that team's players' BLPs. After being asked by many editors (even people that had previously supported him) to expand them, he refused. His attitude was the thing that has annoyed so many people. If it was due to inexperience or lack of know-how then that would be different. But he knows exactly what he's doing; or more aptly: what he's not doing. When I suggested a merge per Rationale 3 he objected saying that they will be expanded. But hang-on, he refuses to expand them, he has articles over six (now over eight) weeks old that haven't been expanded. Who's going to expand them if the creator can't even be bothered? — Fly by Night (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I looked through a number of them and they're clearly stubs describing professional hockey players in the highest leagues in Europe. If the fact that the pages have little more than player statistics bothers you, go ahead and contribute to them. As far as I see it, Dolovis has no obligation to continually maintain and expand a page just because he created it. On the contrary, I see the benefit of what he does; if I were a fan looking to add information about a player, I'd be much less likely if I had to go through the trouble of creating a new page and adding infoboxes on my own. Merging pages of hockey players is, in my estimation, not in the spirit of Rationale 3 as the players, while part of a team at the time of writing, are often traded and have varying amounts of information available about themselves. As such, simply merging them would mean an unnecessary amount of maintenance of redirects and long articles when the alternative is just to have stubs. As an outside observer, I also wonder why you and a number of others take it personally that an editor creates a lot of pages that are light on details. Sure, I'd love if every article contained as much information as that found in the typical NHL players', but who is being harmed here?dimaspivak (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

Everyone is encouraged to take a break from this discussion, and come back with a fresh new attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand) is under community imposed restrictions here. However, it appears he is habitually violating those restrictions. Specifically, this one: Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time. Most recently, today, in the series of edits beginning: 2011-06-27 11:32-11:22 Previously: 2011-06-20 16:42-16:29 (where he went up to 51 edits in a ten minute period, and was warned here Before that: 2011-05-30T10:12:53Z, for which he was blocked for one week. And: 2011-05-18T11:25:23Z (where he went up to 95 edits in a ten minute period) And: 2011-05-18T08:52:24Z (up to 115 edits in a ten minute period) And: 2011-05-12T13:54:17 and so on and on (looks like at least daily sometime multiple times a day). Some of these seem to be in support of massive revert wars. At this point he seems to be ignoring warnings, or his friends are removing the warnings altogether. Either these sanctions should be removed or actually enforced. 64.217.182.58 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC) To wit, he has been blocked for the ones in May. The two in June, I'm counting 46 and 43, which yes, are technical, but he's clearly limiting himself. (though I did warn him on the first one in June). I'm not saying either way if these need blocking but will comment on that the intent to limit is clearly there but he needs to fine tune whatever system he has better. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC) That's not entirely true. As I clarified with the blocking admin in May, contrary to the assertions of some, he was unaware of that day Delta spent basically violating his editing restrictions non-stop (he thought it had been just the once that day), and it was not considered in his warning or block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 64.217, you appear to be unconnected with Delta. Could you explain how you come to make this post here today? Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC) FYI: There's an ongoing debate over Delta occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.CE.94_reported_by_User:Nightscream_.28Result:_No_Violation_Not_resolved.29 — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC) A few minutes after you posted that, it was closed as no violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Propose lifting of Δ sanctions As far as I can see, the edit count sanctions aren't serving much purpose except to give people a club to beat him over the head with and making a lot of work for people trying to micromanage someone else. Making lots of edits isn't in and of itself a sanctionable behavior for normal editors and while I know he has a background, I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing in particular. It's time to let this go and let the hounding end. If he engages in truly disruptive behavior then just reinstitute the full ban and leave it at that. This half-measures stuff is causing more trouble than it's worth and the ones complaining about him based on technical evidence seems more disruptive to me than Δ himself does. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support - as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support - I do believe these sanctions are quite over the top. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Premature - Beta's behavior remains highly controversial. There is a difference between "not doing anything actionably wrong right now" and "has earned back community trust to the point sanctions should be removed". The sanctions were designed to be preventive and arguably remain so, though his bending the limits a bit seems acceptably harmless. My opinion - wet minnow for Beta for latest spree, but nothing more, and sanctions remain in place for the time being. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support - shit or get off the pot. Everyone makes mistakes, and the mistakes (from what I've seen) that Delta has been making have been largely minor. Remove the sanctions, give him enough rope to hang himself, and make it clear that anything approaching prior-to-restrictions levels of disruption will be met with his final block and/or ArbCom involvement (which frankly amounts to the same thing). The important point, of course, is that if the sanctions are lifted and he is told that it is his last chance it has to be his last chance. → ROUX ₪ 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) What # last chance would we be on now, if granted? Tarc (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support - I haven't seen him doing anything contentious so Im ok with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support Partial Removal specifically his rate limit. The editing rate one is easily gamed (again, 46 and 43 edits in ten minutes is a technical violation, but obviously it is a limited rate) by Delta's opponents, and isn't helping. That said, I think there is still value to both the civility restriction (as I don't think this is 100% resolved) and that if he is going to be doing a large scale task like these NFCC edits, he should still seek approval at VPR, and that he shouldn't be using a bot to do it. I'm not disagreeing that Delta's trying here, but I think these other three are still necessary simply to keep those that would like to see Delta gone from complaining too much about this. Removing the rate one while leaving the others in place means that if Delta engages a large scale task with rapid fire editing without seeking approval first, that's still a problem the community believes should be dealt with. But once that task is approved, the rapid fire nature isn't the issue, its how he responds, and that's being worked on. (Arguably I would love to see them all removed, but I'm realistic and know there are people that will not let this happen yet) --MASEM (t) 17:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 46 and 43 are technically violations, and an NFCC page with a broken rationale after a page move is technically a violation too.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support - The Wikipedia could always use more lulz; let Beta run unfettered, we'll be back here soon enough. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support - seems to be fine now. GiantSnowman 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support removal of the editing rate limit (#3 at restrictions), and that alone at this time. The edit rate limit is not producing any benefit to any party, except as noted by nom as a tool with which to bludgeon. So long as #1 remains in effect and is observed, there should be no concern about the size of a set of edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support Beta does more useful work than half the denizens of this dramaboard put together (including me). Masem makes good points. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) - Lets not mince words here. There are a lot of people that want to see Delta get banned. Those people are going to watch him sanctions or not. Therefore, I say we remove the edits per minute sanction so that we only get dragged back to AN/I when Delta does something that's actually harmful, as opposed to now, where people bring him to task for violating the letter of the law, willfully ignoring that he hasn't violated the spirit of it, his mass edits are not controversial, they're routine cleanup. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - no one wants to see delta banned, he is more than capable of doing that without any assistance or independent desire. As I prefer to see him contribute I don't support removal of the conditions that at least hold him in check. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Quite the contrary. There are several editors that would like to see him permanently kicked off the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC) If you don't think that there are editors that are actively trying to get Delta banned, you haven't been reading this page at all for the past month and a half. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Editors, of course, that would do nothing to replace the valuable work that Beta does. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting of all restrictions. One can also think of suspending all the restrictions for a a few weeks, say until September 1. Then we can come back here on that date and see if the restrictions can be lifted permanently, or if (some of them) should be re-instated or if we should let the suspension stand until a few more weeks (e.g. if here are some minor issues and we want to see if his behavior improves or gets worse without restrictions). Count Iblis (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support at least the edits-per-minute sanction, if not all of them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support The community as a whole needs to learn how to forgive and forget. The guy's editing quickly, is he editing in violation of any actual policy? If he were, say, using an unregistered bot and violating such a "speed limit" then we might have something to worry about. I don't see any evidence of such. Let him go and get rid of these pointless restrictions that serve no purpose besides providing ammunition for an editor's detractors. N419BH 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC) comment - the idea that users want to get a user blocked is back to front - the issue is the actions of the contributor not the response. Delta's communication is minimal and his editing is creating multiple disputes and disruptions and reports.Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, Beta's edits pretty much always have very informative edit summaries and when a user actually says "Oy! Why did you do that?", he does explain it. If users want to go on and edit war over some NFCC violation after that, they don't actually deserve further communication (apart from a 3RR warning). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC) User:Delta was blocked for a week thirty days ago for violating these very conditions, that is imo a good reason not to remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Comment - I'd support the removal of time based restrictions on edits as long as the requirement to clearly communicate when edits are challenged is imposed instead. Delta does great and necessary work, but still seems to edit war too often over things that he could easily fix himself, or at least explain clearly instead of just linking to a policy page and saying that the problem with the edit is somewhere in there. Find it. --Onorem♠Dil 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Comment: removing the rate limit entirely risks Delta getting himself into trouble again in the future. Lifting it altogether may be simple, but it would probably be better to lift it for well-defined pre-approved tasks (where the community's agreed in advance that a mass editing task, discussed at an appropriate venue, is in principle OK). That is, lift the rate for tasks which satisfy item 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions. See how that goes for a while before considering further action. Rd232 public talk 18:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Per my comment above, I could see a modification to "large scale task" restriction to go along with lifting the rate editing ban, only to assert that if Delta's doing a rapid-fire task (and for purposes of being explicit, lets say that's more than 4 edits a minute), he better get VPR acceptance to do that. This still captures the intent of the community restrictions but doesn't prevent the rate from getting in the way when he's been given the OK to go ahead. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Unless you are, in fact, Delta's mother, the "risks Delta getting himself into trouble again in the future" argument is not one you can make. Aside from the fact that he is already ignoring the throttle restriction, you can make the argument that he could damage the project. Acting in what you proceve to be his own good, however, is inappropriate. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Ah, you've got me, I am in fact Delta's mother! :) Jokes aside, any trouble would obviously be bad both for Delta and for the community. Rd232 public talk 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. These restrictions were put in place for a reason and after many last chances, last last chances and last last last chances for Beta/Delta, and were pretty much the only reason he wasn't banned from the project altogether, if I remember correctly. It'd be awesome if things could work out without any restrictions at all, but I still see the same old attitude from Beta, and foresee loads of drama if we lift this restriction. That there's some guys out there who are now after him is quite unfortunate for many reasons, but we should instead focus on stopping those people while keeping the restrictions intact. Two wrongs don't make a right. --Conti|✉ 19:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Comment - is this an administrator only discussion? Perhaps it should be held with more input across the community in whose name sanctions were imposed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC) The ballot stuffing has already occurred above, so it's kinda pointless to try and stand in the way of the freight train at this point. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC) It's not an administrator only discussion, and a good number of people who have commented already are not administrators. Block/ban/topic ban lifting discussions tend to take place here because there is less drama that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Less drama on ANI? Compared to what, Tahrir Square? NW (Talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC) That's similar to what I was thinking, as well. If there is anywhere on Wikipedia with more drama than there is here, I don't know where that is. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) This sort of discussion should normally be at WP:AN; the proximate incident seems to be water under the bridge. Perhaps someone could move it. Rd232 public talk 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Whoops! I thought this was at AN, and was saying that AN has less drama than AN/I. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, this really should be at AN rather than AN/I. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC) That's what I was thinking was going on. Don't worry about it, we've all done similar things. :) — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (Edit Conflict) To answer Graeme, no - any editor may comment, support, oppose etc, not just admins. This page is heavily watched by admins and normal editors alike so is probably a reasonable choice to have this here. Ohms, if you've got evidence to back up that bad faith accusation, please detail it in a new section. Exxolon (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) What "bad faith accusation"? There's no "faith" needed, the evidence is right here... No assumptions necessary, just observation. This is a common pattern for AN/I as well, so my stating the obvious shouldn't be a surprise at all. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Ballot stuffing has a very specific definition - "Ballot stuffing is the illegal act of one person submitting multiple ballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person is permitted." - I can't see any evidence of this. If you are suggesting something else such as a violation of WP:CANVASS, again please submit evidence in a new section. Otherwise this looks like a blanket attack on editors who have expressed their opinion in good faith. Exxolon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I used a bit of hyperbole to express my view, so sue me. Are you asserting that my opinion is somehow "wrong"? You may disagree, but this is the way that I see things, and I refuse to be hounded into changing my opinions. As a matter of fact, I see what you're trying to do here as an attempt to turn this into something personal about me. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Really? I read it as a bit of snide sarcasm. Blanket attacks on editors are common around here, especially with AN/I, and the controversy over userboxes like atheism and catholicism if I remember correctly. {{ec}} But this digression is not really germane to the proposal at hand. I suggest we drop it before more healings get hurt. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I think Ohms is trying say that the voting already started and there's anyone could do to reverse the voting. However, I do think that using the phrase "ballot stuffing" is over-the-top because as of this moment, I haven't seen anyone trying to vote twice (thru socking or alternate accounts) on this matter. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I count at least 8 non-admins who have paricipated here. –MuZemike 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I'm a non-admin, and my voice is just as important as anyone else's here. GiantSnowman 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Admins are folks trusted with extra tools to perform certain tasks, not anointed of anything else such as exclusivity on making comments / comments of value. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I understand that, but it seemed that, from some of the commentary here, that it is being suggested that the thread is being dominated by admins, which is not happening in the slightest. That was why I made the above comment. –MuZemike 00:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I see no signs of a change in behavior. Delta's continued failure to comply with community expectations shoul not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I've had to block Beta over this recently, and someone else had to block him after that. The fact that he continues violating the restriction speaks in favor of strengthening the restrictions, not removing them. History shows that the restriction is justified and necessary. What we need now is more admins with the technical ability to check the edit rate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Could you please demonstrate what purpose the edit throttle restriction serves that is not served by #1 of his restrictions? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) The limit is meant to be more objective than #2, which is harder to verify except in cases of extreme negligence (which had happened, however, leading to the inclusion of #2). Moreover, it is very hard to see how he could be "manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made" at the rate of more than 4 edits per minute on an extended basis. But a second point of the limit is to give other people the ability to review his edits. Before the restriction, he would often run BetacommandBot at extremely fast rates (many articles per second for extended periods), leading to de facto changes, because nobody could review or reverse the edits as fast as he could make them. The reason that people need to be able to review the edits is needed is that Beta has a long record of problematic editing, and of poor communication about his editing. So a key goal of #3 is to give other people time to review his edits (for example, by commenting when they see changes on their watchlist). It's very similar to the reason we have 3RR instead of just WP:EW. If someone breaks 3RR, we know they are already breaking EW, but 3RR is objective. Similarly, if Beta violates #3, he is already violating #2, but #3 is more objective. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to respond. If #1 is adhered to, that any large scale edits get reviewed before he conducts them, then isn't the edit throttle superfluous? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC) #1 is not so helpful for things like Beta's current "remove nonfree images" task, because the criteria for the task are so nebulous. If there is an objective criterion for deciding which of these images to remove, someone else could do it with a bot, and Beta doesn't need to do it at all. If there is no automatic criterion, and Beta has to read each page separately to figure out whether to remove the images, then how can he expect to do more than 4 per minute while manually and carefully reviewing each page? #1 is intended for tasks where there is an objective criterion, but only Beta thinks it is a good idea to do the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) How is it nebulous? It's a simple question; is there a rationale for the article in question present on the image description page? It's a pretty simple yes/no question. If you wish to propose a bot, that would be great. He can't run one, and there isn't one, so he does the work that many of us do (myself included; >150 of them this month alone). He's created a tool to verify whether non-free images have an appropriate rationale for the page they are on, and myself and many others use that tool (example report). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Beta has interpreted seemingly obvious tasks in very creative ways before, claiming he had all the rights to do this or that because of some previously approved task. That's what the current restriction tries to prevent. --Conti|✉ Can you identify any times in the last year that this has happened? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Considering the restrictions that stop Beta from doing this are more than a year old, that's a rather silly thing to ask. :) --Conti|✉ 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC) My point is that if the behavior has changed such that it isn't a problem anymore, the remedy provides nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) And my point is that, in my opinion, the behavior has not changed, and if the restriction is lifted, problems will arise again soon enough. --Conti|✉ 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC) If you can't show he's done it in the last year, it's a rather hard case to make that it will happen again. If you say that the sanctions prevent it from happening, then you doom him to sanctions in perpetuity with no hope of removal. So, can you identify any times in the last year that this has happened? --11:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting restriction #3, because anything that would permit administrators to easily block users based on counting his or her edits is absolutely pointless and serves neither to improve the user nor the encyclopedia. Leave the other restrictions in place for now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC) It isn't pointless. I suggest you go read the pages and pages of discussion that came before these restrictions to understand why they're in place. The community doesn't just lay these kinds of restrictions on someone for giggles. They exist because there were serious problems created when Delta used automated tools and edited quickly.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose lifting and support enforcement. I believe that Delta has good intentions, but that fact that he can't even manage to obey explicit sanctions - and is continuing to get into edit wars over images he removes - does not bode well for his ability to behave himself if turned loose. He's received last chance after last chance, and these sanctions were settled on as the only way to let him back into the community without all hell breaking loose. Well, bits and pieces of hell keep breaking loose even with the restrictions in place; it strikes me as institutional masochism to remove them and cheerfully wave him back to his old ways. What needs to happen is enforcement of his current sanctions, until such time as he is able to obey them under his own power. Then, perhaps, we can consider removing them, with the knowledge that he realizes the benefit of controlling his rate; removing them when he's hardly even trying to obey them is only rewarding noncompliance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin, but if I was, I would oppose this if I was. Delta wrongfully believes that being right entitles him to be incivil and edit war. It doesn't. Delta needs more sanctions, and better enforced ones, not less ones Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC) The admins' noticeboards are used to ask for help from administrators, but any editor is free to comment. That includes the support or opposition of measures seeking community involvement. -- Atama頭 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Then to clarify, oppose, enforce current restrictions, and add additional restrictions Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support removing all restrictions. If a block is issued simply on the basis of an editor "editing too fast" and without reviewing the contents of those edits, then I say the restriction is far too strict. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I know your accounts been here long enough to have been around during the old betacommand discussions. Did you participate in those? There is a reason he's not allowed to make automated edits, and that he's supposed to edit slowly and carefully. Because he was frequently causing issues with his edits. Is there any evidence that that won't continue?--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting the edit count restriction because it is obviously ridiculous. No opinion on the other restrictions. Reyk YO! 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting the edit count restriction - in my opinion, the people that keep bringing him here over violating it are being more disruptive with their efforts to get him removed from the project than he is. Indifferent to the other restrictions, but it may be best to maintain them. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support It is probably time to stop arguing about the propriety of slapping Δ's wrists when he "technically" violates limitations placed by the community to try and limit the damage he was doing to the collegiate and consensual editing environment by his attitude, and see if he cannot manage to contribute without violating (technically, of course) any of the projects policies, guidelines and practices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support Seems like the right time. MBisanz talk 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) What time would that be? He had 3 blocks stand last month for his behaviour, and continues to violate them. His restrictions exist for a reason.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Instead of removing them because we're tired of hearing about them, why don't we just enforce them like they're meant to be? It's nice that Delta has recently tried to improve his edit summary. But how many years has this taken? As my final statement in the last discussion, I asked him to please kick disputed NFCC issues off to the noticeboard to let others deal with, but what do we see going on at 3RR right now? Another dispute over him edit warring over a technically right, but oh so obvious error (page move breaking a rationale), and not taking the time to help someone who didn't spot the error, and instead just hammering the revert button. To me these kinds of edits violate his editing restrictions. He is supposed to thoroughly review his edit before making it, and if someone is reviewing their edits to make sure they benefit the project, he should be realizing that causing this kind of unnecessary drama and disruption does not help things. In the time he spent reverting he easily could have told the person that the page move broke the rationale, or updated it himself as the image was obviously appropriate before it remains appropriate after the move. There is no ambiguity of "I have no idea what the intended use of this image is" or any other excuse for not working with people.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC) support partial removal (the edit limit, at least). Protonk (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting all the sanctions. Prodego talk 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Question Has Delta/Beta requested the lifting of this restriction anywhere? ... I only ask because ... well, he's able to, and usually that's what I see in these types of situations. Just wondering. I think it gets a little "iffy" when too many folks start speaking for someone else. I've noticed that Delta has been MUCH more communicative on his talk page with folks. I'd kinda like his view on it all. — Ched :  ?  00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Answer, Ive made several back channel inquires over the last year and a half, about different restrictions and options regarding them to multiple people over the course to see about appealing the restrictions, and until this last month or so, the complaints Ive made about harassment and personal attacks where ignored. As long as those issues persisted I knew my chances of a successful request where slim. Most of the situations that people bring up are at least three years old. Hell Ive got half a dozen functioning bots that I could have operating including a functioning webcite/archive.org bot, however the harassment and hoops I have to jump through to get any one task at least proposed under my sanctions just isnt worth the headache, so the wiki just goes without. I have also noticed that my not saying stuff I can actually say more. (I know that sounds weird, but it does work out) Because a lot of the time regardless of what I say people will not listen, however if someone else repeats what I am saying they tend to listen. As for my communication issues Iv asked repeatedly for guidance/suggestions and have been told (until recently) that you need to improve what your saying, I ask for specifics and was ignored. How am I supposed to improve the messages/how I tell users of issues if no one is willing to help come up with a better solution? This reminds me of a sound bite that went viral a few years ago </me searches email records> of a major city in the US and a comment made by their mayor at the time Frank Jackson. ΔT The only constant 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I would suggest using the model of other editor actions as a guide to improving your own communication skills. How are they doing it? When other editors find the need to step in on your own talk page to erxplain an issue to an editor questioning your removal, what approach do they take? Is it successful? The motif I pick up from your talk page is that you just keep saying things like "there's no FUR" followed by "there's no FUR" - then someone else steps in and says "the article was moved, I've updated the FUR link". Why are you forcing that work onto someone else, when you could have easily checked the move log or just even said "there is a FUR for a similar article name but it's not the exact right one, maybe you should look at that"? Many of these issues seem eminently simple to explain or resolve, yet apparently you decline to make that small effort. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose (with caveat). Beta using automated means (whether bots, tools, or fast cut-and-paste fingers) to edit war across multiple pages on image deletion matters is a recipe for trouble. Yes, we'll be back here if the sanctions continue. And yes, we'll be back here if they don't. I'm not in favor of giving him a rope to hang himself right now. He's a capable and enthusiastic fixer of things so why not put that to the best use? Sometimes he's right on policy, a stuck stopwatch is right four times a minute...sometimes he's wrong, and sometimes he's in between. He has a knack for doing things at the edge of policy where some editors feel strongly one way, and some feel the other. And whether he's right or wrong, there have been persistent problems with civility, collaborating with others, sneaking around with hidden bots, and mistakes get amplified when there are civility, accessibility, and unattended bots. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Noting Baseball Bugs' comment below, this shouldn't be a life sentence. If we find a good working relationship, Beta is always welcome here. I haven't closely followed any recent developments so please discount my opinion accordingly. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. He needs to do this at a rate we can keep up with, especially when he's pulling images that lost the connection in the FUR because of a page move. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support These restrictions are quite ridiculous. It's about time all sanctions were lifted. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting the edit rate restriction, the edits that people want to base the sanction enforcement on are totally proper edits but for the sanction, not at all the type of thing the sanction is meant to prevent. No opinion on the other ones. Monty845 02:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Comments - I like the fact that he's a lot more willing to communicate - especially if we don't treat him like a jerk (which I also admit to doing at times). I also have some reservations. Perhaps there could have a "trial period" of lifted sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting the edit rate restriction. I for one, want to know just how many edits Δ can achieve in a 10 minute period. I suggest at least a week of warm ups, and then a minimum of 3 sustained runs for a solid average. Possibly the developers should be consulted to ensure there is no possibility of damage to the servers.50.94.116.132 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) We need to contact Guinness World Records for official monitors so that any record set will be officially recognized. Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Back in the day, I had BCBot hit 1.38 edits per second, for over an hour. I think thats a record that cannot ever be beaten. ΔT The only constant 02:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Uhh yeah, there lies the rub. Exactly how fsat are you planning to edit should thie specific restriction be lifted? If you're contemplating anything more than once every 15 seconds, doesn't that become a bot task? Franamax (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose lifting any of the restrictions. Delta could have been blocked this morning, and said block would likely have been lengthy. The reward for ignoring restrictions should not be the removal of the restrictions. Follow them for a while, prove they're no longer necessary, then let's have this conversation. Not less than 24 hours after a blockable violation of them was committed. Courcelles 03:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. A good communicator would have approached the Nightscream/Breen incident of just a day ago, totally differently. 180 degrees differently. And if that's not enough, he showed his true current form just a week ago, when you could observe barely a beam of light inbetween his 4 rapid restorations of that personal attack on me, much less an effort at communication. Sure he threw me a template, but that was merely a necessary step in the WP:GAME he was playing. I seriously hope that's not what people are ascribing as good in the above treatises. If anything, for his ongoing post-ban bad behaviour both caught and not, he should already be on a strict 1RR, if not gone completely for good this time. It's alarming to see how that excuse 'technically' is yet again rearing its head over how he still behaves toward others. We've been down that road before. It. Does. Not. Work. MickMacNee (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Courcelles. Hobit (talk) 12:43 am, Today (UTC−4) Oppose The edit rate limit is not there as some arbitrary gotcha, it has sound underlying reasons. One reason is Beta's focus on making edits as fast as possible, perhaps as an end in itself. I recall reading an off-site paper by Beta vaunting their skill at multi-threading edit commits to achieve maximum possible speed (though I would have to ask Beta to dig that one up). Another is that Beta does indeed occasionally make mistakes, and does also repeatedly revert to their preferred version with minimal discussion. Which gets to the main reason, Beta is minimally communicative at the best of times. Simple inspection of their talk page shows numerous recent instances where an editor has questioned their edit: Beta keeps saying there is something wrong, then another editor (often Masem) steps in and notes that an article was moved and the problem has been fixed. The communication problem apparently cannot be fixed on the "supply side", and allowing Beta to run at full(er than full) speed is just going to overwhelm his interlocutors. Additionally, Beta can easily avoid these sort of "gotcha" moments when it comes to the rate restriction: just consider it as a "3 per min per 10 min" instead of a 4 and they will never exceed the limit. Or, given the advertised coding skills and the fact that AWB seems to be open-sourced, code in a module that will guarantee 3.9998 edits per minute. Just because someone insists on testing theit community-set limits is no reason to lift them. Franamax (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Alternatively implement the recently proposed 1RR restriction on NFCC edits and only then let Beta edit as fast as possible. In which case, probably 0RR would be better as they could run through the work list in a few days, then everyone could get down to the discussable cases instead of this death by 4epm. Franamax (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Betacommand constantly violates the sanctions and restrictions he's under and you want to reward him? What's wrong with you? He should be community banned, not being given an attaboy for violating (yet again) the sanctions he's been put under. That guy has a rap sheet incredibly long for someone who hasn't been indeffed yet and has not substantially changed any of his behaviour that led to him gaining such a rap sheet. His 'good work' can easily be done by other people and in a less obnoxious manner. Jtrainor (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Right, until User:Δbot ultimately breaks down again, leaving WP:SPI botless. But then again, nobody came forward to volunteer to run any bots, despite multiple requests to do so; moreover, nobody comes forward to help address any problems with SPI in general aside from launch complaints at it without any possible ways to move forward. –MuZemike 07:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Meh, in my opinion the uniquely Wikipedian sport of suck-hunting, and the WP:SPI process in particular, is a toxic drain on community resources that breeds paranoia, siege mentality, and hostility (often undeserved or higly specious) towards new users. The project would be better off binning it entirely. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC) OK, then you folks deal with the vandals and disruptive editors, without any help whatsoever. See how long you last without going nuts. –MuZemike 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Or maybe I haven't indulged in enough Wiki-Dianetics yet to think that everything is fine and dandy in wiki-la-la-land. –MuZemike 07:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Support Delta does amazing work here that is, frankly, a very important, misunderstood and unappreciated aspect of Wikipedia. I don't think another editor is under as much scrutiny as he is, and if other editors were, you'd likely find a lot of policy violations in their edit histories too - I'm not saying this excuses his behaviour in the past, just pointing out the whole glass houses thing. I believe that if we viewed his entire edit history and judged it in its negative or positive contribution to Wikipedia, it would come out very positive indeed. Noformation Talk 07:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting or loosening edit speed restrictions The edit count restrictions are absolutely pointless and should be removed or loosened. No opinion on the other restrictions. --SilentBlues | Talk 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting - This edit restriction is totally superfluous. Apparently Delta is allowed to make no errors at 39 edits per 10 minutes, but not at 41 edits per 10 minutes. This sanction should be lifted, as it just totally, utterly, completely does not serve any purpose, except for editors to use as a stick to hound ∆ - there are no significant, unambiguous errors found (in any case at a higher rate than any other editor would make), so the only reason ∆ gets hounded is because he sometimes makes too many edits in short period of time as defined in this edit restriction. And that after 25k+ edits and 1 year. Keeping this in place is just pathetic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC) As stated above, the reason for a specific rate restriction is to serve as a bright line, much as we tolerate the odd bit of back-and-forth reverting as a matter of course but consider 3RR to be a line not to be overstepped. The reason for that bright line is an epic history of questionable automated editing. And one edit per 15 seconds, sustained over any length of time, is an extremely rapid rate indeed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, 1 edit per 15 seconds is pretty fast, and Delta does not make significant errors at that speed, which he often gets close to (seen two cases which just pass that limit). That does show that even at that 'extremely rapid rate'-limit is superfluous - if Delta does not make mistakes at 1 edit per 15 seconds, then 1 edit per 10 seconds, or 1 edit per 5 seconds is not going to make thát difference. And if it does become a problem, at least editors have a reason to complain, in stead of complaining that 43 edits is a technical violation. Lift this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC) You've been here long enough to know why these edit restrictions exist. He gets hounded because he doesn't act within the guidelines the community laid out for his return. The fact that he continually violates them, for whatever reason it is, shows he is not editing with the care expected of him.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Crossmr, I am not saying that Delta should be violating the restrictions that are there, he should respect them. What I say is that this restriction is totally superfluous - are you keeping the restriction so that Delta can show that he can keep a restriction, or are you keeping a restriction because you expect Delta to make mistakes when that restriction would not be in place? From your answer, clearly the former. This restriction is nothing more than saying to a little kid: 'look, sit here at the table. I will put a lot of nice candies here, just in front of you, but be aware, every time I see you eat one, I will whack you with a trout' - And that is just what I said it was, pathetic. Restrictions are supposed to prevent a problem, not to punish - and that is at this time exactly what it does, punish. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The reason the restriction is in place is not because if he went slightly faster he might make more errors (compare to the road death fatalities at 40mph compared to 30mph) but because the community as a whole has decided that it can't trust him to make any use of automation at all, and that short of having a warden looking over his shoulder the only way we can ensure that doesn't happen is to draw a bright line over which we consider his edits too rapid to have been made fully by his own hand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, I know, Chris. I know that restriction was put in place because 'the community as a whole has decided that it can't trust him to make any use of automation at all' - So the point that editors should be making is 'I don't think we can trust Delta with going faster than this', not 'Delta passes the limit too often, he disrespects the community'. So the question stays, Chris: "are you keeping the restriction so that Delta can show that he can keep himself to a restriction, or are you keeping a restriction because you expect Delta to make mistakes when that restriction would not be in place?" - Do you trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per 15 seconds, do you trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per 60 seconds, do you trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per second? If the answer is 'no' (though the number of mistakes is really low), you should not trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per 60 seconds, or even, you should not trust Delta to edit at all - hence, this speed restriction is superfluous. If your answer is 'yes', then this edit restriction is certainly superfluous. I support lifting the sanction, I do trust Delta to edit at a much higher speed, and if I am proven wrong, we do have Special:Block for a reason. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC) It's not about "mistakes". It's not even about trying to correct him, really. It is about preventing him from making automated edits, a restriction imposed on him a long time ago which he has repeatedly flouted. We cannot directly observe him making automated edits: we can only observe his edits themselves and make inferences from them. And the community has decided that one obvious sign of the restriction being flouted again is editing at a sustained rapid pace that would not be plausible if all the edits were manual. If you let a man out on parole with an anklet which signals the police if he moves out of a given ten-block radius, it is not because the eleventh block is somehow crucial: it is that the only way to be sure that he is not trying to escape is to set a bright line on how far he can travel. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Does not make much of a difference, Thumperward, it is exactly what I said, you do not trust Delta to edit faster: you do not want Delta to edit at a higher speed because these edits may be automated, and you do not trust Delta to make automated edits. Well, let me then again rephrase - I think that we can trust Delta now to make edits at a higher speed, even if some/all of those would be automated. If that person shows for a year that he is save in that ten-block radius (even if he sometimes helps an old lady to the eleventh block .. something that that person would certainly be told off for at the very least), and does 25,000 steps without making the mistakes for which the parole was in place, then you still think that that ten-block restriction should be there. I would argue, keep the anklet so we know where he is, but at the very least, give him the freedom to go further (state lines? Country borders? Whereever?), and see if he is worth the trust. If proven not - put him in jail for a month, and make it a 5 block radius after that .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Warden (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support after consideration mostly per Dirk. And thank you Delta for taking the time to respond so directly, and extensively to my question. For me the bottom line is the "net positive". The NFCC stuff is surely important, else the WMF would not have bothered with it's declaration. All due respect to those on the "oppose" side, and I truly understand all the hard feelings, anger, and disappointment over all the past issues. TBH... I wouldn't have bothered drafting WP:FIXNF (at User:28bytes suggestion) if I didn't believe in the NFC efforts. I can easily imagine Delta sitting in front of a computer scratching his head wondering "what part of the freakin policy don't you people understand?". I think he's done an amazing job at trying to communicate the issues, answer the questions, and remain calm in the face of some very rough badgering over the entire ordeal. At times, even by admins. who continue to poke and hound long after an issue has been answered. The phrase "Asked and answered counselor, please move on" comes to mind for some reason ... but I'm now drifting into tl;dr territory. — Ched :  ?  10:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The Foundation think the resolution is important yes. Our internal take on it via the NFCC, not so much, not when you compare their complete indifference to how they continually intervene and advise on it (i.e. never), compared to something like BLP. The irony is, to take the Nightscream incident as a perfect example of what you presumably think is good communication, at no point was that image in violation of the resolution, and certainly at no point was it in any way a 'copyright violation', as some people still like to erroneously claim. And at no point did Delta give a straight answer to a straight question on that issue, preferring to paint the enquirer as a moron or worse. You want to talk respect for policy, well which policy calls that good conduct? As always, where Delta's outlook is concerned, there is apparently only one policy here at all. This is not behaviour that needs to be unleashed at bot like speeds. This is not behaviour that should be happening at all, but it does, because people are easily confused & befuddled when confronted by the NFCC enforcers who very much like to be seen as Foundation spokespeople, when they aren't. I'm not talking about the n00b uploaders here, but established editors involved in debates like this. WP:FIXNF is actually a serious retrograde step in that regard, as more muddying of the waters between what certain editors want the Resolution to say and want the NFCC to be viewed, compared to what it actually says & how it is actually viewed, by the whole community, because like it or not, the NFCC is an en.wiki document open to consensus checks & balances like anything else. It is not, and never has been, a Foundation edict. MickMacNee (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Infact I am disturbed in the extreme to see you talking as if Delta's work is somehow related to any legal issue, or that he has some specific legal competence to offer the site in that regard. The Foundation counsel no less has confirmed many times that our lame ass disputes over NFCC have nothing whatsoever to do with any legal liability issues. This kind of loose talk needs to be stamped on, hard, just like the "copyright violation" nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)1 I'm sorry you feel such disdain for my efforts here Mick. All I can say is that my honest intent was to try to improve the NFC situation with the "fixnf" essay. I apologize if it is a "step backward". I understand your point, and I am equally aware that the WMF doesn't spend much time stepping in and attempting to clarify things on a daily "thread to thread" basis here. I do my very best to read, research, and draw the best conclusions I can. Apologies if I'm not up to your standards. — Ched :  ?  12:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The WMF do not step in on anything to do with the NFCC, ever, period. That was my point. And my standards are not high at all, I just expect people not to perpetuate certain NFCC myths as fact, particularly after they've been pointed out as such by the people who are experienced observers of this area. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I am not sure I understand - we have a whole set of policies here, why do you consider that pages do not have to comply with the NFC policies, but do have to with all the other policies? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I'll asnwer as soon as you show where I said any such thing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Well, the image Delta removed in the Nightscream-Delta case did not comply with the resolution (it did not have applicable rationale - it was broken), nor with the NFC policy ("The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item .." - as said, it was broken). So what Delta did, was remove an image which did not comply with NFC (yes, there would be another solution, actually, there are more than one). And the reason for removal was clearly stated in the edit summary ("one or more files removed due to missing rationale"). But you seem here to be opposed that Delta is bringing the article in line with policy using one of the methods. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Circular logic is circular. You do not show non-compliance with the resolution by showing non-compliance with the NFCC, not least when to do so you need to distort its own meaning so blatantly - the rationale was most certainly not "missing", and it did have the name of the article on it, it just did not link directly to the page, which as you point out, is a mere recommendation. There are a hundred better ways this technical anomaly can be handled in terms of acheiving 'compliance' when found, 99.999% of which do not result in the Gordian knots you claim they do. In anyone's book, if they are truly interested in all the goals & principles of this project, Delta's approach to this issue is at the bottom of the pile. The very bottom. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC) No, there was no reference to the article, it had a reference to a disambiguation page. Sure, it was easy to fix, but the rationale did not have the name of each article in it. As I said 'The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Well I'm assuming you just glossed over the part where I said technical anomoly them. This kind of intentional myopia is not and never will be part of the actual intent of the NFCC, or the resolution for that matter. The fact it's how you choose to read it, just so you can defend the willfull & deliberate poor behaviour of those seeking to 'enforce' it in their chosen manner, is neither here nor there. Except of course, rather worryingly, you apparently block people for edit warring to defend such bot like interpretations of the world, instead of expecting them to act like a human, and give a straight answer to a straight question explaining the anomoly. That is truly a scary thought. Or are you still figuring out how to explain how Delta can both be removing the image repeatedly for the lack of a rationale, yet apparently have no clue why Nightscream understandably didn't understand what he was on about, given the fact the rationale was not "missing", and it as clear as day had a reference to the intended article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC) MickMacNee, did the rationale state that it was to be displayed on 'Breen (Star Trek)'? No, the rationale stated that it was to be displayed on 'Breen'. Is that 'The name of each article', no. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, and this resulted from a page move. There was no ambiguity over where the image was to be used. If you want to try and excuse his behaviour because of a minor technicality, then you cannot excuse his behaviour when he violates his editing restrictions by hitting 43 and 46 edits per 10 minutes. NFCC exemptions for 3RR are only for unquestionable cases. This is yet another one which is easily questioned, and extremely easy to note where the error was.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Crossmr, clearly it was blatantly obvious that the error was easy to spot. Let me be clear, there is no need to edit war over this, not about inclusion, not about removal. If it gets removed, you assume in good faith, that the remover did not see that something happened which broke the rationale, if it gets re-inserted, you assume in good faith that the inserter did not see that something was (obviously???) broken. If it then gets re-removed, something apparently is broken - yet, both sides do not engage in a decent discussion, the discussion is immediately started up in a 'you don't say what is wrong', 'you point to whole policies but don't explain what is exactly wrong', etc. etc. The point was - for one reason or another, the rationale was not correct, it was broken. And that it is obvious may go for Delta, it goes in exactly the same way for Nightscream. Noting on this, I have after this incident and the aftermath, adapted my detection script for the bot suggested (vide infra). It does note that a rationale is pointing to a disambiguation page now, and flags the rationale as 'maybe correct, but should be repaired'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose because Delta has continually caused trouble around the same issues, both before and after restrictions were imposed. His persistent failure to stick to the restrictions is not an argument for lifting them; quite the reverse, actually. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 12:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose lifting the sanctions, support enforcing them. As noted several times above, we have (collectively) wasted thousands of man hours on discussions around this user's issues. Perhaps I'm reading MASEM wrong, but "46 and 43 edits in ten minutes is a technical violation" doesn't strike me a good reason to lift the sanctions, but instead a good reason for a block. With respect to the "good work" and SPI, any organisation with a single point of failure needs to have a long look at itself. Finally, while the most recent go on the round-a-bout was a "no violation" as pointed out above by the ever-reliable Hammersoft, I'd encourage everyone to have a read of the discussion and follow the diffs. In particular, follow the diffs to BetaCommand's talk page... He links to whole policy page, tells user, "if you refuse to read the information that I give you do I need to make it in XXXXL font, red and blinking so that you see it?" and later "Ive really tried to avoid the term RTFM, but goddammit more people need to do it." And we're saying that Beta's communication strategy has improved? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Restrictions or not, there are two facts in this to consider: There are people that detest en.wiki's (and to some extent, the Foundation's Resolution) treatment of non-free content. There are people that detest Beta/Delta for his general curtness and editing style or lack thereof. There is an obvious overlap in these groups since Delta does a lot of NFCC. So regardless of the restrictions, there are people that have it out for Delta here and want to see him gone from the project. That means they are spending their time - instead of being productive editors - watching Delta like a hawk waiting for the eventual slip. This is why the editing rate restriction - in a standalone manner - is troubling, because if he's limited to 40 and accidentally a few times slips above that, we're going to have discussions and debates above the block for him, AGAIN, drawing more people to unproductive measures. (In fact, this entire discussion is because Delta went to *gasp* 43 edits in 10 minutes instead of 40). By removing the edit rate restriction, we will cut down the number of times that Delta's name appears at ANI for small violations that most editors would be dismissive of. That's why I still propose that its clear that if Delta is doing a mass editing action, all the other restrictions still apply: approval at VPR before hand, and clearly checking actions by hand before hitting final submit buttons (eg no bots). But if he is doing a VPR approved task that is fully objective (NFCC#10c compliance), the edit rate simply is a hassle. I fully support that if Delta engages in rapid-fire edits of a mass nature that is not approved by VPR, that's a grounds for more blocks, but that doesn't require a edit rate restriction to enforce. We remove the one technicality, trivial-driven restriction while shoring up the others to make it clear to Delta that he shouldn't be doing unauthorized mass edits. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Comment: the trend here is somewhat towards lifting the speed restriction, at the same time as concerns about Delta's communication remain (whilst acknowledging some improvements, the recent incident at WP:AN/EW is indicative). Perhaps lifting the speed restriction on approved mass editing tasks (community restriction #1) should be combined with 1RR on those tasks. That pushes Delta a bit more towards adequate explanation, when his edits are contested. Given the new NFC advice and that some cases are easy to fix for someone interested in keeping the NFC file, enough explanation when the removal is contested would help a lot to reduce conflict. And being forced to go from edit summary to talk page (once 1RR is hit) would ensure better explanation when required, as well as more likelihood of others chipping in in a constructive way. Rd232 public talk 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose I don't think that lifting the sanctions will improve the project or improve communications between editors and Delta. As it is many of his rapid fire deletions without clear explanation, freak out people who are unfamiliar with Fair Use rules, causing edit wars, arguments, time wasting BS, that amount to nothing anyway. I wonder sometimes why Delta just doesn't add the required Fair use information instead of blasting the images to kingdom come. In my opinion, and Delta and I have conversed rationally, he improves by slowing down. Without the speed restrictions and the sanctions there would be no improvement and instead we would all be talking ban him again. He has improved, but I wouldn't want to see all of those bots again...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC) comment OK .. here's the deal. There are a ton of "non-free" images being used in articles that simply do not adhere to our own policies out there. Regardless of any legal ramifications, they don't meet our own policy requirements. Delta has the ability to do the technical coding to run through it all very quickly, and remove the things that are out of compliance with our own policies. It's supposed to be incumbent on anyone wishing to use a "non-free" image, to ensure that all the criteria are met. The images being removed are ones that don't meet those criteria. Wave a magic wand, remove everything that is outside our policies, and then move forward to reinstate those items in the proper fashion, ... with the proper criteria. There's plenty of folks willing to help "fix" the things that are broken, ... clean up the mess - and then start working on how to use the "non-free" stuff in the proper fashion. It's not freakin "Rocket Surgery" folks. ... k .. done venting now. — Ched :  ?  14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) We've been there already. It was called BetaCommandBot, and it was a complete and utter disaster causing drama and disruption way beyond what can be jusitified for the 'compliance' issue. And that was in no small part due precisely to who the operator was and his own personal makeup, rather than the work it did. But at least bot's don't edit war, so you might be onto something if someone takes over a bot, and the fixers concentrate on fixing images that are identified as having been reverted back into articles in a human manner. Sure, that takes time, but so does referencing unreferenced BLPs and patrolling new pages in non-bitey ways, which is something the Foundation has at least taken a position on before. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC) You're also again perpetuating another NFCC myth - that these violations are occuring due to some failure on the part of the person wanting to use the image, and thus if he cannot be bothered, we can't either. This is not true, many of these failures are outside the control of the original uploader, unless you want to argue that by uploading a non-free image here in a proper manner, you become personally responsible for monitoring its continuing compliance forever. Some people here certainly have that outlook to non-free content, but it's not the wiki way. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC) It is not a myth. NFCC, like verification policy, requires those that want to use the image to meet the requirements for the image. So if, as commonly happens, someone thinks that an image with an existing rationale on page A would work well on page B and use it without adding a rationale on page B, even if that rationale is essentially identical (it shouldn't be, but that's a different matter altogether) as page A, it is the onus on that user to correct that. It is courtsey but not required that someone like Delta correct it, and if he were only doing a task involving tens of images, sure, I would think he'd take the time to do this. But the task he's doing has 10,000s of images - he has to run this in a bot-like faction. If you don't the fact that the onus is on those wanting to keep the image, that's a change you need to make at NFC and not blame Delta for. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) One of the problem is that Delta gets himself caught up in edit wars over trivial mistakes, which in reality makes him no better than a bot. If Delta isn't going to take the time to point out to user X that the reason he keeps removing the image is because the FUR was broken in the page move, then we might as well have a bot parsing the FUR rationale for a link and hammering it into oblivion until the user relents. Of course no one would want that, and yet there are those that tolerate and almost seem to encourage Delta to do that very thing. While he often removes images that clearly don't meet policy, he also gets tangled up in very questionable removals.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC) If people aren't going to take the time to read and understand the pages that Delta is now pointing to with his edit summaries on identification of a bad image, that's even worse - that's encouraging lazy editing. NFC is not a simple policy. Users using NFC really need to know the hows and whys of how this policy came around, and not just assume it's just a "fair use thing"; just pointing to #10 and saying you need the article name worsens the situation even though it is an easier fix. Secondly, as noted, the Foundation requires use to delete images that fail our NFC policy. Now Delta isn't deleting anything, but simply removing it from articles where rationale don't exist (Again, based on the Foundation's language) and these would only be deleted if no one bothered to fix it and remained orphaned. Delta is running through 10,000s of images that no way we'd be able to get a bot to do (because of the backlash against this action), and so he cannot stop on the trivialities to fix. Unless, of course, a cadre of editors would be willing to step forward and help with the task (which I don't see happening). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) more times than I can count. The problem is, that many images are not as binarily "complaint/notcompliant" as you imply. If they were, it would be simple. There is a non-trivial "gray area" of images which have miniscule problems that a normal human editor using normal human judgement would be able to fix rather than delete (for example, a simply typographical error in a template or a moved article which leaves mistagged images in its wake). Delta refuses to use this sort of normal human judgement, and when he encounters such situations, he becomes rude and unhelpful. The tasks you note need to be done, they just need to be done by a person capable of dealing with the fuzzy edges of policy violations, and a person who can weild a scalpel as skillfully as an axe. Delta is very good at technical solutions which can deal with binary "yes/no" decision making. He's not good at fixing the nuanced problems that occur all to often with image violations. That is why his editing restrictions exist at all; they aren't a sort of arbitrary revenge designed to "get" him because people don't like him. They are a real response to a real behavior pattern which caused real problems; problems that I note have recurred in recent weeks in exactly the same manner as when the restrictions were enacted in the first place. In other words, Delta has not learned how to behave in a more collegial manner when dealing with image problems. We all want these image problems dealt with, we just want them dealt with by someone who does not behave as Delta does. For this reason, I would oppose lifting the sanctions, because Delta has not changed his behavior that led to the original sanctions in the first place. --Jayron32 15:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Comment The other day there was this ridiculous edit war between Ceoil and Delta at List of large triptychs by Francis Bacon over Fair use, after Delta removed the 3 or 4 images in the article, when he knows perfectly well how to write a fair use rationale - in fact he told me how he wanted them worded - that's the problem here. This is a voluntary project and issuing orders to others when you can do the job yourself doesn't sit well with hard working productive contributors who might not know the fair use policies and it doesn't always sit well with those of us who do know the Fair use policies...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Good point, Modernist. Problem is, the images, like anything, are supposed to be following policy. Although any editor can make sure that that is done, it is no-one's task to write rationales, but it should be the task of everyone to have everything here on Wikipedia follow policy. That goes for WP:V, it goes for WP:NFC - still, editors delete unsourced information without pointing to policy, without notifying editors, or posting to talkpages, but when it comes to removal of images, that is apparently a big nono. One could also do the effort to WP:PRESERVE the unsourced sentence in order to actually add a source (or at least, a {{cn}} - but we all know for how long those tags stay without being solved) - but no-one is suggesting that ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Dirk, a couple of weeks ago you deleted an Emile Bernard [8], made me crazy, initially I thought you were crazy, I think it had both a public domain tag and fair use rationales, finally I just added a fair use tag. For most editors these policies are like martian...Modernist (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC) That would be because you included {{Non-free use rationale}} which tags the file as non-free. When examining a file we usually go with the most restrictive license unless other solid proof is available. Ive gone ahead and removed the rationale templates as not needed, and thus the licensing issues have been resolved. ΔT The only constant 15:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you Delta and I appreciate that explanation...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (ec)Yes, but also WP:V is martian to a lot of editors. People do not understand that statements need a source. This has nothing to do with Delta, this has nothing to do with fair-use, it has to do with editors who fail to sit for a sec when someone tells them there is a problem with something, and actually fix it. And, as we know, adding a {{cn}} to something has a very low rate of actually getting fixed, but removing the statement altogether does get a higher fix-rate, and at least the page does not violate policy. Here, it is the same, you can tag the image, you can notify wikiproject, editors, talkpages, whoever, nothing will happen. However, if you remove the image, you get a quite high number of editors who actually solve the problem. As I said below, I am trying to real-time monitor the additions of non-free material - I see when editors re-add an image after I, Delta or whoever removes them from display, and quite some do get solved. The actual 'screamers' on our talkpages are a very, very small minority. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The problem is Delta is still sitting ther hammering NFCC issues that have extremely minor and obvious problems. His latest one was just at 3RR over a page move. There is absolutely no ambiguity in an NFCC rationale after a page move. He can't sit there and say "I have no idea what the intended use is", the use is very clear and the rationale just needed updating for the page move, not a new one, not an image being put on a mysterious article for no reason, it was an image that was totally fine, the page was moved and then Delta starts edit warring over its removal, and it isn't the first time. This violation of NFCC that he's using to basically shield his edit warring is trivial, and once again does not fall into the "unquestionable" exemption provided for NFCC.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC) That it was not blatantly obvious is clear, since also Nightscream did not see what was wrong. Crossmr, it needs at least 2 editors to edit war. It should never be necessary to edit war, editors should always try to work it out together. There obviously was something wrong, whether it is blatantly clear, totally unclear, whether Delta does his best to explain, whether an editor does still not understand, it is never a reason to edit war. And indeed, this turned out to be blatantly clear, and those get discussed, but by far the majority of the images that are removed do not have a fair-use rationale written down on the image description page - the number of cases which are broken rationales are very minimal. And that combined with numerous cases where there actually is no fair-use for the use of the image, with or without rationale. Sure, Delta or I will probably remove cases which are actually simple to resolve, and editors have been asked for three years now to do that, but a) most cases are not simple to resolve, b) they may be simple to resolve for Delta, they are even simpler to resolve for editors who are knowledgeable in the subject, and c) some are plain violations, they are not fair use. I will go on with the suggestion of the bot-notification below in regard to this. --Dirk BeetstraT C 07:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) And yet, while the other party often changes, it's always Delta at the center of these, that's the problem. Since he wants to do this work, its incumbent upon him to be better at it than the other people. As much as I would expect someone who does NPP to be better at spotting issues than someone who has never done it at all, I would expect someone who spends so much time on NFCC to be better at it than the random editors he encounters over issues. Once again Delta is supposed to be taking the utmost care with his edits, and he's failing to do so. Yet, you want to reward that? If they both violated 3RR, block them both.However in this case I will note that Nightscream did provide further information stating exactly where the rationale was (and mistakingly reading it perhaps not realizing the page had been moved) while delta hammered away with the exact same edit message. The problem is not the difficult ones, if he can't handle the easy ones, what confidence do we have that he's going to handle the difficult ones? Despite his new edit summary, which I congratulated him on, he's taken absolutely no recommendations about his conduct from anyone who has asked him to cool it on hammering the revert button, that doesn't include just me. Others have also mentioned this in discussions as well. The edit summaries, the detection scripts, etc these are all still treating symptoms and not treating the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Hmm, I do see that editors are more and more starting to issue personal attacks, and to continue and push those personal attacks aimed at Delta (and Delta is not the only one on the receiving end, I just started in this field, and I already have some personal attacks at my person as well). Note that there is NEVER a reason to issue personal attacks, or any form of uncivility - you can ALWAYS word your question or problem in a friendly way. This work apparently attracts that - people feel the need to yell. And maybe Delta is more often at the receiving end (and I wonder, if that is solely because of the work, or also as a result of his civility restriction, though I now have to take care not to assume bad faith on the people that yell at Delta). Here I do note, that though the number of people yelling at Delta is significantly bigger than the number of times that Delta yelled back (though I see cases where Delta was on the edge where there was no yelling at him). Regarding 'if he can't handle the easy ones, what confidence do we have that he's going to handle the difficult ones?' - the difficult ones are the ones that Delta can not solve, which should be solved by 'a specialist' anyway (and note, difficult ones are not the 'broken' rationales, but the ones which do not have, and never had a rationale) - it are the easy ones where both sides should come together. Most broken ones are (relatively) easy to solve, some are blatantly clear, but also there, there are some which are almost impossible to track. For many more difficult cases, well, WikiProjects have been notified, talkpage messages have been left, but nothing has been done, and I do not expect that anything will be done. Still, there are many difficult cases which do not have a proper rationale, or do not have a rationale at all (or for which a rationale can not even be constructed). Maybe we should try the 'remove the image for which, for whatever reason, the rationale is broken' (yes, fixing the rationales would be better, I've invited numerous editors already to look at this list and help out), and when it gets re-inserted, a bot should notify the editor that there is something (however obvious it maybe is) is wrong. See bot-discussion below. I will note something below regarding the Nightscream situation, I got just notified of a wonderful example. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) You're focusing on civility as the only problem here and it isn't the only problem, though using some interpretatinos of civility you could extend it to that. The relentless hammering of the revert button with no change in edit summary or anything else is about as cold and bot-like as you can get, and really isn't congenial to a community environment, and thus could be see as not very civilized. The problem is the disruption caused by his behaviour. Whether he's just lost it and finally yelled at someone, or simply making bad-faith accusations (like how he's more than once accused an editor of not reading what he wrote when they later stated they did), or whether he's coldly reverting someone until they snap in frustration, it's all down to him. We all end up facing a little uncivil behaviour now and then when we're engaged in disputes or depending on the work we do, it's how we handle it and what we're doing that makes the difference. This "I'm right! The End justifies the means" mentality just doesn't fly in a community. How many times can the community, or its members, say to him "Please don't do this!" and then have him turn around 2 days later and have another drama fest over the same behaviour and then do nothing? We've done it far too many times. I mentioned before that I'm getting extreme deja vu, and frankly it's getting frighteningly vivid and it isn't just Delta's behaviour that's giving it to me. At some point if you keep acting a certain way and people keeping blowing up at you, you have to turn around and ask yourself, should I change what I'm doing or how I do it?--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Also the yelling of 'read what I say' was preceded by 'look, it is there' .. bad faith also there goes both ways. And (quite) some editors feel the need to yell immediately. Yes, he may be coldly reverting until the other snaps, but quite some snap at the first removal (and not only to Delta, I must add). And a little uncivil behaviour is .. 'fine' (I still think it is never necessary, but well), but if editors continue and continue, even after warnings .. and some of those right from the start. Well, as I say, even the first uncivil remark is not necessary. Sure, things have to change. But that is already true for 3-4 years. We have stuff that violates our policies. And sure, just like with a lot of violations of other policies, most of those are not a big issue, still work should be done to solve it. And many things were already tried. And does that now mean that maybe we should just leave violations stand? Any suggested solution gets shot down, and nothing gets done. Lets notify editors when they insert an image. You know what is going to happen, we get some editors who get 50 notifications from a bot that they used 50 different images on 50 different pages where they did not write a rationale. Those editors are going to yell at either the bot, the bot operator - but they still do not write the rationales. When their images get removed they yell even harder, and in the end the bot gets blocked for over-notifying editors. Wherever we go, people are not going to like that when they use a non-free image, that they have to write a rationale, even if that rationale is, strictly, superfluous if that image is fair-use. Or llets tag the images as lacking a fair-use rationale - well, that is going to be the same as {{cn}} tags, nothing will be done about it, it looks ugly in an infobox, so they get removed and not solved, and we end up at the same place. Notification on talkpages, similar - nothing is going to be done about it, the notifications erode, and go away. Notify WikiProjects - similar, nothing is done. The only thing that apparently works, is removing the images from display, and hope that they get solved (and most of them do get solved 'silently'). I am afraid you all have Delta at a loss here, he wants to help with something, he tries to help with something, but whatever he does, or however he does it, he finds opposition, there even is opposition before he can help - or he is removing a situation where something is wrong, but apparently, Delta should be the one who sees what exactly is wrong, not the one who is re-inserting the image. Does Delta, on re-insertion of an image, notify the editor that there is something wrong, and maybe the editor should have a second look? Like for the Nightscream case: "You included it on Breen (Star Trek), but I only see a rationale for Breen, which is not the same article. Maybe the rationale needs to be made more specifically?"? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, because Delta does it all the time. The individuals he interacts with may only have minor or likely no experience with NFCC. It isn't a race, but in the past it has often seemed like it's a race. No one has asked Delta to fix every image he touches, just the more obvious ones. If he's taking the time to check image placements and FURs as he is supposed to do (and not simply parsing is there a FUR box on the page that has this article name in it), he should as is humanly normal be able to pick up on common issues, especially with someone who apparently has all this experience. Though in a previous discussion Delta blamed his edit warring on the fact that he was working off diffs and didn't notice that an image hadn't been added to the page when he reverted it because he mis-read a diff instead of looking at a page. Given that statement, I have to wonder how it is that he's parsing all this information at the rate he's editing (I'm assuming nothing, I'm just wondering if his editing style is something causing him issues). Because honestly, anyone who looks at this should have spotted the error if they were aware that one existed. Delta assumed there was an error. If he looks at the FUR and sees "Breen" and looks at the article and sees "Breen (Star Trek)" as the article name, and the fact that the image doesn't appear on Breen, it really could not be anymore obvious unless someone was sitting there holding his hand. Perhaps one of the major issues, is the entire mentality surrounding NFCC. It seems that many involved feel as though it's an impending emergency that the images be removed as quickly as possible. I think it's incumbent on the people who work in NFCC to work with the community as a whole. Just as any part of the project has to. Instead of telling users to fix their FUR or have it removed, perhaps they instead should approach the users individually without a template and offer their assistance to help them fix their images if possible. Perhaps the real problem is that approaching people in disputes robotically does nothing to solve the situation. While it's convenient for them, it's not convenient for the project. Frankly a brighter more helpful image might go a long way towards recruiting people to help out with it. I'm sure some people who might want to help may stay away because of the stigma attached to NFCC work.--Crossmr (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC) About the rate - it is often a matter of having a handful of windows open, and checking all the removals diffs for obvious mistakes - and then click save on all the windows. Even if I edit like that and save every diff after checking (and not first check 25 diffs, and then press save), I easily do 4-5 per minute if not more. And do note, there are only very, very few cases where the situation is as obvious as in the Nightscream case. We observe that Delta does this work often at or just above speed limit, it are numerous removals, still only a few are very obvious. Of the 100s of cases I have removed, I have now heard about one where it was a link to a disambiguation page in stead of the correct page, there is a bit higher rate on obvious typos, but still, I think that most of them do not have any article-specific rationale. I just did a check of 10 of my older removals: 1 had a rationale which went to a disambig (film poster, disambig contained a handful of movies .. semi-obvious as it was displayed on one of them), 1 has as a filename which suggests that it is the logo for the page it was displayed on (but there is no rationale at all on the image description page), for one I can synthesise that it is the icon for the subject (but again, there is no rationale at all), the other 7 do not have any specific rationale pointing to the use where they are. 5 of the 10 do not carry any fair-use rationale, and I would assess 3 of the uses not being fair-use at all (mainly ornamental use, they are fair use elsewhere). Moreover, one image is tagged as possibly replaceable (and I think that for the use for which fair-use is claimed it certainly is - though it is also 60 years old and therefore maybe not copyrighted anymore - hence tagged wrongly). All in all, a whole set of problems in one go - I maybe could/should have fixed one of them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC) You didn't really address anything I said there of value, including the suggestion I made for NFCC, if you'd like I'll draft up something far more detailed that would actually benefit the community. The problem is is when they are that obvious and what happens as a result. Who knows how many more are actually obvious? Do you really want to hold up his editing history as evidence again? Last time that was done, I took a cursory look, noted several violations, which some people tried to excuse away, but in the very recent history we've seen several of these kinds of edit wars over clearly "questionable" NFCC issues.--Crossmr (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I see that, Crossmr, and maybe you should have a look at the bot proposal. I would certainly value your input in the wording of any remarks left to users and on the talkpages suggesting to fix the FUR first. We could start with the cases that are now currently being added, and slowly eat away the backlog in one way or another. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC) As noted before the section was removed, a bot won't help the situation at all, and I also said that above. But it doesn't really go towards solving the discussion we're having right now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oh isn't this interesting [9]. Someone noted this on Delta's talk page and I just noticed it. I wonder if this tool has anything to do with some of the more obvious mistakes Delta has made. I also noticed that Hammersoft's replies essentially stopped as soon as it was brought up too. Delta may be making his edits by pushing the buttons himself, but now I'm wondering if he's using automated tools to help him make parts of those edits, because honestly I have to wonder how anyone could miss some of these more obvious ones, and I thought it might only happen if someone wasn't actually looking at the page itself and just parsing a binary yes/no, which is exactly what this tool does. This may need its own section for discussion, because if he's making obvious mistakes and creating drama/disruption based on his reliance on a partially automated process, well that is certainly going to violate his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Excuse me? You're taking my supposed lack of continuing to post somewhere over some unspecified period of time as silent assent by me that your speculation about his actions are correct?!?!?! What? If you want evidence of a conspiracy, you need only dig long and hard enough and you will find evidence...whether there really is a conspiracy or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Support Masem's proposal to eliminate the rate restriction, retaining only the civility restriction. I see the same small group of editors dragging Δ into AN/I for violation of the rate throttle, while manifestly failing to demonstrate why the violations are such a dire threat, or in some cases, where they are any threat at all. (When the restriction was originally enacted, Betacommand was making a substantially higher number of problematic edits than he is now.) If the removal of the throttle reestablishes a higher error rate, I'm sure that the Δ lynch mob will be ready to pass out torches and pitchforks, and they'll also be ready for any civility violations. And FWIW, I'd take the original complainant more seriously if he logged in under his username rather than his IP address. It smacks of gaming the system or perhaps unwillingness to be held accountable for a vendetta. Horologium (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose That an editor has violated editing restrictions and others have reported him or her is not a reason to lift those restrictions. If people are tired of hearing about it then the solution is to ratchet up the restrictions or ban the editor violating them. ElKevbo (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose After this it is pretty clear that he prefers delete images that just have a minimal error than resolve the problems by himself. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Ive now removed that whole section for failing WP:NFG, (aka NFCC#8, #3) ΔT The only constant 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC) This seems to speak to the lack of communication. The edit summary said nothing, and the real question is why you think they fail #3 and #8. (I'd certainly question #3, and someone could debate #8). I've seen the process before - the images are removed because of a lack of a FUR, a FUR is added and they are reinserted by someone thinking they are doing right thing, then they get removed for failing something else, wasting everyone's time. If they didn't meet #3 and #8, why wasn't that made clear in the first place? - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Because On my first look I was just checking for one thing does it have a rationale? If not remove it. Since Tbhotch brought it up I decided to take a second look at the issue and found the files failed other criteria. ΔT The only constant 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC) This is not a problem of one page, it is a common problem in your editing. You prefer to remove valid images with a poor rationale/summary instead of solve the problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vaccines_WDYEFTV_cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=436738583 1] and 2. You prefer to waste other people time and delete valid images when you, by yourself, can fix the problems. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Support Per above. Restrictions are unnecessary - particularly the edit rate, which makes for excessive drama and trouble. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Support NFCC work, like BLP work, is essential to Wikipedia. When Delta does good NFCC work, it is very valuable. I suggest to up-the-ante: remove all restrictions. Monitor Delta for a year: if there is one failure to attempt communication, ban him from direct NFCC work - he could develop scripts and give them to a user with better communicative skills to run. An "end justifies the means' attitude cannot survive in an open, cooperative environment like Wikipedia. When one productive editor is lost due to entanglement with Delta, I question the net value of his work. jmcw (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Note, the case of Pdfpdf involved the use of a replaceable non-free image outside of mainspace - that combined with clearly showing that they did not understand the use of non-free material (something they actually said that they did not understand), and that they were in a particularly incivil way reacting on the removal of said non-free material, indeed made me, for the protection of the project, hand out an indefinite block on that account until the editor could convince an (independent) administrators that they would work further in line with that policy then indeed, the editor would be unblocked. And again, we seem to be here worried about the loss of one 'productive editor', while the loss of Delta (who, I think, is also a productive editor) is hardly taken into account. And if I may say, I am surprised that Delta is still here after a continuous string of personal attacks on his person. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I continue to believe that an indef block without trying to discuss what the editor was doing wrong was moving too quick. The first recourse when someone doesn't understand a policy should be to explain things, especially when they have already shown a willingness to admit when they were wrong. But I guess we've had this discussion. We should probably include Dapi89 ‎ as an editor who has retired in the last week after a run-in with Delta. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 'without trying to discuss', Bilby? That discussion could still take place, we have (user-)talkpages for a reason. Both had plenty of chance to stop and say that they don't understand what was wrong, and open themselves to discussion. Pdfpdf did nothing else than yell until he got blocked, Dapi89 similarly did not want to discuss (tossing in very mild incivility), but pushed an image which was, in that use, not fair-use. Not with, not without rationale. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, without trying to discuss. With Pdfpdf, he self-reverts, showing that he now understands what was meant by the policy. Using an very questionable edit summary. 20 hours later you block him for incivility. This is probably called for. An hour later that becomes indef for failure to understand the NFC policy, based on an edit seven months earlier [10], and another poor rationale that had subsequently been removed when Pdfpdf tagged the file for deletion himself. In the meantime there was no attempt to discuss anything between the 2 week block for incivility and the indef block for copyvio, using a block message in regard to disruptive editing and vandalism. Given the he had self-reverted and tagged the problematic file for deletion, and that the previous problem was 7 months old, why wasn't discussing first a consideration? I hadn't noticed how old the reason was that you used for the block until now, but I'm surprised to see that it was seven months old. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC) No, the reason was not 7 months old, that diff shows (and there are more diffs around that time, I did not bother to take them all) where Pdfpdf was told that images have to comply with WP:NFCC. Several months later, he uploads a replaceable image, and places it outside of mainspace, holds on that it should be there, then finally retracts that part and shows that the image was in fact replaceable. His request for deletion also does not show understanding of that, he asks for someone else to upload a copyrighted image - no, someone else should upload a free image. Does he show that he understand that images should not be replaceable? No, he clearly states later, that he does not understand NFCC. Hence, there is a significant risk that they will still upload images which are in violation of NFCC, and seen the later remarks, I do not expect that if he would be pointed to that, that they would not start trolling again. When shown wrong, he should have stopped trolling, which would have prevented the first block - and some understanding would have quickly lifted the indef. Note, I blocked another editor inbetween, and had a short discussion after that, which has quickly resulted in lifting the block. A bit of civility and understanding would have carried a long way with Pdfpdf - but that is not shown on Wiki before the block, not after the block, and also not off-wiki. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) There is little risk. He was blocked for two weeks. What makes you feel that you couldn't have discussed the issue during that two weeks? Or that the problem would have continued during that period, given that he couldn't edit? The whole process was a mess. In short, an editor who didn't understand the policy asked for an explanation as to why it was wrong, only the response by Delta was simply to point to a policy without explaining why. (Pdfpdf should have figured it out based on that, and did, but I agree he should have looked before reverting). He gets annoyed, writes some rather short edit summaries, then realises he is wrong, self-reverts and nominates the image for deletion before moving on to other edits. 20 hours later you turn up and block him for two weeks for personal attacks. And an hour later you notice a seven month old poor rationale, with presumably similar problems from back then, and indef block him as a disruptive editor. At which point he responds poorly to the block. I'm not really surprised about his response. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC) The risk is that they were continuing with these violations after the block expires. An indef block is to make sure that Wikipedia is protected from further damage until the editor can show that they understand what they were blocked for. Blocks are not punitative, blocks are to protect against further damage - and I still think, and Pdfpdf has said, that he does not understand NFC. To me, he still has not shown that he understands NFC (and I don't think he managed to convince other administrators either). And I do excuse one or maybe two angry or frustrated remarks (though I still think there is never need for that) - but not continuing after you figure out the other editor was right, or continuing after being warned to cool down. And note, the first block is not 20 hours after the last personal attacks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC) You're right - it was seven hours after the last comment personal attack. As to my main point - what did you think Pdfpdf could have done, while blocked for two weeks, that was so serious that you needed to indef in order to protect Wikipedia from an already blocked editor rather than trying to discuss the issue in the meantime? There was zero risk that he would cause any issues with NFC while already blocked for two weeks, and there was no attempt to discuss the issue with him first. You had the time to raise the issue first. You chose to jump straight to an indef block instead. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC) This sounds like it might need a community block review, and frankly, given Beetstra's very obvious position in this entire issue, I don't think he should be handing out indefinite blocks to anyone Delta has a dispute with. He could have the appearance of being WP:INVOLVED as a frequent advocate of Delta, he certainly hasn't only been acting in only an administrative capacity.--Crossmr (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Uhuh, Crossmr .. so, any administrator who is against Delta removing images is now involved, and can't block Delta (and obviously will not block anyone who is in an excessive way being uncivil against Delta), and anyone who supports Delta's actions will obviously not block Delta when Delta is abusing his editing privileges, and they obviously will not block anyone who is excessively uncivil against Delta. Note, Pdfpdf had all time to ask for an independent review on-wiki, and has also asked for independent review off-wiki. Several other editors/administrators have commented, but I still stand by my point that this is a block to protect Wikipedia from further NFC and NPA violations from Pdfpdf until Pdfpdf convinces us that that block is not needed anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, any editor who is as involved as you are should refrain from taking any administrative action in relation to Delta and individuals in disputes with him, unless I'd say that the action they're taking contravenes their stance. If you were to block Delta or one of the others who are constantly on his side it obviously wouldn't look like you were using your powers to further your position. But blocking someone involved in a dispute with Delta who you vigorously and persistently defend in just about every discussion going on him? Yes, that has a clear appearance of being involved and an inappropriate block. I seem to recall last time around there being discussions over who was allowed to actually block Delta because of this kind of an issue. Yup, and so help me god if we aren't having the same discussion about him and overzelous application of NFCC policy Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_is_making_automated_edits, nearly 3 years later.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Bilby - if I did something wrong, it is the following: In stead of sitting here for 10 minutes, looking at the string of personal attacks, looking if there are (independent) warnings looking at the blocking history of Pdfpdf, and looking if they were warned for that, I actually should have sat here for 20-25 minutes, and look further in the history - My overall conclusion would then have been: Pdfpdf repeatedly has issues with applying WP:NFC, and does so on multiple points (2 months ago, ornamental use / list, and using non-free material outside of mainspace, now, using a replaceable non-free image outside of mainspace without rationale), showing no improvement to getting the policy that he is using on a regular basis, and when he is pointed to the violations he is consistently issuing personal attacks (2 months ago calling it mildly, though incorrectly, vandalism, now using words like 'rude', 'lazy', 'arrogant', 'bad faith', and accusing another editor of 'whining', all right direct from the start, not first a 'normal' edit summary) at the editors removing the violations, and does so (in the last case) with a continuous string of personal attacks (even if I rate most of the attacks as 1-3 on a scale of 1-10, Pdfpdf easily passes 10 points .. - Pdfpdf was blocked for WP:NPA a year ago, they should know that something like that should not be pushed - note, the personal attacks by Pdfpdf were discussed on AN/I and the block was a result of that thread). In the meantime, 3 other editors (including Delta, 2 of them being an administrator) comment against Pdfpdf along the lines of 'Delta is right', 'Your accusations of Delta are wrong', and '. Seen that this situation occurs now, and 2 months ago, I do not see any improvement, these are plain violations of policies, and the editor does not show understanding about the whole of the policies, I would conclude that it is better that Pdfpdf would not edit until he can convince the community that he will try and follow our NFC policy (and certainly try not to violate it) and not to use continued incivility against editors. Hence, I would have blocked Pdfpdf indefinite immediately. And the only thing that Pdfpdf now has told us since the block, is that he indeed does not understand NFC, but I have not seen anything that he would try to follow the policies - I am (still) not in the least convinced that they would not continue after the 2 weeks would have passed. Maybe I should stop digging further .. Pdfpdf's misunderstanding of NFC goes way further back than the one diff I linked. It becomes more obvious to me why he starts with yelling at Delta when Delta removes images on pages Pdfpdf is watching. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC) None of which addresses my main concern. But this isn't the place for it. I'll see where we sit, and it may be worth taking Crossmr's advice and looking into this and other blocks separately. - Bilby (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose So because Betacommand is completely recalcitrant and incapable of editing without repeatedly violates his community sanctions, we should lift them? What? TotientDragooned (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Support lifting edit speed limit. The time the community has wasted in examining the countless bad faith reports from a handful of users who obviously want Delta banned outright is ridiculous. It's not the edit rate that is the problem. MLauba (Talk) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose lifting all the restrictions. He's been blocked for violations twice in the past month. Why should he be trusted to follow the rules now? He just doesn't get it. "Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible". It is the manner in which he goes about his self-declared mission that is the problem, not the mission he's chosen to do. There seems to be little support remaining for the edits/minute restrictions, so I do not oppose its removal or increase in limits. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I've been inactive for a while, but I recall when these restrictions were initially imposed. They should only be lifted if something has changed. My initial review seems to indicate that very little has changed. Betacommand still takes insufficient care with individual edits and uses automation to excess. NFCC warriors still love him and think he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. People who love photos and don't care about copyright still want him banned. Most editors just wish the drama would go away. Admittedly, my review was very surface-level. If someone could show me how Betacommand has changed his ways, I could change my opinion. But most of the supports I see here seem to either comment on the NFCC issues instead of Beta's issues or seem to argue that the restrictions were always wrong, which I certainly do not agree with. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I have seen no indication that he either (a) knows what he's doing or (b) accepts that his earlier behaviour is wrong. Many of his issues - a lack of communication, for example - persist regardless of the sanctions. There's no reason to think he's somehow silently fixed those problems that the sanctions cover. I'd rather not let him out of his box given what happened last time. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, rather strongly. These restrictions were a result of years of drama surrounding ∆, over the same issues that are still going on today, and for which there is not enough evidence to show long-term improvement. If it took years to get the restrictions, it seems to me that we should consider lifting the restrictions only when ∆ has shown that he can edit under them for a similar period of time. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. If anyone cares about my views.... As noted above, the response to Δ violating a provision is to remove the provision? Not in any sensible environment. A separate discussion might be made as to whether it should be modified (50 in 10 minutes, or 80 in 20 minutes, rather than 40 in 10 minutes), but removing it is <redacted>. And there's no real claim he's been following the other provisions, just that we don't have proof he's violating them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Let's see him work within the sanctions for a while without getting into trouble. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per my comments below. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose per many above, and because part of the reason for throttling Δ's edits in this regard was because of, among other things, his error rate. I have little confidence that removing this restriction will result in anything but even more drama as his mistakes are likely to increase with his edit rate. That being said, if he goes over by one or two every once in a while, big deal. But overall, the point is to ensure Δ is paying more attention to his work, and given the continuing drama on that front, I don't see great value in lifting this sanction. Resolute 22:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Support The sanctions are pointless and just serve to get in the way of good work. Keep the civility sanctions if you wish, but the edit rate issue is just flat dumb. -- ۩ Mask 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Beta's editing rate was limited in hope that it might reduce his substantial error rate. As someone mentioned above, he still regularly flags images for deletion where the link between the fair-use rationale and the article became broken due to a page move or other routine operation. This generates work for others, making those edits part of the problem rather than part of the solution. He's just too inept to be trusted with power tools. With an editing rate limit, his collateral damage is limited. --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I had utterly no idea that these restrictions were in place for this user, but have seen him around quite a bit and have always assumed that he's used a bot or an automated tool for his edits (removing images with no rationales from pages mainly), but now that I know that he is restricted from doing substantive edits in a space of time and reading about his history, I think that the restrictions should remain. However I do respect his contributions and I believe that he is a very valuable editor, but one we can't be too lenient with. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Propose Delta NFCC notification bot Moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement, opening statement left The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. There is a certain view on NFCC that non-compliant uses (even merely technically non-compliant uses which are easily fixable and in no way a legal problem) need to be removed immediately, to the point of allowing a WP:3RR exemption for NFCC removal. That is the view of a minority, and it is the root of this entire long-running saga (which goes well beyond Delta, though he's at the centre of it). If we could just agree to give notice of impending removal, we'd have a lot less drama. A bot would be highly suitable for this, to leave a note on the talkpage about non-compliance. Editors can then follow up manually for NFCC uses not fixed a week later; it would be a WP:PROD-like system (and could probably use some of the same template/category tracking technology). Delta could operate such a bot, since it would be mere notification. Such notification would also serve to educate a lot more users on these issues; seeing an image unexpectedly removed from an article you're watching is really not a good time to be suddenly confronted with the intricacies of NFCC. Talk pages obviously also offer more space for an explanation than an edit summary does. Rd232 public talk 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Propose suspending Δ sanctions This proposal is the same as proposed above, except that instead of lifting the sanctions, we lift it temporarily until September 1. Until that time, the sanctions are not valid and Δ will be treated like any other editor. Then on September 1, we discuss here if the sanctions can be lifted, should be reinstated, or if we should let the suspension stand and re-evaluate the situation again some time later. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Same reasons as above, in general, but with the added note that trying to discuss it as a fait accompli in a month two months is probably the second-quickest route to the shit hitting the fan wrt Delta (the first-quickest being just removing his restrictions and waving him on). Count Iblis, what's your reasoning for proposing this? Are you hoping Delta can show himself to be responsible when released, even though (I believe that) he hasn't even shown himself to be responsible when restrained? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Support - That's a fair alternative if proposal #1 fails entirely. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose: The sanctions should be enforced, and more should be added Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Comment - surely, if the sanctions are lifted temporarily then come the date they have to reinstated and then discussion would follow. At the moment your suggestion reads that the sanctions would be lifted, then on the 1st Sep discussion could start as to whether they would be reinstated. That said and personally speaking, the suggestion of a trial alleviation of the sanctions (or elements of the sanctions) to give Delta a chance to demonstrate their editing seems more constructive than a simple choice between retain or remove them entirely. On the one hand Delta may be able to convince the nay-sayers that they are a better editor than they have been credited. And on the other it might supply enough rope to hang them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC) He hasn't convinced me, even when he's not violating his editing rate.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Come september, I expect we'll see another no-consensus discussion as we're starting to generate above, except that it'll be a no-consensus on reinstating the restrictions. It seems like this proposal will do little more than remove them entirely regardless of whether or not his editing has genuinely improved. Delta has plenty of opportunity to show us his editing and behaviour has improved within the confines of his current restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Delta's restrictions should be lifted when he's shown that they are no longer needed. I !voted for the easing of the sanctions to allow him to build and run the SPI bot. That worked well, and the next easing that came up I !voted in favor of as well, but this time around he's fallen back into his previous behavior, and that just cannot be the case if he wants the entire package to be lifted, even temporarily. I'd also prefer to have Delta himself make these requests, not his advocates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, and if anything there should be more restrictions on his actions. I've found Delta's actions to be highly questionable, and purposely distuptive, using the LETTER of the law over the spirit. For instance here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optimus_Prime_(other_incarnations)&diff=435288571&oldid=435212494 someone merges content of two pages which were previously disambiguated. Delta swoops in and removes images based on lacking non-free rational, but the rational is simple worded with the other disambig page. It would seem to be less work to simply change the disambig of the rational to the new page, but he removed it. As I went in to fix the rationals, he continued to delete them as I tried to restore them to make the changes. He wasn't showing any common sense, merely beligerantly removing images. That's not helpful. Mathewignash (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Am I misreading that article history, or did two other editors remove (some of) the same non-free file uses before and after Delta's editing there? I say this because I think part of the problem in discussing Delta is treating things he does as unique when they're not. (Some of the things will be unique, but others not.) Also, would notification (with 7 days before removal) have helped in this case, do you think? Rd232 public talk 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Well there is a complicated page history there that needs further investigation (I don't have time right now, maybe tomorrow, but I will note that Delta nailed one of those images only 3 minutes after the rationale (which was right) was altered. Not sure why it was altered, but that is some very fast responsiveness.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Same as above. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose This proposal would change the status-quo and therefore lower the bar for the restrictions to be removed. As it stands now, a "no consensus" discussion on the merits of the restrictions will result in them staying in place. If this proposal passes, come September 1, a "no consensus" discussion on the restrictions will result in them being removed. I'm not inherently opposed to lifting the restrictions on a trial basis, but this is just seems like an attempt to game the system. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Question to opposers. What if we would agree now that no consensus on September 1 means that the restrictions will stay as they exist now? The whole exercise of temporarily lifting the sanctions is to see if his behavior without the sanctions is good enough for a consensus to arise to make some changes to the restrictions. Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC) So, he's not behaving while under sanction, so we're supposed to lift the sanctions to see how he'll behave without them? How about he behaves well under these sanctions until some set date, and then the sanctions will be lifted? I could support that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC) There are two types of problems here. One has to do with Delta's behavior, the other is the lack of consensus on what to do. The latter is driven by a perception that some have here that the restrictions are counterproductive, leading to problems instead of preventing them. So, it's like doing a physics experiment where you see some effect, but then there is a discussion on whether that's a real effect or an artifact of the measurement apparatus that perhaps is not be functioning correctly. If there are heated discussions among the experimenters about this and no consensus can be reached, it may be best to re-assemble the apparatus and start all over again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Editors are not jars of copper sulphate. Resolving a problem whereby a user ignores his sanctions by lifting the sanctions sends out completely the wrong message to other sanctioned editors. We already have enough of a problem with treating each successive block of an inexperienced user as more sever but each one by a hardened veteran as less severe as it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Please look above to a link to a Betacommand discussion from 2008. It's nearly identical to this one. Nearly 3 years later.. and it's the same discussion. The result of that discussion was an indefinite block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) This makes absolutely not sense. His behaviour isn't good enough now. We've got drama, we've got edit wars, we've got users upset at him, how would letting him loose possibly improve that situation?--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, but would support August 1st. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, for the same reasons as I'm opposing a full removal of restrictions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, the sanctions are there for a reason. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks judgment, or simply refuses to exercise it, by being unable to deal with anything less than the absolutes he prefers and by being unable to edit in anything but a bot-like manner. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks the ability or willingness to collaborate or even communicate with any editor who doesn't already agree with him. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he wants only to "fix" NFC problems in the quickest way for him, regardless of whether the problem is easily fixable, such as by correcting a moved title in a NFUR as many have noted before. His approach is often the equivalent of deleting any text sentence that contains typos rather than copyediting it, because hey, it's not his job to fix things. Speeding him up obviously would just multiply the collateral damage. Fundamentally, I don't think he should be handling NFC at all, or any policy administration for that matter, because he has demonstrated a rigid, authoritarian approach that is completely at odds with the spirit of Wikipedia and corrosive to consensus. And exercising his will in that way is apparently his only interest in participating here, which raises a big red flag for me. Rather than work with editors to come to an understanding where there is disagreement or simply take the time to explain things, he considers himself a "policy enforcer" rather than a volunteer contributor as we all are. Such an approach is not in the best interest of the project, is not constructive, and is not competent. And it only increases animosity towards NFC to have him as its mute, bot-like zealot. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC) More forcefully stated than I would perhaps have done, but this is indeed the truth of the matter. Delta's work on the SPI bot seems to have been drama-free, presumably because he was only dealing with a small number of CUs, clerks and other admins, not with rank-and-file editors. It is those interactions in which Delta's behavioral problems come to the fore. Much to-do has been made in this section about "some editors" wanting to "ban" Delta from the site, but I don't want to ban him, I just want him to control his behavior. A reasonable compromise would be to bar him from doing automated or semi-automated policy enforcement which brings him into contact with a large number of editors, and increases the chance of problems occuring, which would leave him free to do... everything else that goes into building an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I think Postdlf has hit the nail on the head: Delta only seems to want to do the things that he's good at doing from a technical standpoint, but very, very bad at doing from the standpoint of interacting with other editors. Those are the horns of this particular dilemma, and no one really seems to be able to find a solution to that paradox. We could begin by finding other tasks like the SPI bot for him to do: stuff that's useful, makes good use of his talents, and yet keeps him out of range of the hoi polloi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose any reduction in sanctions - editor waffles from an addition to a detriment to the project. I do not support banning, but continued close monitoring and increasing blocks and sanctions. Until behavior improves (fixing easy problems rather than deletion, and polite responses to questions from ignorant newbies and others) sanctions MUST remain. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - I just took a gander at his edit count and within a week he has 3,000 edits, all doing the same thing...removing non-free images from every article. He's starting at A and working his way through the categories listings. He had 1000 edits over the past 24 hours. It might take the average editor months to get 1000 edits. He's racking up about 125 edits each hour he's on Wikipedia. At some point it just becomes disruptive to the projects. I mean, when it comes to non-free images being overused I'm right there ready to remove them (and I'm not saying that some of his edits are not good for the pages), but the level of removal that he is going for seems more like intentional disruption than good faith editing. This, to me, appears to be more like someone who is taking the letter of the law that we have established and turning it against us. Removing a non-free image because it links to the wrong page (by "wrong page" I mean it still links to its original page before it was moved), hardly seems like a real reason to remove an image. I think someone needs to start enforcing these sanctions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Can we request a stop Pending consensus on whether Delta's entitled to embark on this latest mass deletion effort? He's made at least 720 edits in the last 12 hours[11] and judging from a sample size of one that showed up on my watch list[12][13] (those logos aren't copyrighted, despite the tag) he's generating a high error rate. I see he's templating the regulars with block warnings using what appears may be an automated tool[14], edit warring,[15] and being generally unhelpful and unfriendly[16] over image rationales with obvious flaws that should have just been fixed.[17] Moreover, nearly all of the images he's removing are perfectly valid uses here but simply have flaws or missing information in their use rationale templates, a technical shortcoming that deserves a technical fix. This is nearly the exact scenario that played out a few years ago all over the encyclopedia and that led indirectly to his current restrictions. Whether it's a bot, or cut and paste, one edit a minute or ten, mass edits + poor judgment + lack of communication = damage to the encyclopedia. Could we at least ask Delta to stop until we see if he has consensus, and perhaps steer him in a more productive direction for fixing these image rationales? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I fully agree here. While I fully admit that I did not understand the rules of NFCC, and that he was correct, Delta gave me two templated edit summaries and a warning when I undid him once. There was nothing helpful there, and we didn't sort it out until he actually started talking to me. See here. Him racing through all these images is disruptive as for most of them, the images will disappear forever, and the minimum of work needed to fix the issues will not be done in the name of "It must be removed now!". Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, please, please, please - I'm finding a goodly number of these are the result of page moves where the backlink wasn't updated. It would be just as simple to create a bot to fix these non-updated backlinks rather than undo the work of thousands of people who took the time to upload the images, put (at that time) valid backlinks in the FuR's, only to have their work undone because of a page move. I have worked regularly to fix these, but there is no way that the few people that work on images can deal with the massive backlog that this has created. Perhaps a limited # a day unti the backlog is dealt with, but this is not the answer. Skier Dude (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The accusations of a high error rate are unfounded. Δ didn't remove an image that was tagged as free license or PD Wikidemon, and you know it. You criticize Δ for removing it because it should be marked as PD. Yet, you didn't raise a single finger to the people who experienced editor who uploaded the image and tagged it improperly (Connormah) and you didn't leave a complaint with Sfan00 IMG who subsequently touched the image. Why not? Why do you find it so easy to criticize Δ for making an error, but you can't be bothered to find fault with two experienced editors who committed an error? Why? Of course, it gets better. You accuse him of being rude because he's violating DTTR which ISN'T POLICY. It's an ESSAY. Got it? ESSAY. How about I accuse you of violating template the regulars. Afterall, it is an essay too and is every bit as valid as DTTR. You accuse him of using an automated tool because of this article history? Where in that is ANY evidence he's using an automated tool? Maybe you baselessly accuse me of using an automated tool [18][19][20]. You accuse him of edit warring because of this, yet YOU are edit warring and in the process violating WP:NFCC policy. You claim it just should have been fixed by him, yet you couldn't be bothered to fix it yourself and instead chose to edit war until it became obvious the image wouldn't be allowed until you fixed it. Could we at least ask you to stop making baseless accusations? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I'll respond to the only germane part of your comment, your question about Delta's possible use of automated tools. I used the wrong link but I've since corrected it.[21] Look closely, and if you can't figure out why that raises eyebrows I'll give you a hint. I won't dignify the unfounded tit-for-tat accusations or distortion of my editing history with a full response. Delta has paused with the image removals you're trying to defend, but I see you've taken them up yourself[22] and promoting an essay mirroring his position on how to do this. That's out of sync with the community's wishes, and if you're planning to step into Delta's shoes while disparaging those who raise concerns you may alienate the community too. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with the request to stop, these mass edits are definitely being done in some sort of an automated fashion that necessarily produces errors, that is, more work for others... I only had a brief look and within a dozen clicks found this silliness: [23] [24] - IOW the edit by Betacommand spawned two other edits, because all we had to do was fix a trivial discrepancy in page titles (caused by disambiguation) that had zero practical meaning as far as copyright law was concerned. It's plain old inefficient. If these edits are to continue, they need to be tagged as bot edits, because it's apparent that a human didn't actually review them. This kind of behavior is pretty disruptive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Propose topic ban Due to ongoing activity which, while clearly in good faith, has raised significant objections and tension, and can be done without as much drama and lower error rates by other users ... Proposed for community consideration: Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals. This does not apply to policy discussions or development. Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) For informational purposes: Block logs of Delta [25] and Beta [26]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, for blacklisting and smearing purposes. Can an editor ever put their past behind them or not? Or is this a permanent stain on him that he can never get past, no matter how proper his edits? Unreal. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If the editor never changes his behaviour? No. No he can't. Can anyone ever disagree with Delta without being insulted, accused of bad faith, etc? Unreal. Absolutely unreal.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support, it just happened to me again. I get notice from delta about him removing my image from the page Fireflight (Transformers) because it lacks a fair use rational for that page. I look at it seems someone had moved the page from it's original Fireflight to Fireflight (Transformers), but hadn't update the fair use rational to the new spelling of the page. So Delta removes the image and posted a notice to me about my lack of a fair use rational. He could have EASILY seen that there was a perfect rational already written with the old page named before the move and fixed it, or even notified me to make the fix, but no.... he removes the image. Delta is not helping himself with his continued actions. I believe the answer to out problem is to topic ban him and see he he can focus his energies elsewhere for a while, and we will learn by his actions in other places of Wikipedia if he's trying to be helpful or just wants to start trouble. Mathewignash (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) So you are saying we should ignore WP:NFCC#10c? which is a key part of our non-free content policy? Oh and we can do without the insults and personal attacks. I am not harassing nor am I even tagging things for deletion. ΔT The only constant 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No one said to IGNORE NCCC#10c, which says the fair use rational must mention the name of the article. I am saying you are making the wrong choice by removing the image over fixing the name when you could easily update the name. Removing a CORRECT picture from an article on a technicality when you could easily fix it's rational is reducing the quailty of wikipedia articles, not improving them. Doing it over and over to the point of annoying editors is disruptive. So I endorce topic banning you from something you do that reduces article quality and disrupts wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Acting in my capacity as an administrator, I have left a warning for Delta reminding him that his restriction requires him to carefully examine every edit. A careful editor would indeed be expected to notice what is going on with Fireflight and Fireflight (Transformers); it is obvious that Delta did not examine what was going on before making that edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose and please change the biased wording. My removals are 100% correct and 100% according to policy. The drama factor will be the same regardless of who does it. ΔT The only constant 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) But just because you are correct doesn't mean you are right. I appreciate the information you gave me at your talk, but you simply can't remove thousands of images and point to the same place with no effort to actually fix the wrongs. Instead of just tagging and removing, why not actually fix the individual articles and images? Support topic ban, with hopes that Delta understands that I bear him absolutely no ill will because of our recent clash. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) This has been an ongoing issue that hasnt been fixed, WP:NFCC states Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof thus the burden to ensure files meet policy is on those who want to use it not me. ΔT The only constant 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) So to be clear, you are telling us that you are "seeking to remove or delete" all these images, rather than to make sure they are policy compliant? Thparkth (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC) My goal is to remove non-compliant files, get those users involved in the article to take a look see if the problems are fixable and fix them if they are. There was a case today with Blue Harvest (Family Guy) that was a complete cluster fuck. I did a removal for a 10c violation and was reverted, I took a quick look and discovered a can of worms that took 20+ minutes to straighten out. (involved two almost dupliate articles on the exact same TV episode). Someone who is active in that area could have solved the issue in less than 3 minutes. Quite often it is difficult for those not involved in an article to write a valid rationale (No just a generic copy/paste rationale) with normally quite a bit of research (20+ minutes per file normally) while those who are familiar with the topic can typically do it in less than 5. It is far far easier to get others who know the subject to fix the issues than it is for an outsider, it also then familiarizes them with NFCC, and hopefully reduces the over all issues with lacking rationales due to them actively checking and fixing issues of their own. ΔT The only constant 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) My goal is to remove non-compliant files which is entirely the wrong goal and the entire problem with the mentality surrounding this. Your goal should be to improve the project and the articles within. In doing so you might remove some files, but in reality you should be trying to ensure that each article has the appropriate images in it in the right way, even if that includes fair use images. A blanket goal of simply removing non-compliant files damages the project as you're potentially damaging articles by removing images that should otherwise be there for the readers understanding because someone made a mistake, and doing so in a way that cause disruption, drama, and drives users from the project. If this is truly your goal then this proposal is right on track. You might be able to cherry pick a few examples where you've actually done something to help an article, but the reality is, you've found yourself edit warring over typos and page moves several times in the very recent past rather than fixing them. All the Blue Harvest's in the world don't really make up for that kind of behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)This has nothing whatsoever to do with burden of proof, since that refers to whether or not you are correct. I never said you weren't correct (note the section right above this), only that there is no way to remove hundreds of images with no ill effects. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, they are not. Policy on supports the repeated removal of NFCC images that are unquestionable cases. rationales broken by page moves, or types are questionable and your repeatedly hammering the revert button on those is not support by policy. The policy actually suggests you kick those off to a noticeboard for discussion, you know like many other people have suggested to you.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support for now at least. Any action on this scale needs careful planning and discussion. Even if done in an entirely error-free and policy-compliant manner, it still has a significant negative impact on the morale of thousands of good-faith and valued content editors. That needs to be managed somehow. Δ's inflexible mechanical approach is currently causing too much collateral damage. Δ should not proceed with this until he has the confidence of the community. (I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to gain that confidence though, after some discussion, and although there are philosophical differences between us, I do see his work in this area as valuable.) Thparkth (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support at an absolute minimum. At this point it's WP:COMPETENCE issues, pure and simple. Beta has demonstrated an ability to code rudimentary bots. That's great. Unfortunately, he has not demonstrated an ability to bug-check these bots. He has not demonstrated an ability to keep tabs on the bots and swiftly fix issues they create. He has not demonstrated an ability to communicate in a timely manner. He has not demonstrated an ability to communicate in a civil manner. His automated edits create just as many problems as they solve, and his constant sledgehammer approach to virtually all aspects of his Wikipedia presence creates massive ill-will. In his absence, a replacement will spring up. The project will not die without his efforts. Badger Drink (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) So who replaced the missing rationale tagging bot that I ran three years ago... Wait no one. Your logic is faulty. ΔT The only constant 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia will survive if you focus your energies on something besides image removal. Perhaps you could do something like ADD MISSING or FIX EXISTING rationals for images instead of removing the images? I'd find that very helpful. Mathewignash (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose for obvious reasons. What's the point of this? Consensus to topic ban Delta will likely never happen. He is important to Wikipedia and those familiar with NFCC rules know this, he will also have dozens of uninvolved editors like myself who support his work. Your only chance of getting him topic banned will be somewhere else, but certainly not on ANI. Noformation Talk 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) For information - Beta/Delta has been indefinitely blocked both by community, admins, and Arbcom at times in the past. He's come back successfully from those more than any other user, but he certainly can be and has been strongly sanctioned in various ways. He is currently under another community sanction ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions ) that may have been violated in various ways in the current instance, though I am not going to action anything under that. He has been blocked for violations of that recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support - At a minimum, this will allow the dust to clear, so that everyone can approach this problem with an eye to a solution that accomodates everyone's needs, including Delta's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Change the NFCC policy if you don't want it enforced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No change is proposed in the policy. Enforcement can continue to be done by any other user, who hopefully can do so in a less community-ire-raising manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support, per my earlier comments, and as the proposer stated, quite succinctly and correctly, that whatever Delta does "can be done without as much drama and lower error rates by other users." That's hard to dispute. I have no faith in that changing, and it is a waste of time to keep dealing with it. BTW, this isn't a referendum on NFC policy, but rather on what one editor does in its name, and how he seems to care about no other aspect of Wikipedia content or policy. I think it's quite shameful actually that he repeatedly invokes the importance of NFC policy to excuse his unwillingness to observe the other standards and goals that guide us here. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Eagles 24/7. To single out an editor who is within policy, and attempt to ban them is ...<not sure of what word to use that wouldn't get close to the wp:civ thing>. What you are suggesting is that we "ban" someone who is trying to bring things into compliance, .. because a lot of editors are fighting to keep things out of compliance. That makes it pretty easy for me to oppose that type of "solution". Sorry. — Ched :  ?  02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) He's not always within policy, policy only allows you to edit war over NFCC that are unquestionable cases, several of Delta's edit wars have been over questionable cases.--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Lots of other people enforce NFCC issues and FUR issues. Beta consistently does so in manners that generate community uproar and outrage, both about his behavior and about the policy. Beta's response to the ANI threads above was to increase automated edits and engage in several new edit wars, rather than calm the situation down. I don't know how this can be defended as being "within policy". The NFCC issue is not the only policy in play. Compare and contrast COPYVIO issues and Moonriddengirl's excellent, non-abusive, consensus-building responses with Beta's NFCC/FUR actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose This is a clear case of people not liking the message, so going after the messanger. People have gone after Delta, Damiens, Future Perfect, pretty much anyone that dosen't allow people to do whatever the heck they want with images, even when it breaks policy, get targeted for this. You should all be ashamed of your downright pathetic, bad faith, and at this point not at all concealed campaign to change policy by axing anyone that enforces it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, this is a case of not liking how the messenger does things. The message is fine, NFCC images need rationales, bludgeoning newbies with templates, static unchanging edit summaries, and causing seasoned editors to quit is not the message of NFCC.--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Of course, no conversation would be complete without you Crossmr. I expected no less. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I've clarified my position on this matter at my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Nor would it be complete without your insults and assumptions of bad faith. It's utterly amazing that you can watch Delta annoy so much of the community and yet think it's me that has some kind of nefarious purpose by stating my opinion on his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support. As usual, the only defence for Delta's behaviour is "but NFCC is really important!". The importance of NFCC does not excuse behaviour. Whether or not his actions are technically within policy is irrelevant, as the collateral damage and drama he is causing as a result of his bullheaded, mindless push forward is not benefitting the project. I would be happy to reverse this support if Delta undertakes to slow down on his tagging, and seek better ways to get his message out, i.e.: along the lines of our brief discussion here. Resolute 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I could have said bot up and running within 3 hours, but the headache and hoops that I would need to go through would make the process take 6 months. If you can avoid that hassle I could have it operating ASAP with advanced notifications. (Not that I that it is effective in my opinion). ΔT The only constant 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The hoops are there with good reason, alas. I am happy to help you in any fashion I can to expedite such a request, as I think the underlying truth of the matter is that we need a better way of dealing with NFCC removals far more than we need to remove you from the task. However, no harm will come to Wikipedia if you take a small step back from this and help work out other potential delivery messages. Hell, I doubt you need to run a bot to determine which WikiProjects have the highest numbers of quesitonable images. Leaving messages at those project pages could have benefits. And if not, making the effort should help you gain credit when you resume tagging images that aren't addressed. As you said above, it takes you 20 minutes on some images, but knowledgable editors can do it in a quarter of the time - well, one or two people might be watchiing an article talk page, but dozens could be watching a project talk page. Look for ways to spread your concerns to the most people, and you might start to bring in editors willing to help. Or continue as you have, and well... Resolute 03:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If you can get me a list of projects and a relatively easy way to get all associated articles with them, it would be trivial to run reports. But getting the logistics together for something like that would require assistance. ΔT The only constant 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Well, you already have a script that matches a bad image to its article. Could you not then have your script check the talk page of that article for project banners? I don't know the technical side of it, but DASHBot has a task that matches uBLPs to projects. You'd probably have to collate it somewhat manually, but at least as a trial involving a few projects, noting the risk of image removal/deletion, hopefully would yield some results. Resolute 03:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support, This previous ruling combined with the ongoing behavior pretty much assures that if a topic ban isn't imposed here it will be imposed by the committee later. Dealing with this again and again is itself disruptive, as evidenced by the comment directly above this one where Sven Manguard insultingly accuses all who support stopping the continued misbehavior of bad faith. Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Comment. It has come to my attention that at least some of the images Delta is editing have issues that are obvious to any careful editor: the image was uploaded with a valid rationale but the name of the article has changed. For example Delta removed File:Tiger Mascot.JPG from Elmwood Park High School (Illinois). The FUR on that image referred to Elmwood Park High School. That latter article was moved to Elmwood Park High School (Illinois) to make a dab page. It is hard for me to believe that Delta is following the requirement of his edit restriction that he must carefully and manually examine every edit. What sort of careful editor would not notice the FUR pointing to Elmwood Park High School and the use on Elmwood Park High School (Illinois) (both of which are visible on the file page) and check the move log? I have come across at least two other flawed edits of this sort by Delta from the past 24 hours. It is true that careful editing takes longer, but it is what Delta is required to do by his restriction. If he is unwilling to carefully look at the pages he edits, despite the restriction, a topic ban may indeed be necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Comment - I'm agaisnt what Triangle/Delta wants. Because he is being selective in what he says. He does not explain to users who add these images, the fair use, He fobs them off with a warning, then backs it up with the patronising template on his user talk. If I were a new user - or one who was not familiar with the policy or fair use choices.. it would put me off. Hammersoft also wades in if anyone questions him. Who is in cahoots here? I've seen familiar happening in previous discussions, they stick together like glue, even though 13 overs 6 editors agreed with the past non-free images proposals. I think this mass removal game is unfair if the editor cannot be bothered to give fair explanations or offer users a chance to rectify their mistakes. Seems to me like one mission to rid all non free media with no questions asked.RaintheOne BAM 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support This disruptive behaviour has been going on for years. In fact I pointed above to a conversation we had nearly 3 years ago which is essentially the same as this one. The reason we're talking about banning Delta and not any other user is because no other NFCC user has generated the kind of disruption that Delta has generated and it's purely down to his behaviour. If any other NFCC worker starts to generate that same kind of disruption then they could expect to find themselves the subject of the same kind of discussion I'm sure.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support As GWH points out above, there are much better ways to handle NFCC/copyvio problems than the ones Delta uses. CBM's Elmwood Park example is fairly typical of the problems here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose It's all very well saying "oh there are better ways to do this" but the problem is that no-one actually will. I bet you won't see any of the supporters actually lifting a finger to do it... Black Kite (t) (c) 06:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC) So.. just for clarification here, your logic on opposing this is "Because no one does anything better" we can let him carry on his disruptive merry way? Wow. Just wow, you then combine that with an assumption of bad faith. How about the fact that several other people do this work and don't seem to generate a tenth of the noise he does. That should be evidence enough that there is a better way to do it and it is being done right now.--Crossmr (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) That's a false dichotomy. Anyway, it's trivial to see how it could be done better: simply take what he's doing right now, and then remove the robotic lack of common sense or respect for the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Not at all - we've previous evidence of NF enforcement dropping off when Beta is stopped from doing it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Nobody is denying that he does a lot of work. The problem is that he is incapable of doing it without intimidating contributors, inconveniencing regular FUR cleanuppers, and causing a metric ton of drama. Nobody is irreplaceable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) NFCC is very important to me. I'd be happy having no non-free content at all. But that's not the community's position, and a semi-mindless drive to enforce NFCC by deleting anything which isn't strictly compliant with what is evidently very little regard to fixing mostly-valid cases is disruptive, plain and simple. Whether or not he's technically operating within policy is irrelevant: what with NFCC being largely a community policy rather than something forced upon us by the law, it is compliance with community which is expected first and not compliance with policy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose. These pages do not comply with policy. Work towards a solution in stead of removing a symptom. By all means, help Delta in making sure that removals are not necessary, set up a system where images are tagged, restart a bot tagging the images, and do work towards fixing the problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Delta is not the symptom, he is the problem. His behaviour has been going on for years. No one else generates the noise he does over this, and you simply cannot deny that. Tagging images is not the solution, even those on the side of Delta have said that already. The proposal is not over his removals, this is nothing more than a strawman. The proposal is over his behaviour and how he does the removals. The ends do not justify the means here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) So, how is banning Delta going to get the pages their FURs? Not to speak about all the images which are used, but where the use is certainly not Fair-use, but a plain violation. Oh wait, it is the presumed 'Delta does not communicate in a decent way' - Well, there are two very decent threads on his talkpage where a question was asked, and where Delta nicely and in a civil way explains. But editors only see the cases where Delta does not give the answer they want, or Delta does not give an answer that they understand. What about proposals that actually fix the problem - getting editors to fix the FURs in a proper way, remove the other violations, and informing/teaching new users when they use non-free material that they should then also add a FUR. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, but it stops the disruption that he is causing. That is the point of this proposal. Stop trying to make it into something it isn't. If you can't actually defend Delta's behaviour on its own merit rather than trying to tangent off onto an issue that really has nothing to do with what we're discussing, then that really should tell you something. In fact every single oppose breaks down to the same irrelevant argument. Trying to make it about NFCC when really, that is not the main problem. The discussion is about Delta and his behaviour, that's it. While many would prefer him entirely gone, I'll settle for having him removed from his most disruptive area right now and see how that goes, but if you want to solve the NFCC issue, go out and FIX it instead of wasting time defending someone who has been disrupting this encyclopedia in the exact same way for years on end. Because, that is exactly what I'm doing right now: [27], [28], [29], [30], plus many more. This is exactly how you fix the issue right there. Let me tell, I just opened up [31] and started going through it and in all but one of the articles I chose from the first bit, my untrained NFCC eye was able to spot the problem before I even went to the article, and you're telling me Delta has no way of knowing what he's supposed to do? Please. There is a whole big list there, we've got plenty of work to do.--Crossmr (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The proposed topic ban is 'Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals.' - Now, it does not specifically say it, but 'topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity' also suggests that he is not allowed to fix fair-use where he can, and the rest suggests that he is not allowed to remove images for which no fair-use rationale can be created. As Delta says 'teach a man how to fish, and he has food for a lifetime', adapt this ban-proposal to something else, and help Delta to fix the rationales. That is what has been suggested (by Delta, and others) for years now, but that never took a hold, and until very recently no collaborative effort in order to solve the problem has been performed. Even my suggestion to notify users who insert a non-free image but where the image does not have a FUR (some time after the edit) gets shot down. The only thing left, indeed, is that there will come a collaborative effort to actually fix them. I do appreciate that you are helping out - it is something that many users should have done already for a long time, and that would maybe have encouraged Delta and others to do the same (and I think that is what Delta has been suggesting as well) - even if it is not required from you or Delta or anyone else. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Nothing stops Delta from going out and doing that on his own. In fact it's been mentioned to him for years. This is exactly the point. It's proposed he be banned from the process because he can't seemingly work within it without causing extreme disruption. Disruption that has gone on for years. He's had so many chances to turn his behaviour around it's absolutely ridiculous. At any point he could have started trying to fix rationales rather than hammering the revert button. People keep trying to make it seem like Delta has no choice but to do what he does, but he has had choice and continually chosen the wrong one. There have been several users collaborating on it, it's very easy to see who they are because they repeatedly show up to defend him in every discussion. Yet at no time did anyone in that group seem to try to guide him towards this, yet they've repeatedly defended his every edit. If anyone who defends delta wants things to change, then they have to actually change. Which means Delta needs to be out of the process. While he recently updated his edit summary, he then went through and caused disruption again with his plowing ahead regardless of on-going discussions, or anything else. In fact some of the ones I went to fix, I noted Delta had already been through and had a go at just blindly removing the image, an image that I could spot the problem with from orbit with my eyes closed. If you want things to change then you should support his removal from the process because the process that needs to happen really can't have him as a part of it. He's shown that over the years that he's not really interested in that kind of thing. He's stated above his goal is to remove non-compliant images. His goal isn't to improve articles, his goal isn't to improve the project, it's to remove non-compliant images, and it shows in his editing style. Last time around I near begged him to kick dispute images off to the noticeboard and he turned around and did it again and again.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC) We'll stay on opposite sites here, Crossmr. Ever so often it has been asked to solve the problem, to bring everything in line with policy, and every time people don't help. If editors 3 years ago would have made sure that there were mechanisms available to solve the problem, and if editors would have been responsive to fixing the problems when they were pointed out to them, then we would not even be here, Delta would be jobless. I can agree that deleting them all from display is not a solution, but all other solutions just run into a situation that nothing is happening (and the problem only grows bigger and bigger). And that is exactly what will happen if you ban Delta from NFC work, two weeks after the start of the ban, nothing will happen anymore, everyone will forget NFC. But well, I think that is my biggest frustration on Wikipedia anyway, and this is just another example of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And in the end, Crossmr, we both want the same thing. I am willing to help with solutions to make the problem gradually smaller, I am willing to help repairing rationales, I am willing to help in detection systems for finding those which are likely a 'problem' (like Delta is generating that list that you now use), I am also willing to help to find a way to 'teach'/notify new users that they are using non-free material and that they should be having a look if the rationale is OK. I am sure, that if there is a collaborative effort to actually help Delta, that then also Delta is then also willing to cooperate. But until very, very lately, I have not seen any such effort (and forgive me, but I am skeptic if it will last). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If you are able to do all of the above, then I fail to see why we should not expect the same from others working on NFCC. Furthermore, I find the assertion that Delta is solely responsible for upholding NFCC to be severely disparaging of the rest of the community. Do you know how many times people have argued that such-and-such an editor is so indispensable that removing said editor would cause the sky to fall down? How many times has it been true so far? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, we both want the same thing, but Delta doesn't. We both want to improve the project, he wants to remove non-compliant images. Delta needs no special mechanisms to fix the problem. What special mechanisms did I use to do what I just did? Nothing. The reason so few people get involved with NFCC right now is because it's toxic and as long as Delta stays involved with it, and the group of editors who defend him to the death continue to do so, it will stay toxic. Run NFCC as a friendly, helpful process and you'll have no end to the amount of users who will get involved in it and help out. Continue to run it as it is and eventually the whole thing will come crashing down. Your first message to a user over an NFCC issue should never include the word "block" or even a warning sign. Have a look at the messages I just left those users (both for people using images and people who moved pages, which was most of the problems) and you'll get an idea what the message should look like. NFCC has been built up to be some kind of scary minefield and it's perpetuated every time Delta goes out and works in it. Delta has known of the problems with his editing for years, and it's time for the community to stop coddling him. If we have to have a collaborative effort to keep one single user, it's not the community's problem, it's a problem with the editor. All you're really doing is making a stronger argument for why Delta shouldn't be here. Not why we should keep him. Immediately overhaul NFCC, start manually checking images, because honestly it looks like some people are not actually looking at the images they're removing. There is no other way to say it, but it honestly seems that Delta may be using a tool that tells him if an image is compliant without actually visiting the page to inspect it himself which is why he's missing these ridiculously obvious ones. Stop templating users, start writing individual messages, and things will improve. But they simply cannot improve in the current environment that they're in, and honestly that may mean that some current NFCC workers may also have to move on to other work if their main goal is the same as Delta's in that they just want to remove non-compliant images.--Crossmr (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Thumperward - I would never say that anyone is dispensable - every single user is useful. Crossmr - you used the list provided by Delta. That list is already there for some time. And I still say, if editors would set out to help Delta solving the problem in other ways, then he would be willing to help (there are enough questions on Delta's talkpage and in his archives where he is asked why a rationale is broken, and he gives an answer). And no, I do not think we need a collaborative effort to keep one user, we need a collaborative effort to get something up to policy, and not just let it get further down, because whatever you say, up till a couple of weeks ago, there was exactly one user who actually cared about NFC, and thousands of editors who (for whatever reason) made the situation worse. And if that collaborative effort has as a side effect that we keep yet another user, then, IMHO, that is just another gain. We are collaboratively writing an encyclopedia here, and getting everything in line with WP:NFC is also a part of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And I don't believe that Delta does not want to get everything in line with WP:NFC. If his goal is to remove images, then he would also remove images which are having a valid FUR. If there are other ways, then by all means - show him. But I predict, in 2-3 weeks time, everything is back to the old, no-one cares anymore, and nothing is going to happen. And then it is back to those very, very few who actually care. We've been there before, so much for collaborative effort to get this 'pedia up to policy standards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC) He didn't say he wanted to remove all images, he said he wanted to remove all non-compliant images which is exactly what he's doing in a robotic manner. You said above If editors 3 years ago would have made sure that there were mechanisms available to solve the problem. Delta provided that tool, no one else. Delta could have provided it 3 years ago (I have no idea when he created it), but once again you dance around the issue of Delta editing without actually looking at the page. Considering how many times I've seen that danced around so far, I'm beginning to suspect that that is exactly what is happening. To be honest I don't think Delta does care about NFCC, he cares about removing non-compliant images as if it's a race, and be damned the collateral damage. The problem is, that regardless of foundation directives, NFCC is not the only part of this encyclopedia. Delta has made trivial effort over the years to stay here, and it's only been his vocal cheerleaders who have kept him here. The conversation here with you is exactly the same as it has been since this has started. You're desperately trying to make this about something else other than Delta, but it is him and has always been him. It's not NFCC (though it needs improvement), it's not all the other users on the project, it is Delta plain and simple. He's had over 9000 last chances, and frankly it's enough. In the end, no one forces him to act the way he does, the project carries on without him, and he is ultimately responsible for his behaviour. He's essentially refused to make anything but the most trivial changes, heck he was blocked within 24 hours after having his indef block lifted in 2009 for violating his restrictions. The ones he'd just super duper with a cherry on top promised to follow. He's continually violated his restrictions, excessively so over the last 2 months and yet we get no end to the same group of people showing up to try and excuse away every single violation. The community has already done this for years, and in fact there has been once or twice where an admin has said they're willing to go through and block every single one of his defenders for wasting the community's time with this, and honestly that is all it is. A waste. With all the time the community has spent in dealing with him, all the users he's chased away, it is a giant waste of time, and no matter what good you think he does, it's grossly out-weight by his disruption and damage.The community doesn't need to spend one ounce of effort on keeping him because it is on him at this point, and he's utterly failed at finding anyway to effectively integrate himself with it. Perhaps if those who spent all this time singing his praises actually did something to straighten him out rather then let him carry on as he does, this discussion would have been done years ago.--Crossmr (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I've wasted enough time on this. I'll just add this one as another example of a massive, collaborative failure of Wikipedia, and move on to other tasks. You (pl.) are setting a pathetic example. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Please don't give up. There's a lot of pessimism about being able to handle this topic better, but more and better tools should help, and we should be able to learn from past mistakes; and I think you're on the right path with your suggestions at the NFCC RFC. Rd232 public talk 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Rd232. See my alternative 'ban' below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support Have no problem with his desire to want to resolve FUR image problems on WP, but the modus operandi is just wrong. Any editor can fix any problem on Wikipedia by just deleting it. The whole point of collaborative community editing is that you fix the problems that occur, deletion of content is the last action that should be used on an article, not the first. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support. Blindly deleting images which have a malformed or damaged rationale is not contributing to the project. If the rationale was created in good faith, fellow editors can also show good faith by fixing the issue. memphisto 10:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support. While we should work towards elimination of all non-free images, I think the amount of drama we get from Δ's work in the area (for years) is not worth it. —Kusma (t·c) 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Comment I am frankly astonished by this. We are voting to stop a user keeping articles within policy, and some of those voting for this sanction (one, especially) are habitual abusers of the NFCC policy. What next? Shall we let Grawp sockpuppets vote to topic-ban admins from blocking people? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Careful who you're tarring with that broad brush, there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Quite a narrow brush really; a minority, certainly, but a vocal one. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The insinuation is still that those of us who aren't opposed to the NFCC (even strong enforcement, if done properly: the canonical example is, as previously mentioned, Moonriddengirl's exemplary copyvio work) are being led along by people who want nonfree images to proliferate. Whether or not a vocal minority want Delta gone for the wrong reasons, it doesn't make the proposal invalid when it's supported by plenty of people who don't see things that way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The problem is that there's no difference between your "Support" and a "Support" from someone who wants Beta off the project so they can continue to abuse our policies. The people in this thread who have ulterior motives for ridding the project of Beta know who they are. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) As the tarred and feathered most vocal opposer to Delta lately, can you point to where I abuse NFCC?--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Actually, I wasn't referring to you. Though your somewhat unpleasant crusade against Beta does you few favours. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I see who you mean now. So you basically admit that because I vocally supported a restriction on Delta you are targeting articles I edit for deletion? You've nominated several of the ones I edit for deletion just today. That's sorta an obvious attempt to intimidate me isn't it? Mathewignash (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Alternatively, you could stop creating non-notable articles and stop plastering NFCC-violating images all over other ones. It's just a thought. I last looked at these articles 6 months ago and you haven't even tried to fix any of them - in fact they've got worse. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose. As someone whose fairly active in the NFCC area, the amount of 'Blame the Messenger' that gets directed at Delta is frankly absurd, nearly laughably so if it weren't so unsettling. -- ۩ Mask 11:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And those of us who aren't using Delta as a proxy to attack NFCC? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support with caveat: make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed. Notification, education, fixing, development of tools, etc. That gives the community a break from this drama, and some time to come up with better ways to address these problems, without those who favour strong enforcement of NFCC feeling that they're somehow permanently losing the argument. I think we could just do with a respite, and allowing Delta to be active on the topic but not in the ways that so often causes friction should be a good compromise, bearing in mind that he is not the sole standard-bearer of NFCC enforcement and there are certainly others who can and do remove images which really need removing. Rd232 public talk 12:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Almost sensible, I would also suggest to allow for removal of images for which no fair-use rationale can be constructed. E.g. images outside mainspace. Will try to construct something below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose If you don't like how the policy is being maintained, change the policy, don't attack the editor that's following it. No editor is required to fix trivial mistakes of FURs, per policy. If you don't like that, WT:NFC and WT:BURDEN are that thataway. If you want to make the special case for Delta that no one else has to follow, then let's refine the community restriction to specifically spell out what Delta's expected to do that is otherwise not outlined in polcy. But topic banning for doing something within the defined bounds of current policy and restrictions without addressing the problems with the latter? Do note that if there is a serious discussion on changing NFC or the editing restrictions that I would support a 2 week or less temporary topic ban as, as others have said "to let the dust settle", but again, that requires a serious discussion and not one influenced by emotion. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The issue is not with the NFCC policy. Beta is indeed required to do things that other people are not required to do, and that's the whole point of the restriction he is under. There's no need to change NFCC, and many NFCC patrollers do just fine under the current system. But Beta is not one of them, it seems. For example, this image File:Gen Sir Edward Hutton.jpg is clearly PD. Beta removed it twice, even after someone else pointed out it is obviously PD. That's not what productive NFCC patrollers do, and frankly it's not what any collegial editor would do. It appears to be just belligerence, even if it is within the broadest possible interpretation of what is permissible under NFCC policy. Productive NFCC patrollers handle these things well, but Beta does not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) It's not clearly PD: it has two country-specific PD licenses and a non-free rationale. It is an old picture, but the source info given in the rationale, on a simple read-through, doesn't give me enough to know if the PD licenses apply - they are more likely due to the age (late 1890s photo), but its completely possible that the photographer died in, say, 1970, and thus life+50 for Canada would still apply. Someone would have to do research to confirm that. That's above and beyond the work that an NFC patrol needs to handle. Until that point is confirmed, we have to treat such images as non-free. But these cases (where the uploader likely was confused as to what the image upload process was, which is confusing) are exceptions as they aren't trivial fixes. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And to reintroduce this WP:RFC/Non-free content enforcement to propose and comment on ideas to change NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC) How many times do we need to repeat that is has nothing to do with the policy? The policy is an entirely separate issue, and this is about Delta's behaviour. It manifests itself most when he enforces the policy, but it actually has nothing to do with the policy at all.--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support and also unblock editors that were blocked as a result of arguments with Delta. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support the same as User:Mathewignash said above. Instead of fixing the link of File:Crying Time.jpg (it was Crying Time instead of Crying Time (album)), he reverted the edits and put a rude message on my talk page. This is out of the question.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 13:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) A templated warning message [32] is not a rude message. If you think it is, that's a different discussion altogether. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) removed as dab repairing. I won't either support nor oppose, as this was the only issue. I didn't look and won't look in his contributions anymore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Shooting the messenger will not resolve the perpetual issues with NFCC. No system is perfect, but anything can be improved. So given our policy on NFCC, why won't anyone else work together with him to improve the system? Or come up with a better way to deal with non-free content? Because it's horrible, tedious work that nobody wants to bother with. It's work that by definition should be done with a bot, yet everyone seems determined to force the community to do it by hand. We should forget about being a free encyclopedia and just accept that a significant number of our images always will be unlicensed copyright violations and/or in violation of our own policies. Night Ranger (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The problem is not the message, the message is fine. The problem is the messenger, so to use your analogy, shooting him is correct. This is not about NFCC, and stop trying to derail the discussion by making it about that. This is purely about Delta's behaviour and nothing else. As for a better way to handle the work, well, see my contributions I lined out above, or the work I've done repairing several today that Delta has either previously blown off or would have blown off as they were on his list. Then see the follow-up reply on my talk page. That's how you do it, and that's the response you generate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If it's about the messenger, then put this in context of the civility restriction. And even then, you'd find it hard to enforce that : he has a now well-written edit summary that points to appropriate places for how to fix, he drops a template message to the editor, and I've not seen him approach incivility on his talk page, short of being brief and to the point. Hundreds of other editors act the same way. You cannot carve out brand new exceptions for one editor without identify through consensus that that's a problem. Realistically, the problem that I'm seeing from supports is a combination of their tolerance with NFC policy conjugated with their tolerance for Delta's current behavior presumed on his past behavior: separate them, there are no identifiable issues or there are issues that have specific changes in policy that need to be made; together, we're seeing a witch hunt. And I will be clear: If I were in Delta's shoes, I would be fixing the small typos and being a bit more helpful; I don't think his current approach to his work is the easiest route for everyone. But that's me, that's not what policy requires. --User:Masem 15:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC) We don't need policy to say something is needed before we can go ahead and do it as a community. I've gone out and lead by example with a new NFCC approach. Policy didn't require that I do it, but I did it because that is what the community needs. There is no need to make a special restriction for Delta, he's disruptive plain and simple. We already have guidelines and policies against that. His behaviour causes disruption and it's longterm enough to either topic ban him or ban him from the encyclopedia. No other editors generate the noise Delta does, and if/until they do, they don't individually need talking about. However, if everyone goes and grabs some files and does as I did, we can get through the backlog and actually improve articles and build a community--Crossmr (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Absolutely unreal. You don't like the edits, so you want to prevent him from doing them. Yet, they are perfectly in line with policy and best practices. This is yet another attempt to shut down NFCC enforcement. You don't like NFCC, fine, but start the process to suspend NFCC or get it revoked. End running the system by shooting one of the best NFCC enforcement people on the project, you might as well shoot yourself in the foot. Or maybe that's the intent? Destroy NFCC so we stop having these wars? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Our best practices (a pillar of the community, no less) are not supportive of making NFCC a poisonous place to work. Tackling copyright violation in articles is also a tough and ugly job, but that seems to be getting done right. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC) This has nothing to do with NFCC. I know it's much easier to argue his case if you try to make it about that, but it's utterly irrelevant.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Then pray tell what is it about when an editor is conducting edit entirely within policy? The reason to ban Δ from this work can be applied to anyone doing NFCC enforcement. If his work here is disruptive, then so are my thousands of edits doing EXACTLY the same kind of work. Stopping him won't stop the enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but now you're just being absurd. It can plainly be seen that the reason nobody is calling for other NFCC enforcers to be topic banned is that other NFCC enforcers don't edit the same way that Delta does. This sounds like one of those Ireland Arbcom cases where a group of editors are completely unable to see that an editor who spent every day edit warring and hurling abuse at other people was being criticised for anything other than which side of the British Isles debate he was on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I edit the same way Δ does. I just did it again Why aren't you stopping me? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Just how hard do you want to be chucking that WP:BOOMERANG, Hammersoft?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Gee, this almost looks like a pointy edit, maybe we need another subsection. Since I went out and showed you how to edit NFCC without cuasing disruption and you've turned around and done this it almost smells like WP:BATTLEGROUND as well.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC) No one asked for enforcement to stop. You're basically inventing strawmen to try and make a point. The reason to ban him from this work is because when he does this work he causes endless disruption because he does so with little care. The way we can tell his work is disruptive and yours isn't is because you don't have a subpage dedicated to you with years long history attached to it. I've actually gone out and done a little clean-up/enforcement myself this evening and lead by example. There is a much better way to do NFCC that actually helps the community and the articles involved. His edits are not entirely within policy. He's repeatedly edit warred on questionable images, even when there was no image on the page (because he wasn't taking proper care with his edits), and even policy suggests that images be kicked to a noticeboard, but he does none of this. He just plows ahead and causes disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support almost exactly as per Rd232. It is possible to be operating within the letter of the law so awkwardly that you must be asked to stop because you've broken too many toes and elbowed too many faces in your pursuit of obeying the law. This is more or less where we sit with Delta. He enforces NFC policy - a honorable task - but does it in the style of an automaton who either can't or won't explain any particular action in detail when asked. Perhaps he knows the explanation to each and just doesn't want to share it; perhaps he's operating so quickly that even he doesn't know his rationale for each action. Either way, the removal of images that are obviously in the "oops, let's fix that" basket and not the "no license, burn it" basket, and the inability to explain to upset uploaders why, exactly, is simply too much heat and not enough light. I see little reason to bar Delta from even looking at NFC, or anything so draconian; what I would like to see is him enjoined from removing images but permitted to discuss, fix, raise issues about, etc them. Delta's detailed knowledge of policy is worth something, and if we can just funnel him into applying it in ways that he is less able to slip into a robot mindset about, then I think it would be a win for everyone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support Another month, another Betacommand incident. Just pull the trigger already. TotientDragooned (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support—should minimise (though sadly not obliterate) the amount of trouble Delta causes. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Comment Delta's recent edits ‎(repair dab link in rationale), suggest he may be willing to compromise. memphisto 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) The 11th hour plea? I believe we've seen those before. He wasn't willing to compromise before, but now that there is a majority building against him suddenly he's game? As Beetstra pointed out above, how long will that last?--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) It cant be 11th hour either if Ive been doing this for more than 6 months can it? [33] and [34] Both from January of this year. ΔT The only constant 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) It can't be an 11th hour plea if no one has identified what policies or restrictions he's violated, and instead are going after him as an easy target for NFC enforcement, and he's trying to figure out what he's exactly guilty of. What should we do if Hammersoft or Black Kite takes up Delta's work with the same approach? Ban them too? --MASEM (t) 14:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If that approach were performed in the same exact manner, definitely would merit the same measures. But I agree with Memphisto here. If all this drama has prompted Delta to abandon zillions of removals to perform zillions of repairings instead, that's a huge improvement to the project that should be encouraged and welcome. Diego Moya (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Uhhhhh... yes? This is not about the policy. It is about the behaviour. If anyone else acted like Delta (recalcitrant, unwilling or unable to comprehend criticism, and constantly breaking any condition set on them) they'd be blocked too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) WHAT BEHAVIOR. For God's sake produce some evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, if they cause the same level of disruption. But they'd have a long way to go before that happens. I've already outlined and lead by example tonight on how to do it without disruption. Anyone here that wants to actually help the project, rather than race to the NFCC finish line leaving crushed editors in their wake is free to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Strong oppose. Seriously WTF? If you think the policy is poorly worded and enforcement is inconsistent, topic-banning an editor who follows and adheres to the policy is not the appropriate solution. So now those who break the rule are actually telling us that they're right and wants to topic-ban those who are actually following the rules? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC) This is not about the policy; this is about Beta's behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Then identify the error's he's done. Else, your proposal is baseless. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) He's repeatedly caused disruption. I'm not very good at drawing but let me see if I can fire up paint and work something out.--Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Tell me where I've been repeatedly violating NFCC policy? Is there an irrelevant argument card being handed out somewhere? This has nothing to do with the policy and his topic ban is not supported only by those who have had issues with NFCC, but you're the second person to try and make that bad faith assumption here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose and a trout to GWH for suggesting it. Almost all of the usual suspects who have chimed in here in support of the topic ban are long-term adversaries of Δ, and most of them dislike the whole NFCC regime, which is not an excuse to bash Δ when he enforces the policy. How man of you who snivel about Δ's tagging actually fix problems you encounter when editing an article for the first time? If you don't do it, please go away and start fixing the problems which he has found. If they are so easy to fix, do it yourself. Δ is acting within policy, and identifying errors which have been introduced by other people not properly following our image use guidelines. Stop shooting the messenger and fix the real problem. Horologium (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oh look, more bad faith assumptions. I went out and lead by example and showed exactly how the NFCC problem could be handled in a community positive manner both in fixing NFCC images and removing some. I did it myself, I caused no disruption and Delta has shown over the years that he's incapable of doing so. The messenger is the real problem.--Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support per most of the supports above. It is time this wikidrama be ended and delta find something more productive to do that won't cause so much disruption. By my count, the !votes are at 18-11 in support. Buffs (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose, does valuable and necessary work. Would be nicer if he was nice about it. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC) This is irrelevant as there is no points sheet on how good your work gets to be vs how much disruption you cause. Over the last 2 days I've gone out and demonstrated how to do NFCC without causing these issues. Something Delta hasn't been able to accomplish despite all the last chances in the world. Disruptive work is neither valuable nor necessary. The entire problem is that he isn't nice about it, he's been given more chances that a cat has lives to turn it out and has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Proposed topic ban has serious problems; no evidence In the proposal by Georgewilliamherbert, he indicated that the reason for the topic ban is because the work being done is raising objections, tension, causing drama, and there are significant errors. The problem here is many fold; (1) no errors have been identified (other than page moves, which is refuted) (2) No effort's been made to identify how Δ actually induced tension/drama/objections. With this in mind, the very same proposal could be made against anyone who conducts this sort of work. With no factual evidence to support the topic ban, it has no validity. This is a massive case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stopping Δ will not stop all the other editors who are doing the exact same work. It's time for the next step in WP:DR if you want a topic ban, so at least SOME idea of providing actual evidence to support positions can be pursued. As is, this topic ban is void on the face of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Not everyone agrees that page moves are refuted. Many still believe they should be fixed, I went out and fixed a bunch tonight. And while I conducted the work tonight, I received a lovely thank you, no crying editors and I did it all without templates and actually taking care to improve the articles with NFCC issues rather than race through because if we don't finish them all by tomorrow morning wikipedia is sure to be sued into oblivion right? The supporters have Delta have a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and are desperately trying to focus on NFCC because if they have to actually talk about his behaviour, they can't defend it. Delta has repeatedly edit warred over questionable cases, operated in a bot-like manner during many of those situations which escalates things, and ignored obvious mistakes that could have been fixed in far less time then he spent hammering the revert button. His behaviour is not improving this encyclopedia, despite the foundations need to ensure NFCC compliance.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Regarding the question of specific evidence - Wikidemon in the thread immediately above the proposed community ban identified edit warring, attacks, automated behavior violating the community restriction, and multiple errors, all of which had happened since the general thread here had started. I did not repeat / duplicate that information, but please consider it a baseline statement of active ongoing problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And Δ has been thanked for his work too. That you got thanked doesn't make you more right. Repeatedly edit warred? Every time the issue's been raised at the 3RR noticeboard it's been rejected. I.e., you can't prove his violated any edit warring policy, so drop it. Accusations of running a bot or being bot-like? That's never stuck either, because it's not true. And believe me, I hear you. I'm sick todeath of hearing it from all of Δ's haters who jump on the band wagon every time there's the slightest peep that someone raised about his edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If "Accusations of running a bot or being bot-like" had "never stuck either" Delta wouldn't have been repeatedly blocked for it, nor be under an edit rate sanction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And again, he can never get past his past which is now YEARS in the past? Ever? Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Were his block log not imtimately tied to his present problems, for enough. I've got blocks for edit warring over Middle Eastern politics: that's in the past now because I stopped caring and the other guy vanished in disgrace. Betacommand is currently still under sanctions related to his old actions and still getting blocked for breaking them. That's inappropriate behaviour no matter who or what the problem is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, and that he hasn't gotten blocked doesn't mean he's right either. There are several editors who think he should be blocked for that kind of edit warring. I said he's operated in a bot-like manner, meaning he has all the personality and interaction ability of a bot. He simply templates and hammers away with the same edit summary doing nothing to fix the situation. It's disruptive plain and simple. It doesn't necessarily need to be laid out in black and white in a policy to be considered disruptive editing. What makes me right is that I improved several articles tonight, including removing some images and I doubt you'll ever see a complaint or hurt feeling about any of those edits. I individually approached every editor involved and helpfully pointed out the issues and offered my assistance. That's how you do NFCC in a community. The way some people do it is as if they believe it's some kind of game and they're trying to get that achievement for most images removed. Let's not forget that Delta clearly stated that his goal was not to improve the project and articles but to remove non-compliant images. That alone is disruptive and not conducive to building a community.--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I'll defend Delta's behavior - its not how I'd behave, but there's nothing in policy that vilifies how Delta is behaving presently, given numerous other editors that may have not be as frequent in editing but respond in similar curt manners. I'd agree that if an RFC/U were started there would be some legs to request Delta to improve, but we're not at a point where the civility restriction has been passed. I'll point to the previous long-standing confrontation with Gavin Collins, who was extremely difficult to work with in trying to define notability policy and eventually had to resort to an RFC/U because nothing he was doing was "wrong" just.. bureaucratic for lack of a better word. I would have loved to block Gavin only to make forward progress on discussions but there was nothing to stick him to; such behavior was tolerated - barely, but tolerated. Only then at RFC/U ultimately it was found he was seriously violating copyrights, and indef banned. This is very comparable to Delta's case right now, and thus the topic ban is way too premature before any other actions such as looking at NFC policy, expected behavior policy, or an RFC/U on Delta's behavior (NOT what he edits, how he edits), have been attempted. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC) You think that the Gavin Collins situation was a model for how to deal with recalcitrant editors? (note that I supported Gavin for a long time, and think that this is a pretty telling comparison.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, it's not a model - but it is how WP's approach is set up to handle difficult editors when its more personality conflicts rather than actual behavior that get in the way of progress. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) This has nothing to do with policy. Should I perhaps get a specially made T-Shirt that I can wear so we can head that off each and every time? Delta's on-going behaviour problems have essentially been a community wide RFC for years. You were here last time, the community is tired of his antics and you know that. Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing is primarily about article content, but when I read it, I sure do tick a lot of boxes off on Delta.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) comment Perhaps it is time to list "Proposal to ban Delta/Betacommand" at WP:PEREN ... or perhaps it's already there? Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Propose alternative 'ban' Images for which a fair-use rationale can (probably) be created, but which do not have such rationale on the file description page, or for which the rationale may be broken, should not be removed from the articles, but an effort should be done to write or repair the rationale. I would like to urge the community to come up with a process to, collaboratively, fix the articles which do not have a rationale. We may want to put some deadline on it to show that there is a collaborative effort still going on after three months. Support as nominator - note, this proposal now also includes others who perform the same methodology as Delta. Feel free to adapt the wording. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose as too broad: we cannot fill in missing rationales if they don't exist; but we can address the page move aspect: I would suggest that Images where a rationale exists but points to the wrong page where the image is otherwise not used, likely as a result of a page move, should not be removed but instead the rationale corrected to point to the correct page. which is covering, I think, 90% of the complaints falling on Delta's talk page right now. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) No, don't think so. Most moves leave behind a redirect, which actually is detected by the script. I've also asked for disambig-detection to solve that part. The problems are page-splits, typo's, which are relatively easy to fix, and those which plainly do not have a rationale. A lot of 'yelling' goes on if the page has no rationale written down at all, while one could be created. So, I suggest to give the community time to fix that, give the tools to categorise missing/broken rationales.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) While a missing rationale can be created, except in fringe cases (like, say, a logo being used to ID a company) the NFCC patrol will have no idea what the source, copyright holder, and intent is of the image in question. This has to be provided by the uploader or those that use the images. So, no, one cannot expect NFCC editors to make this up. But there are page moves that don't leave behind the proper redirect page (Which I do know Delta's checks would otherwise follow), that's the page move problem that I'm talking about. I would consider simple one-off typos a possible inclusion as well. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Well, in my 'urge the community to come up with a process to, collaboratively, fix the articles which do not have a rationale' - when one sees that one can not construct a rationale easily, one can have a look in the history of the page, and at the history of the image for who to contact. That should then be done as part of that collaborative effort (it is what people are constantly asking of Delta - when there is no rationale, Delta should write it - IMHO, we should ask the editor who used it or uploaded it). If that fails - then there is only one solution - delete the image from display and wait for someone to re-insert it - then it becomes that editors task to write the rationale. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I think we need to focus on the problem, which is Beta's editing rather than the NFCC policy. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we have a lot of productive NFCC editors and one who causes problems, the solution is to deal with that one editor individually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC) For me, the problem is that there are broken and missing rationales. I suggest here an alternative to Delta's methodology. What keeps 50 other editors from taking over Delta's task and removing all - nothing would keep me. Or are you up to get to a list of 50 banned editors who can't remove images anymore? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose I don't know how many zillions of times this idea has been refuted. It's at least a hundred. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose These are all solutions in search of a problem thats not there. -- ۩ Mask 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose any and all bans. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support this is a better topic ban than the previous one. I know that hammersoft is capable of fixing too, and not just tagging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Support, but as independent proposal, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with Delta's behavior, which is the cause of the other proposed ban. Thus, this is not in any way an "alternative". Good idea, though, since it jibes with the intention of Wikipedia to be a collegial and collaborative project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose, there do seem to be far less NFCC related problems when Beta/Delta is not involved. NFCC editing is not the real issue here. In other words: What CBM said. —Kusma (t·c) 07:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose, it's the uploader's responsibility to write a fair-use rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC) It's the communities responsibility to work together, and that kind of stance really does not benefit the community.--Crossmr (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Articles from those supporting a restriction on Delta being targeted by his friends for deletion I see that user:Black Kite, after posting about how he dislike for those who want to put restrictions on Delta has taken to rapid fire targeting article frequently edited people who supporting a restriction on Delta for removing images and nominating for deletion. I guess that will show us we are not allowed to voice out opinions on a proposal in the future! I consider myself targeted for intimidation. Great work Black Kite! Mathewignash (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is good work, because it's enforcing Wikipedia policy. If you can point out where any of my NFCC removals are wrong, please do so. And I note that on the AFDs I've started that I've replied to, you haven't suggested keeping them, which suggests I was correct. The fact that I've had to make 4 AfDs and 30+ removals of images so far, and I've only looked at "A" and "B" in a sub-category of Transformers articles, makes it clear that there's a huge amount of cleanup to be done. Oh, and don't talk about intimidation, Mathew, I and many others have been trying to clean these articles up for over a year and you haven't helped at all. In fact, since I last looked, you've created even more. If you actually cared about these articles you'd merge the non-notable ones to lists and fix the NFCC problems. But you haven't. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I get it bud. Support Delta's way or get all your articles targeted for "cleanup". Mathewignash (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Well, you could show good faith by fixing all your hundreds of articles that fail WP:NFCC, WP:V, WP:N, or you could let someone else do it and then complain on here, I suppose. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I have been merging back pages from characters to teams/shows pages, sorry if it's not fast enough for you. I've also added literally hundreds of third party sources from books and magazines, re-writing opening paragraphs to be more compliant with wikipedia style, adding sections on character reception, etc. Of course with the film coming out this month, half my wikiedpia editing has just been removing vandalism and fan-nonsense to pages. Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC) The merging isn't actually the problem, it's simple to AfD articles. It's the hundreds of articles with NFCC problems, and you haven't done a single thing about that since the last time I looked, six months ago. And I suggest this is better dealt with via talkpages, it isn't an ANI issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) My point about targeting articles for intimidation is VERY on-topic, you are the one who tried to make this thread about my past editing. Whether you have a problem with my editing or not, you saw someone oppose Delta, posted about how you disliked theit editing, then went out and started targeting articles he wrote for deletion nominations and image removals. If I had not posted, you wouldn't be doing what you are doing to the articles now. You targeted those opposing Delta for intimidation, that's pretty clear. You didn't write me a personal note about the progress of Transformers articles, you did shotgun deletions, just like Delta does. What sort of message does that leave editors? Oppose Delta, get your articles deleted, ahem... I mean "cleaned" as you put it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I didn't write you a personal note? Mathew, we've had this conversation dozens of times already ... Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC) There probably is a correlation, Mathew, but not with the motives you're attributing to it. In my experience, the people who complain loudest about Δ's and others' NFCC enforcement are the people who feel "victimised" because large numbers of their images have been found to violate the NFCC. I agree that there should be more effort put into fixing issues rather than defaulting to a deletion tag, but at the end of the day, if all your image uploads were in compliance with the policy, they wouldn't be tagged for deletion even if the motive is as sinister as you're implying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite didn't remove images because the images were not in compliance with policy, he removed them based on there being too many per page. He sees NFCC as strictly saying "one non-free image per page", and often times when a fictional character has vastly different forms, I have upload more than one image of them to demonstrate the difference. I believe that's perfectly acceptable under NFCC. Mathewignash (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC) If I had that strict rule, why did I leave two images in a number of those articles? Honestly, I don't mind being criticised, but please let it be for something I've actually done, as opposed that something that only exists in your imagination. Regardless of that, if the characters have more than one incarnation, then the article becomes a list, and non-free images are disallowed anyway (WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#3a). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Mathew has been told over and over and over again how his hundreds of articles fail NFCC, and he hasn't done anything about it. All this thread reminded me was I should go back and look to see if they'd improved in the six months since I and others tried to fix the worst problems. They hadn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Not really the point Black K. The accusation is that you are suddenly rapid fire "cleaning" artciles of people just for supporting a limit on Delta. I agree that a lot of these old articles need cleanup, and I do that myself often. Mathewignash (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC) So essentially you're accusing an editor of doing a good thing in bad faith? It's slightly odd to complain about that, and wrong to do so without evidence. Rd232 public talk 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Was Delta himself not limited from mass, robot-like image editing as part of his restrictions? Why? Because it was disruptive. This is exactly what Black Kite has done to the articles of those who voiced support for limiting Delta, and he said so in article posts. If Delta can't do it himself, I don't think it helps his case to have his friends do it for him. What sort of message does it give those who wish to voice their opinion on limiting Delta? Should they be worried they will be targeted too if they say they support a limit on him? Mathewignash (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, these would be pointy edits. Pointy edits are often within policy, but they're done in such a way as to disrupt the encyclopedia. Combined with BlackKites bad faith statements above it appears he's acting disruptively.--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Uh-uh. WP:POINTy edits are always disruptive. Removing images in complete compliance with our image policy is not disruptive. It doesn't matter who created them. I think you really need to step back for a moment and consider what you're saying, because at the moment that looks to me very much like "I support edits that contravene Wikipedia policy, because I know better". As many editors have found, that's never a good position to take. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC) (EC) Removing images not in compliance with NFCC is not disruptive. It is how and why you do it that might be. If you're intentionally targeting the images/edits of someone who you've just had a disagreement with. Yes it is. So far above you've tried to label (some of) those who disagree with Delta's edits as simply those who want to abuse NFCC and you've claimed that no one who opposes him will go out and do anything but I've spent the last 2 days fixing NFCC without causing any disruption in a community focused way. Mathewignash apparently feels as though you've targeted him because of his support of this topic ban for Delta. Do you deny that you went from this discussion to Transformer's articles? Can you tell me the last time you worked on Transformer related articles? Going back to the beginning of the year, including a large break you took, the last time I notice a transformer related article was January 15th (might be sooner, but I was mostly just scanning). You have to admit it is a rather unusual coincidence and it's understandable why Mathewignash might feel that way or someone else could interpret your edits in that manner. No where did I say I support edits that contravene wikipedia policy.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC) As Mathewignash will confirm to you, I have AFD'd dozens of Transformers articles and removed dozens of NFCC violating images from such articles in the past (for example. The reason you haven't seen one more recent is that I had a recent four month wikibreak. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I know you've worked on them before, and I didn't say you didn't. What I said was that Mathew feels targeted right now because of this discussion right now. You've worked on a lot of things over your career at wikipedia, but after your last comment in this discussion your next edit was to transformer articles, and that is why he feels targeted. Do the images and articles need cleaned up? Probably. Do they need cleaned up by you right now right after being involved in a big controversial discussion with the user? Probably not. It looks like a lot of these AfDs will end up resulting in merge anyway. So here is an alternative approach. If you haven't finished listing articles for removal, why don't you instead create a list of articles you think need merged, and put them on his talk page. If he agrees that they all need merged, he can go ahead and do them straight away. If there are any he disagrees with, go ahead and list those for AfD.--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Crossmr, Im getting sick of your personal attacks and harassment, it needs to stop. The reason Transformers was targeted (and has been targeted for quite a while, just ask Hammersoft and J Milburn who have been removing excessive NFC for years) is that They are a problem and have been so for quite a while, its just time we got around to them, We nuked the same thing with coins a while back. Its not POINTy to enforce policy, it just so happens that our cleanup sweeps are getting around to the pages that affect you. If this continues I will request a topic ban against you toward all NFC enforcers since you cannot seem to keep a civil tongue. ΔT The only constant 23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Bigger issue? False claims of free licensing While liberal usage of non free images is an issue against the foundations aims and ambitions, it is a minor issue in relation to the false claiming of commons copyright and public domain pictures inserted to our project. Much more damage is done to the owners value of such pictures, a non free picture is at least honestly posted under a copyright of such, the issue there is only hair splitting about wikipedia's personal guidelines, - they are basically only our guidelines and either side of the line - a rationale is not very clear or missing, so add one, the wheels are not dropping off about it - the picture is correctly templated under a non free copyright template, this is so far away from the damage to someones product and property being falsely advertised as a free use picture or file for lengthy periods of time. There are thousands and thousands of other peoples property illegally uploaded without permission to the project and then republished through us as free to use/commons compatible when there is no evidence of permission or ownership at all - this is much much more serious for the project than weak application of fair use rationales. Rather than having all this disruption just go strengthen the non free use guidelines - one pic per article and only in direct relation to specific content and make it totally clear to users. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC) That is an excellent point. I don't know what to suggest, but for me, legally and morally the issue of false claims of free licensing (or public domain status), whether at Commons or locally, is a bigger issue than most violations of NFCC in relation to "fair use". At least with clearly-tagged non-free images there is not a false claim which can get reusers into trouble, or damage rights holders interests. (And "fair use" doesn't even require that a rationale is written down, only that one can be produced if challenged.) Rd232 public talk 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC) While I agree with your position, the problem is that NFCC enforcement is straightforward, either the image complies with policy or it doesn't. Determining if an image has false licensing tags is much harder and often times more speculative. The implication from the discussion is that people should refocus efforts away from NFCC enforcement to false licensing work, but isn't the work substantially different? Monty845 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC) "NFCC enforcement is straightforward" - thanks, I needed a laugh! :) ... Yes, false licensing detection is probably harder, certainly than detecting missing fair use rationale templates (which is in itself an inadequate proxy for whether there exists a reasonable "fair use" rationale). This suddenly reminds me of the "unsourced BLP" drama, where some people pointed out that the worst BLP problems were probably not in unsourced BLPs, but rather in BLPs which are poorly or even falsely sourced, but superficially OK. Nonetheless, vast amounts of effort have gone into getting rid of unsourced BLPs, simply because it's a problem that's much easier to identify and address. Rd232 public talk 19:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A more community-oriented method of going forward

Delta has identify via a toolserver script the list of articles with images that lack explicit rationale for these pages, here [35]. I propose

1. Make a template warning message to be added to image pages about the image lacking explicit rationale for page X, that places the images in a maintenance category, such as "Images lacking rationales for use on articles".
2. Use AWB to take this list and place that template on these images.
3. Make sure that this list is well broadcasted as a "Cleanup" area, possible using category intersection tools to try to get WIkiprojects aware of it.
4. Set a deadline - let's say, by August 1, 2011
5. Engage the community to clear out this list, recognizing that most are simple typos from malformed page moves or the like and takes maybe 5-10 seconds at most to do one image.

If this is accepted as a solution by the community, I would agree then that Delta should be prevented from removing NFCC images from articles that lack rationales during this period. Once that deadline has past, however, and images still remain, Delta (barring anything else) would be free to continue that task within impunity, possibly even pointing back to the community notification for this.

We also then can repopulate this list each month or so, but ideally the repopulated list should be very small after the initial batch. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that more people react when they see their pages edited, it is better to tag the article talkpages with 'this article uses non-free media with a missing (or broken) fair-use rationale.' - more people are watching the talkpages than the image description pages (which sometimes are only watched by the uploader, who is long-gone). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend both, then. A template ambox message on the image page (which categorizes it), a nice warning message to the image in question on the article talk page. I'm not seeing any single page with more than 2 or 3 hits in this fashion, so I'd not worry about spamming a talk page with multiple messages. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And of course, the idea of putting the images in the category would mean there would be eyes on them even if the uploader is long gone. But I still support double warnings. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a template on the file description page. I don't know if we have the templates to cover all the situations, though. I was looking at Wikipedia:Template messages/File namespace for a template that pointed out a mismatch of the article title(s) in the rationale(s) and where it was actually being used. On the film-related side, two examples I saw were targeted because the article title was changed, though the topic was the same. A template like this would put the onus on others to correct the description and/or image placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

From Delta's list, all this are images that are used on page X that don't have mention of page X in their description. That could be a typo, a result of a page move, a missing rationale, or several other possibilities. All the templated warning needs to say is that "there is no explicit rationale for this image on this page, but it may be one of several easy-to-correct problems once identified". The image page tag gets the uploader (any watchers), the talk page message gets any watchers of the affected article, and the category broadly gets anyone else interested in resolving this necessary NFCC function. We probably do need to consider special cases (where there is no rationale to start and someone needs to create it, for one) and have extra templates/categories to drop those into if they don't already exist. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. Fixing non-free image issues is very important. and the key is FIXING. deletion is not fixing. I fully admit to doing very little with images ever on en.wikipedia, but the policy and issues here are very important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine as a general idea, and getting wikiprojects involved should help, but it might need to be carefully throttled to ensure that there isn't such an avalanche of cleanup tags that they overwhelm the community's ability to process them, resulting in mass removal when the deadline passes. Start slow, see how that goes, then do more on the next run. Rd232 public ^talk 19:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea would start that the community as a whole would be informed this was happening; tags would be placed en masse; and then 4-6 wks or one month is given for everyone to fix them. The size of the list is management if there's, say, a few hundred editors doing a couple of projects they are involved in and a dozen or so editors dealing with the leftovers, along with the number of editors on this thread alone that likely don't want to see any valid non-free images removed for trivial reasons, that we shouldn't have any mass deletions at the end. (And I would be willing to make the deadline flexible if we're clearly making progress three). The idea is that hopefully by the end we will have instituted a new monthly process that would be a standard cleanup process aided by a bot to tag such images. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale repair

Ive got functional Disabig repair code that Ive been manually reviewing and fixing, that works fairly well. If people want, get the ball rolling and I can convert this into a bot so that it can be done large scale. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Any chance we can dial down the hyperbole from both sides of this issue?

The amount of dramatic overstatement being employed in this discussion is considerable, and it would useful, I think, if everyone toned it down several notches. The claims made by both sides of damages done, good faith not assumed, conspiracy among like-minded editors, and danger to the project have been vastly overblown, to the point that the discussion has become very toxic and unhelpful.

Could everyone please take several giant steps back and calm down a bit? Here in the States it's holiday weekend, and I'm sure there are good summery things to do elsewhere in the northern hemisphers, and good books to read or films and TV shows to catch in the south. Why not take a break, do something fun, clear your minds, and come back with a fresh attitude? It couldn't hurt, and it might help.

To encourage everyone to do so, I'm going to hat the entire discussion above. I won't revert any unhatting, but maybe it would be best to let it sit for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and I'm only reading the page because I posted a topic later on, but isn't this a no-brainer? The user was under restrictions and violated them. If Delta felt he/she had a serious reason to break the sanctions, the way to go would have been to ask here, or on the parent page, if it was okay. Unilaterally breaking the sanctions is just.... wrong! Maybe as a n00b I'm being naive, but the levels of nonsense in this discussion is almost suffocating. Absconded Northerner (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have your information out of context. The few recent cases with violating the edit throttle where not on purpose, in fact I have been trying to pay fairly close attention to it, however I have slipped a few times and exceeded the throttle. Not by that much, but I did exceed it. However there is a small vocal group that does not like my actions and tries to take every opportunity they can to stop me from doing NFC enforcement (according to policy). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Like today, for example: 2011-07-02 04:50-04:31. Up to 55 edits.... 75.23.46.157 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Those seem to be rote edits as well, but they were to fix rationales for pages that had been moved for disambiguation rather than to remove images. Most who objected to the earlier removals would probably approve of these edits. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great sentiment, but trying to jam closed several open discussions, including an open proposal where a majority currently support topic banning Delta isn't very helpful at this point and doesn't really help matters.--Crossmr (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin needs to go through and close these proposals

With Ken being involved in the discussions it's already inappropriate for him to be closing them regardless of the reason. While hatting isn't closing, it's more or less the same. There were several open discussions there, including 3 proposals. An uninvolved admin needs to actually go through and close those various proposals appropriately. Otherwise we're just telling the 60-80 people who took part in this discussion, thanks for hashing this out for 5 days we're just going to pretend it didn't happen.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My involvement was minimal, limited to !voting in various proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You were still involved with stating a position in the debate. This precludes you from closing the debate.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not "close the debate", I suggested that everyone take a breather, step back and regain perspective. Things had gone over the top, and any hope of a productive dialogue between disparate opinions was being sunk by people taking hard-line positions. I trust that we're all here because we want the best for the project, but we're unlikely to reach a consensus one way or the other if each side keeps forcing the other into taking the most extreme position possible. It was (and remains) my opinion that everyone needs to back off, do something else, then return to the discussion with, I would hope, some new thoughts and a new perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussions need to be either reopened or evaluated. The question is not whether the community will chill or not, it is whether Delta will be restricted or not. A simple yes/no question that can be answered by looking into the discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 04:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we "wasted" that time. Several points have been made clear from both sides that I think point to that numerous editors do not want to see Delta engaging in mechanical edits for NFCC even though this NFCC patrolling is mandated by the Foundation; the disagreement is if that restriction needs to be a block or simply offloading the task, or requiring him to do something more. Since we still have to correct those, the community needs to be handling this better. My suggestion above about a community effort to fix the list is one proposal that needs to be discussed more. I'm sure there's a few bot ideas that came up to handle bad page moves that break images, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It wastes our time in that we won't get an administrative close and possible enforcement of the proposals. From my quick !count, the proposal to lift the sanctions was split 50/50 while there was basically no support to lift them for a limited time. The proposal to ban him from NFCC was being supported 60/40. I've gone out and lead by example with how to do it a better way. Those who feel the need to do NFCC work are capable of going about it exactly the same way as I have an improving articles, the project and the image of NFCC. But again, the NFCC issues are separate from Delta's behaviour issues which is what we're discussing here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

!vote, and in such a case, I would think any non-involved admin would avoid any other decision besides "no consensus" with numbers that close. Which is why we can't get hung up on the resolution on Delta, but instead look to get the community involved to avoid anything else in the future. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And to one more point, NFCC issues are central to this because there is no other policy besides BLP that allows for the types of editing that Delta was doing, free of 3RR and acting in a mechanical manner; if Delta was doing exactly the same types of edits over something like, say, WP:MOS or WP:V, he'd have been banned in a heartbeat (and I wouldn't be able to support him). If the fact that general NFCC edits are exempted from the manner in which other policies are handled that is causing people to dislike the editing actions Delta does, its part of the problem, and people need to suggest change that policy to avoid the taint that Delta has brought upon that. It's not the only problem, but you cannot ignore that its core to the overall issue, and there's other places to discuss how to improve it for the better from this. --MASEM (t) 06:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

*claps for Crossmr for finally coming close to achieving his wiki-goal* (And 56/44 is not 60/40). Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove

HI folks,

Just an FYI/heads-up so that you're ready. The tech team just informed me that they intend to fully deploy Wikilove (see this blog post for more information) to logged in users of the English Wikipedia on Thursday. You can imagine, we expect there to be some minor abuses of this tool... they're working on using the bad image list to handle some of that but some of our folks are... ahem, "creative"... and I suppose we'll see some unexpected use. You might keep your eyes open, and treat them as you usually would treat inappropriate comments.  :-)

Best,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nifty! Thanks for the heads up, Philippe. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikilove? How did y'all find out about me and the Lady? Drmies (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, it will be implemented starting 29 June. Hopefully, it will rekindle some appreciation toward those editors who normally go unnoticed or underappreciated, and keep them motivated towards making the encyclopedia better (which I think a few of us could do a better job of appreciating others' efforts, myself included). –MuZemike 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Drmies. It's seems that their are no secrets on wiki anymore. Perhaps it was leaked over at WR in "da emails"? ... :P — Ched :  ?  01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered--if indeed my indiscretions (I am also still pregnant with Moonriddengirl's child) are discussed at such high levels. Thanks for the thought, Ched! Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• This touchy-feely stuff cannot possibly be for real. Is this story from The Onion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As offensive as templating regulars? Place your esteem tokens in my one armed bandit of random reactions to inappropriate, unwarranted and unesteemed praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ewww. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a nifty and adorable idea. When do we deploy Wikihate? Or Wikimeh, for those situations when it's difficult to work out whether someone's being a jackass or a saint? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for features that don't really add to the experience. I guess this is the Facebooking of Wikipedia. Having to edit raw text in a window like this instead of a realtime, rich editor? How's that a great experience? Its sad to see when Internet companies get sidetracked trying to compete on style when a lot of times substance is the real desire. Look at all the horrible Myspace pages there were. Not much style there, but it filled a niche that people wanted. Easy editing of a web-based presence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimeh. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So, this is one of those idiotic nifty new features the developers have come up with, that we have to choose to go opt out of instead of choosing to opt into? And, how much will this slow down and screw up the servers like happened a few months ago when we were all automatically enrolled in the "email me when someone posts on my talk" feature. Makes me contemplate a month long wikibreak just to avoid that hassle again.Heiro 03:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When will the Wikihate button be rolled out? Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Hate  Here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Praising other's edits by clicking on a button and dropping a template is indeed about as deep as clicking "like" on Facebook--a hollow act producing a formulaic compliment (even if they can be tweaked whimsically) that requires no investment and is therefore meaningless. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal interaction does a lot to get people into things. The experiences of working with Mila on a waterdrop photo, RexxS on a table, FS on an image mod, or Counting Crows fellow on footnotes were very positive and led to more interaction. Mostly to my benefit, but they've had fun too. I think that bright orange bar does more than anything else to draw people into working together. But you have to have a personalized message with like thoughts and stuff afterwards. I mean, I'm a newbie so I still like barnies and all (don't stop) and I never got a welcome plate of cookies. But, honest, the interaction with shmartiepants people like Wehwalt and Malleus is more exciting than some random love icon.

P.s. Of course this could be a total "doh" moment if the Wikilove thing is not what I think it is, but I'm worried, it will be lame.)

P.s.s. I claim priority on having the first friending system here at Wiki.

TCO (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've test driven the system; it's fun. It's not a random love icon, but rather a tool to simplify users placing barnstars or friendly graphic-laden notes on the talk pages of other users when they choose to do so. There are preloaded image options or you can substitute your own. People who are not the type to attract cookies to begin with are probably not likely to see much difference with the tool, unless their friends enjoy tweaking their noses. :) Deep interaction? Not inherently, no, but likely to be pleasing to some and harmless if taken in moderation. :D (Just the thing, Drmies, for decorating a nursery.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think you forgot to harumph. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. A well intentioned idea that somehow manages to be implemented in a way that is inappropriate, unsettling, unattractive, juvenile, condescending and counterproductive all at the same time. Is this a first for Wikipedia ? And when does the 2011 Fundraising Appeal start ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Goodness, why not (speaking to the grumpy ones here)? Our most widely used automated tools are for slapping new users with 6 levels of warnings for about 25 possible violations of Wikipedia policies. A tool that's used for expressing appreciation? Gasp! zOMG! Could this be a threat to the Grumpy Old Boy's Club on Wikipedia? Probably not, but one can hope.... First Light (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more irritated by the fact that every time they roll out one of these myspacey/facebookie things, they default include everyone. I would not have even known about this if not for this thread, as I don't usually follow the developers or village pump. As I mentioned above, the last time they rolled out a new function like this, it caused serious server lag for almost a month, made it difficult to edit, and caused a lot of scratched heads as the vast majority of us did not know what was going on. I suspect the same thing will start happening again in a few days. Ands speaking of the Old Boys club, does anyone know if this is supposed to be one of the new ways of attracting more female editors?Heiro 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Does this mean Esperanaza is coming back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion like this was probably good inspiration for this essay. --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is intended to have us shove barnstars or other stuff down others throats (especially if they didn't deserve it). I mean, I know I can do a better job myself in showing recognition to those editors who do the right things. Perhaps I'm just saying to give it a chance and see what results from it. I really don't see how this can hurt the editorship of the encyclopedia or likewise move us any closer to re-establishing Esperanza (as one pointed out above, and also where "WikiLove" originally came from). –MuZemike 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quick, better check "exclude me from feature experiments" in your preferences. If it actually does anything. MER-C 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The WikiLove deployment will respect that user preference, i.e., if it is checked, you will have to opt-in to use WikiLove.--Eloquence* 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Twinkle-style automation of things like barnstars defeat the point a little bit? A barnstar is as close to a pat on the back as one can get on the Internet, and this feels a bit like an automated back-patter. That one has to manually edit the page and paste the code is part of its charm. However, I can see some merit in the other wikilove templates, especially having a consolidated list of WikiBooze templates (which I suppose would be handy if you're WikiDrunk!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I thought I was the cynical one. Adding some positive stuff to talk pages is something to be worried about? Wow. The foundation realizes that it needs to adapt to stay relevant. I disagree with the foundation on many things but this isn't one of them. If anyone else here actually took the survey (wasn't it only like 5k or did I read it wrong?) you would see that the goal is to make radical changes. They will end up ticking most editors off and a fuzzy kitten or a tasty looking beer are the actual good things. But if you really want to fix the problem: get rid of templates to address the BITE issue. If you think that sounds ridiculous you should hear my idea to get more female editors. Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So what is your idea for attracting female editors? Pure curiosity. Anna^talk 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Shouldn't this be at the community portal or the administrator noticeboard, this is for incidents. Well, its deployed. I would like to be able to opt-out though. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I consider the deployment an incident. You can opt out of "showing WikiLove" (i.e. display of the obnoxious heart symbol) by unchecking the box under My preferences -> Editing -> Labs features. If you want to make it clear that you don't want to become the victim of "WikiLove" you can use my userbox, for example (see below), but there is no way to really prevent it. Hans Adler 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Great April Fools' Day contribution, only 3 months late

Wow. This is a great April Fools Day joke, but why couldn't you wait another 9 months? Making it easier to leave impersonal, semi-automated messages with intimate/sexual overtones. And there is a setting for not using this option, but no setting for preventing to be WikiRaped that way. And of course the selling point is that supposedly it will make Wikipedia a more welcoming kindergarten brothel collaborative encyclopedia. Hans Adler 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's a very versatile "tool" that can even be used for autoeroticism.

On a more serious note, I can understand why strategic attempts at improving our communication habits are not discussed widely before experimental implementation, but if you want to prepare such things sneakily you really need to think things through to make up for the lack of community vetting. Hans Adler 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some other reactions above look as if there might be more general interest in my new userbox {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiRape}} {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiLove}}. Hans Adler 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [edited after rename]

While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In my defence, I couldn't help reading some of the recently leaked Arbcom emails, and as a result wasn't merely pissed that the childish "barnstar" rubbish is getting official status now – but this "WikiLove" stuff also reminded me of the behaviour of the creepy predator/stalker who features in one of those threads. Hans Adler 06:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of moving it to a title less likely to cause offense, then? You know you'll be asked to do it eventually, so better sooner than later for the sake of dramavoidance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hans Adler 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how often we'll see "make WikiLove, not edit war" on WP:AN3. -- Atama頭 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to check in and see that Wikipedia has decided to answer the question of whether it's an MMPORG or a social networking site in the affirmative... to both. Should do wonders for attracting and retaining teenagers and adolescents, the lifeblood of the enterprise.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC?

As there seems to be a little resistance to this tool can we run this thourgh the RFC to gain community consensus on whether to deploy this tool or not? Clearly any fairly major interface changes need to be approved by the editing community at large before deployment - especially if controversial. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WMF is not likely to care about an RFC for a feature which hasn't even been deployed yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh...go to a user talk page and look up there ↑ by the star for watching a page...it has been deployed. Tex (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And for that, you get... a barnstar! It is quite a nifty little gadget and very easy to use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

TBH the only objection I have to it is the name is puke worthy and it is misrepresented as something to increase editor retention (which any seasoned vet knows comes nowhere near the issue). But it seems this is controversial - and I agree the current implementation (the heart and the terminology is "Facebook like"). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you guys are interested, you may want to know that pretty much everything about the extension is configurable on-wiki (by editing MediaWiki:WikiLove.js). If en.wiki doesn't like Kittens, you can replace them with bags of coal or whatever. You can even change the heart icon to something different if you like. It's totally up to the consensus of the community as to how you actually want to use this tool. (You can also configure it personally in your vector.js or monobook.js.) Wouldn't it be more useful to start an RFC on what changes you want to make to WikiLove? Unlike most interface features, you don't actually have to ask the developers to implement any changes. Any admin can do it locally. The configuration documentation for the extension is somewhat minimal right now, but I will be expanding it significantly over the next few days. Just let me know if you have any questions about it in the meantime. This is supposed to be a tool for the community to own and use however they want. If you want to replace the Food and drinks with WikiProject invitation templates or whatever, that's fine with the Foundation. I think the only thing the Foundation would object to is replacing all the items with warning templates. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the entire idea is silly. It's very easy to annoy someone by templating them with a warning message. Making someone feel welcome by templating them is much harder to achieve. I, for example, feel offended when I get such silliness. If it comes from someone I haven't seen before, then I'd wonder if it's a sockpuppet trying to brown nose me or someone who genuinely feels thankful for something or other and seriously thinks it's appropriate to show this by templating rather than writing a personal message. If it comes from someone I know well it would be even worse.

This project is full of people who are semi-literate in the sense that they don't really like reading or writing more than a sentence or two, and prefer templating and reverting. By offering these silly new templates you are pushing things even further in that direction. I cannot believe that the kind of people who think it is socially acceptable to leave automated "kittens" and "barnstars" on other people's talk pages are more likely to contribute well-written text to the encyclopedia than those who don't want to be associated with this infantility. In fact I expect the opposite.

Whenever a bureaucracy makes up a target such as "make the editor community grow again" there is the danger that one then tries to optimise a single parameter without keeping the others in mind. I am not sure why we need growth in the first place as we are moving from construction of the encyclopedia towards maintenance mode. But if we do need growth, then we need growth by encyclopedia writers, not by naive social networkers who can be pleased with the push of a button. It's true that this project has too much negativity, but that cannot be balanced with feel-good superficiality. Hans Adler 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.

Personally, I don't object to people expressing to me their appreciation in whatever form it comes, but a sincere "Thank you" is just as good, and appreciated just as much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Template the experts with kittens often enough and they will probably leave. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hans is correct. A couple of years of kittening each other will change the community from here to write the encyclopedia to here to socialize, and discussions about issues will resolved on the basis of I like it. What editors need is a light-weight mechanism that stops unhelpful behavior before the people concerned learn bad habits, not cute decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that retention of valuable editors is the more important problem to solve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be a smidgen more useful if the "create your own" feature actually worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The best reward I get on Wikipedia is when I'm told my work is appreciated. Just about every time that's happened, it's been with plain text and a custom message. When it takes actual thought and effort to thank me, that's when it counts. That's also why I always leave custom messages, even when I deploy barnstars. I've gone as far as to create custom stars and custom templates too (as anyone who voted at the FS main page proposal knows). Making "Thank you" into empty words is going to make Wikipedia worse, not better. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a stupid waste of space. Can someone post whatever javascript/css needs to go where to get rid of it at my usertalk? I'm using monobook. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of someone making an opt out for this ridiculous feature? I always thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I guess now it's Facebook. --B (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How to disable WikiLove (it's in the editing prefs). Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, this may be kinda obvious - but if you don't like it, don't use it! And you could always have a message or something at the top of your user talk page to say "No Automated WikiLove, please!" Personally, I'm open to kind comments and so on, no matter how many keystrokes they require - provided that I've deserved them :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea, and Hans Adler is absolutely right. We seriously do NOT want to do anything to encourage the idea that being a Wikipedian is about distributing barnstars and cookies and pictures of fluffy kittens so that you can make "friends" who will send them to you and you can add to your trophy page. It's something to be able to turn it off, but I would support an RFC on the idea of opting out of it for the whole site. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would certainly oppose any attempt to force others to opt out of it. Yes, this is social-networking-website-like. It's pretty far from ideal, but it's also a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia a less hostile, less contentious, and less fractious place to be. The intention is to foster a pleasant and collegial working environment.

  Naturally, there will be problems. One expects the various factions (pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, ARS, etc.) to start awarding each other barnstars in a kind of circle jerk, and to use them as victory celebrations when a counterfactional editor gets sanctioned or topic-banned. One expects that there will be editors who find excuses to be offended when offered a small token of respect. And it is silly and facebook-like. But, we need to increase the number of positive interactions between editors, or at least, find some way to reduce the number of interactions that are negative and hostile. Particularly for newer editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• This seems more appropriate as a gadget than a MediaWiki extension. If we convert this to a gadget we can get rid of the stupid name and heart and more importantly, make it opt-in rather than opt-out/forced down our throats. (I'm highly allergic to cats.) MER-C 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of a talk page while blocked?

Resolved

 – With PhanuelB's talk page blanked, and his indefinite block upheld with both talk page access and email access removed, there is little more to discuss here. SuperMarioMan 14:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that the content here is inappropriate for a user talk page, for a number of reasons. The section consists exclusively of long, block quotations, copied-and-pasted from several sources. While I find this in itself dubious with regard to fair-use guidelines concerning text, what is potentially even more troubling is the fact that the content relates to a living person, and is essentially collected criticism of that particular individual. I am not convinced that the user's claim that the sources are reliable (although they are more or less opinion pieces) is a satisfactory rationale for using part of their talk page as a holding area for lengthy extracts, especially when the quotations are highly negative about the subject – the user page content guidelines state: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

I believe that a user talk page is not the place to host this content, which presents multiple concerns pertaining to WP:BLP and WP:UPNO (and quite possibly WP:COPYVIO), and that, consequently, it should be removed. I would appreciate opinions from uninvolved users and administrators.

Context: Following a series of short-term blocks, PhanuelB (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been indefinitely blocked since September 2010 for "Disruptive editing: Long-term SPA, WP:Battle mentality, WP:NPA)". Their talk page access, revoked in January 2011, has recently been restored to allow for further discussion. However, since returning to Wikipedia, the user has indicated little or no understanding of the reasons behind their block, and their actions have amounted to a continuation of the behaviour that resulted in the block being imposed in the first place. In this comment, besides barely addressing the concerns that I had raised about content on their talk page, the user accused a blocking administrator of "false allegations", which have yet to be meaningfully substantiated. SuperMarioMan 05:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial inclination is to cut the editor some slack on this point. The quotes, while on the long side compared to what we typically use in articles, thus pushing the boundaries of fair use, are not so long as to be a clear violation of fair use. They are clearly sourced, so there is no confusion on that point. They were added recently, so it is too early to claim he is "maintaining" such a list. It is titled as a list of reliable sources, so no one reading it is accidentally going to think it is a complete exegesis on the subject; I don't think the requirements of balance apply here. I realize this is a complicated situation, and I've only peered at the tip of the iceberg, but I don't feel this is the right next step.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a single purpose account, existing only to try to plug a particular point of view regarding Murder of Meredith Kercher. The user repeatedly created user page forks of the article in user space in order to be able to have a version which would express the user's chosen point of view. These user space pages were deleted as results of deletion discussions: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. eventually the user was indefinitely blocked, as described above. The user then proceeded to create a similar page at User talk:PhanuelB, which, in the circumstances, was a clear abuse of the talk page, so I removed talk page access. Since then the user has carried on a campaign via email. I have received several emails, and I know that some other users have also been emailed. My own view is that the email campaign came close to constituting harassment, and that withdrawal of email access might be considered soon. However, I was approached by another user who had been emailed by PhanuelB. This user clearly also thought that PhanuelB's email campaign was becoming disruptive, but suggested restoring talk page access so that if PhanuelB thought that he/she had a reasonable case then he/she could have an opportunity to express it. The user also mentioned WP:ROPE. My own feeling was that PhanuelB had already been given plenty of opportunities to express a reasonable case, and had instead been belligerent and obstructive. Nevertheless, I agreed to restore talk page access to give PhanuelB one more chance. PhanuelB has proceeded to use their talk page to assemble material intended to justify their plugging of a point of view, rather than, as before, to create a POV fork of the article. The situation is therefore not identical to that before. I was approached on my talk page with concerns over this, but I was reluctant to act unilaterally, and instead suggested bringing the issue here to allow input from others. However, as I see it, PhanuelB is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote a campaign to publicise a particular point of view, and to try to get a Wikipedia article altered to reflect that point of view. PhanuelB has also conducted this campaign off-wiki (i.e., completely away from Wikipedia, in addition to the emails I have mentioned). Whether the particular way that the user talk page is being used as part of this campaign requires any action is, as I see it, the question at issue here. Finally, I should like to say that I have no opinion whatsoever as to the article which PhanuelB wants changed: my involvement has been entirely related to PhanuelB's use of user space in various forms. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the section. This is clearly soapboxing, and given that the target is a living person there really isn't any alternative. — Coren ^(talk) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to be compiling reliable sources which could be used on articles about the subjects at hands, topics which other editors have already identified as possiblying having some legs.

On a different note, it may be time to review this editors' indefinite block. He was purged with a bunch of other editors for borderline violations of wikipedia policy as part of their attempt to restore order (or gain ownership) of a specific article. Several of the other indefinite blocks have already been reversed and identified as unjust or over-the-top...perhaps it's time to review this one, too.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As an administrator uninvolved in multiple disputes around the article in question, when I was asked to review the block (technically I was asked to "take a look at all of the illegitimate blocks", but that's neither here nor there) I agreed with the original block that was placed. Other administrators are welcome to review it and reach their own conclusions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I too agree with the block. I also don't know in what sense the policy violations were "borderline". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't really find the discussion that led to his block, but from what I pieced together on the talk page, it seemed to be accusations of disruptive editing and violations of NPA and BLP. The examples I saw were pretty minor and/or wrong. Of course, if there is more to it than this, I could definitely be wrong.LedRush (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations? How is the use of quotes of a public figure from a news source a copyright violation? And it is not allowed to state things about living figures which may be deemed negative? Does that mean that an article such as this is a violation of WP rules? It seems like a lot of editors have been blocked over the MMK article which raises suspicion of vindictiveness. I personally find the strident tone of some of the editors on that page distasteful and it is hardly an example of neutral editing. As for "off Wiki campaigns" what is that supposed to mean? Are we only allowed to conduct our lives on WP? I agree that a review of this blocking is warranted. BTW the living individual in question, like the one I linked to, is and Italian prosecutor who has been convicted of abuse of office and has a pending sentence of about two years. Other negative aspects of this prosecutor have been well documented. Just in today's front page news in Corriere della Sera we have the following comment on the forensic science employed by this prosecutor's office: "International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed [knife]. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item [bra clasp]; There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs; There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;" In other words, not only did they not follow proper procedures, in the case of the bra clasp there was nothing there to begin with. Dougbremner (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The main question, as I have explained above, is whether stockpiling long, copied-and-pasted, negative quotations about a living person is appropriate for a Wikipedia user talk page. Your comparison to the Blagojevich article (an article rather than a user talk page) is therefore invalid. Copyright was not my main concern in filing this report. Soapboxing with compilations of third-party quotations is soapboxing nevertheless, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SuperMarioMan 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there evidence that he's stockpiling? They've been there for less than a couple of days. Also, several editors (yourself included?) accused him of making edits which violated BLP. His defense is that there aren't BLP violations, and the quotations are evidence.LedRush (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Collecting", "compiling", "stockpiling" ... more a matter of semantics, if anything, but continually adding to the section, to me, seemed to be inappropriate. The user seems to be under the impression that a dispute resolution process is coming up, if I have read this response correctly. How the "evidence" will have a part to play in the said process is unclear, however. Their time would probably be better spent putting together an unblock request, rather than amassing a load of diffs that do nothing to refute the concerns that led to the block. SuperMarioMan 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have followed this dispute on and off for some time and it seems to me that the content on the user’s talk page is an entirely reasonable attempt to present a detailed defense against a series of dubious allegations against him. As a matter of fact, he has been remarkably restrained in response to what seems to be a campaign of abuse and attempt to silence him. Certainly, this editor is seen to be biased on the subject of a certain contentious article. But no more so than the others who oppose him. It is no sin to be motivated by bias in an attempt to keep an article neutral and prevent an opposing bias from unfairly influencing it. It IS wrong to single out and target an editor with a differing opinion (SPA or not). What concerns me is the tactics that have been used to oppose this editor and others who have attempted to support him; including baiting users into attacks and apparently one-sided application of sanctions. While it may be difficult to prove, there is a definite perception that one or more biased admins may have used their powers to support one side by selectively interpreting and enforcing rules. (To prevent reprisals from these admins, I have chosen not to log in to make these comments, but for the information of anyone who examines the IP address, I make these observations as a private individual and NOT as a representative of the U.S. government.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.17.254 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, to return to the actual matter in hand - namely, how a user talk page has been used - could you perhaps explain how amassing lengthy quotations about a living person is related to composing "a detailed defense against a series of dubious allegations made against him"? SuperMarioMan 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indef'ed SPAs should not be allowed to continue to use their userspace to soapbox in their topic area of interest. I think it is well time for a revocation of talk page access here. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The above editor has not acted in a neutral fashion relative to the MMK page. For instance he accused another editor commenting on the current page of being a "liar". That is not cool. Dougbremner (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As we see above, any editor who does not toe the Knox-is-innocent line is immediately set upon by all the other SPAs and declared to be "non-neutral", or when they're feeling less charitable, a "pro-guilter". This topic area needs a clean sweep, but for now, kicking one soapbox out from under one of these blocked editors would be a good thing. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be some kind of moratorium on this subject until the the case is fully processed. There's a concerted effort by some editors to use wikipedia for advocacy, which is absolutely not what wikipedia is about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the advocates owned the article for so long, that the resulting article has many POV problems ingrained in the structure. Since March, when the offending Admins and many of the offending editors left, the article and tone of discussion has gotten much better.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Really. Just judging by the sheer amount of drama I see on your talkpage and that of a couple of other editors related to the article, as well as endless mutual accusations of uncivil posting on every noticeboard, I'd have thought otherwise. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position, the talk-page may be civil, but it won't be constructive. Also, it engenders more anger by new editors (which you then need to indef...wash, rinse, repeat). The article (and talk page) has made vast strides since March, and I don't know that I've seen more than a couple of people disagree with that sentiment. Anyway, back on subject...LedRush (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely the first sentence in your reply is a hypothetical view of yours, right? Because if it's an accusation, I will have to ask to provide diffs demonstrating who indeffed whom for their views (as opposed for their conduct) or retract what amounts to a clear personal attack. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, and people said I was too sensitive to personal attacks! The "you" above should read as "one". However, even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be a personal attack.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We all know perfectly well what blocking administrators you were meaning with your you / one, and you allege misconduct of one or several administrators, which, unless you can provide diffs, is indeed a personal attack. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LedRush and the SPAs have been leveling that charge against Black Kite for months now, it's regrettably nothing new. What they fail to consider is that perhaps one "side" is simply incapable of conducting themselves maturely, while the other "side"...if simply wanting the article to reflect the reality of reliable sources, i.e. Knox is in prison for killing Kercher, though is appealing...can be considered a "side" is debatable. Myself, I am not for or against any player in this topic area, but like in other areas in the project, I am simply anti-fringePOV. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I was going to say something along the lines that the article is less toxic these days because we now have editors pushing PhanuelB's POV who don't use a modus operandi of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them is somehow "pro-guilt", but I take that back now. LedRush is clearly the same as all the others. Like the others, he doesn't understand the concept that previous editors were indeffed for standard WP reasons - persistent incivility, battleground mentality, edit-warring, socking, using meatpuppets to stack votes, etc, etc. I thought he was better than that; clearly I was wrong. Yet again, I ask LedRush, the 152.x.x.x IP, or anyone else, to point out any time where myself, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here has edited the article to favour one POV or the other. Here's a clue - you can't, because it hasn't happened. Either put up or shut up. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Everyone involved, including you, could do with being a bit more nice to each other. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other? Can you please point to an instance where I have indicated that anyone who disagrees with me is pro-guilt? This type of personal attack against editors who don't agree with you is exactly the problem on the article. I have often and consistently worked with editors who have been accused by others as being part of the "pro-guilt" group to fashion a better article, and I have consistently warned editors (yes, even ones that others accuse of being "pro-innocence") that they are being uncivil and that their edit requests do not conform to WP policy. Yet I am still the subject of this type of personal attack.
  • There was a time on the article when editors would get indeffed after only one edit for behaviorial evidence of sock puppetry. Or editors would get indeffed for accusing a group of people as being "pro-guilt", while the same Admins accused a group of SPAs as being part of an advocacy camp. Other editors were blocked for borderline civility issues. Were all the blocks bad? No. The SPAs are often too aggressive and not mindful of WP policies. But that doesn't excuse certain actions, it explains them. Now that some of the more controversial Admins and editors have dialed it back, the article has been improved vastly since March (Will anyone argue seriously that the article in existence in February is better than the one today) and people who want to explain the controversy pursuant to WP policies are not dismissed out of hand. Some SPAs still don't get it, and they are blocked. Some established editors still attack newbies, and this is the subject of controversy. Personally, I don't believe calling attention to incivility or uneven handling of editor disputes should make me subject of even more personal attacks.
  • Unforunately, once again, a subject which requires actual attention is being ignored...can we get back to the topic at hand?LedRush (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Above you ask "Can you please point to an instance where I accuse you, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here of having edited the article to favour of one POV or the other?", yes? An hour previous to that, did you not say "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." ? Tarc (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Where in that do I accuse them of editing the article to favour one POV or the other? (answer - no where.) And I don't suppose you want to get back on the topic instead of trying to squeeze out some kind of "gotha" moment that doesn't exist?LedRush (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You said, and I quote "Well, when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position..." - yet I, and the others have no position on this article other than NPOV. Frankly, I couldn't care less if Knox is guilty, innocent or a giant banana from the planet Zog - the only thing we are doing administratively is enforcing Wikipedia policies. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Ledrush, you're engaging in some mighty fine hair-splitting here. Again, you said "when you indef virtually all editors who disagree with your position". You are being asked to specifically name a "you" who has done such a thing, or retract the statement. Do you understand? Tarc (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
          • No, I do not understand. If others want to misrepresent my views, and I ask them for examples, I think it is fair to ask based on what they (and I) actually said, not something imagined. Regardless, this off-topic sniping should stop. If you want to persist in this discussion, can I suggest your talk page or Black Kite's?LedRush (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Answer the question, or strike the comment. Apples or oranges, yin or yang, Coke or Pepsi, the Beatles or Elvis. You just have to pick one. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The following was written by PhanuelB on his talk page with the request that it be put here. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am currently blocked and unable to properly defend myself at a discussion at WP:ANI. I request that a neutral admin copy this content to that area.

Black Kite writes:

"Yet again, I ask LedRush, the 152.x.x.x IP, or anyone else, to point out any time where myself, MLauba, John or any other admin who has acted administravely here has edited the article to favour one POV or the other. Here's a clue - you can't, because it hasn't happened. Either put up or shut up. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)"

Really? Jimbo Wales says here that there has been systematic exclusion of reliable sources. Look at the responses by Black Kite to my list of reliable sources on the Meredith Kercher topic. here. I have fully proven that Black Kite engaged in "systematic exclusion of reliable sources." False allegations of AGF and NPA were made against me for saying the same thing that Jimbo found when he came to the page.

I have another idea. How about somebody go over and remove Black Kite's block of Gregmm. Let's see if he's a sockpuppet or not. What can it hurt to unblock him and see what happens. PhanuelB (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Gregmm has been unblocked.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By Black Kite, no less. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling editors "liars" (Tarc, MoMK talk page) and telling them to "shut up" (Black Kite) is a clear violation of WP:NPA and sniping at new editors as SPA is violation of WP Don't bite the newcomers. LedRush has been very patient with these blatant violations of WP policy. I don't think these editors, with MLauba, are acting in a fair way. I would like to return to the subject at hand, which was related to the repeated blocks of this editor. Dougbremner (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for .... "Put up or shut up" is clearly saying "either validate your personal attacks with diffs or other proof, or stop making them". Have you actually looked at this in any detail? Myself and the other admins involved (and other non-admins as well) have had to waste huge amounts of our time with legions of SPAs, recruited off-wiki, whose only purpose is to slant this article to their POV. I'd suggest looking through the reams of previous ANIs before you start casting aspersions on people. As for the blocks of PhanuelB, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher may be a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

They are quite right, Black Kite. Irrespective of what their editing patterns are, everyone should remain civil, including you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So they are allowed to accuse me of administrative abuse, yet I am not allowed to ask them to validate those claims or stop making them? I've got a thick skin, but this is really starting to get ridiculous. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to ask them to validate those claims. You are not allowed, however, to tell them to "shut up or put up". It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. As an administrator, I know you are aware of this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend placing {{NOINDEX|visible=yes}} on his talk page and any subpages and possibly allow the content he has been amassing in collapsed boxes (possibly on subpages). This will remove undue exposure.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed the noindex tag..so is it workable with the collapsed boxes?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Deskana, you're out of line. This motley collection of sock and meat puppets routinely screams "ABUSE!","you're incivil!", you're controlling the page!", etc... yet when invited to follow our procedures to deal with such things...dispute resolution, 3rd opinion, mediation, Wikiquette alerts...they specifically and emphatically refuse to do so. Instead, they just continue to drop in the same accusations whenever they post here or at the article talk page. Black Kite is wholly within his right to tell them to put up or shut up, and I have said the same thing to Ledrush once as well. You can't simply let people accuse, over and over and over, someone of doing something wrong. If they really think there is a wrong, take it to somewhere like WP:WQA so uninvolved editors can have a look. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not out of line, and it seems like Black Kite you are missing the point too. Civility does not stop being policy no matter who you are talking to, whether they are SPAs, sockpuppets, or banned users. I agree with everything that you and Black Kite have said, but how you are saying it is unacceptable. That is the point of the civility policy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Tarc, when you say "This motley collection of sock and meat puppets..", who exactly are you referring to? Oh I get it.. you're being ironic.. You're not attacking others, you're making a joke.. That's why these handful of 'neutral' admins aren't rushing to INDEF you like they have so many others over the last year for far lesser sins. Sorry, sly wit often doesnt translate well across the internet.. So back to the topic of PhanuelB..(Question to no one admin in particular) So put down all the flowery debate team language for a moment and let's talk man to man. What bothers you guys so much about PhanualB? What are you scared of? What do you care what he does with HIS SANDBOX so long as he's not changing your precious Meredith article? I remember him from last year.. I got indef'd for defending him.. He was passionate but I dont recall that he was ever as bitter, nasty or vengeful as some of you all have been at times. Why so much effort being put into blocking his/her voice ? So many admins working to keep his opinion out makes me think he must have something very important to say... tjholme Tjholme (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that must be it; disruptive, combative, tendentious editors aren't ever blocked for their disruptiveness, combativeness, or tendentiousness. No, it must be because such editors are dangerous revolutionaries whose message must be suppressed at all costs. By golly, why didn't I ever realize that before? Tarc (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thankyou, Tjholme, for ending your 3 month editing hiatus just in time to prove my point exactly. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Something I've asked for before on here that would be tremendously helpful on the talk page are a couple of uninvolved admins willing to watch the page soley for civility and call everyone when they slip up. The new editors often come in hostile and aggressive, boldly pointing out cabal's and proclaiming anyone that might possibly object to their view as "pro-guilt". There have been an extremely large number of SPA's that have been on that page, often using forum-type tactics and tone. From experience, once you get labeleing "pro-guilt", your hints, suggestions and warnings are ignored at best and deemed censorship and/or yet another example of the clique of experienced editors slapping down the little guy. Having a couple of admins that stay out of content and only focus on controlling the general tone would go a great deal towards helping. I've walked away for a few weeks from the article because I got damn sick and tired of constantly getting crap from a couple of editors and nobody calling them on it, save for the "pro-guilt" clique. Which gets ignored, derided or pointed to as an example of how The Truth is kept from he article. Until there are several admins willing to aggressively ride herd on that article, it will not change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Revensfire's suggestion about getting neutral admin to take a look, but I strongly contest his characterization of the talk page. Yes, SPAs and new editors often push too hard for their changes, don't demonstrate a full understanding of WP policy, and sometimes break civility issues. But what is surprising to me is that the "pro-guilt" editors (horrible name, I know) don't recognize their role in this. They are constantly condescending, insulting, bitey and agressive to the newer editors. Their frustration is understandable, but it should not be condoned. If new admins come in to police the talk page, I hope they do so with an even hand, and also with a mind towards understanding that not everyone is an experienced editor who knows all the rules (meaning polite and friendly warnings rather than knee-jerk blocks will be better for the long term health of the board). I would also hope that these admins would be able to recognize, and politely warn established editors from, the borderline uncivil needling aimed at the newer editors.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Ravensfire and LedRush, I already serve that role. I have been very careful to remain neutral with regards to article content on the talk page, and as I have not read the article and have no knowledge of the subject matter, I am free from bias. I agree that there should be more administrators with such a role on that talk page, but as we are all volunteers you may find it hard to fill such a position. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page access is only kept for blocked users to allow them to discuss and appeal their block. Talk page access was already revoked, but lifted last week. I have now again removed talk page access. The user can appeal to ArbCom or other accepted unblock channels if they want to discuss an unblock, but until then, their contributions are not wanted on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring all the personal stuff

I would assume that everyone in this discussion would agree that the correct order for productive contribution to our encyclopedia is as follows:

1. Get yourself unblocked
2. Compile sources for use on articles

As such, does everyone agree that PhanuelB should, in principle, concentrate on getting himself unblocked before working on sources for the article in question? If so then we're done here, at least until PhanuelB actually requests an unblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And that he will. He's requested an unblock to me through private channels before, and he's emailed quite a few other users though I can't speak to whether those emails were about getting unblocked or not. The evidence he has cited for his unblock has been checked by me before and I've agreed with the original blocking admin. Rather than admitting his mistake and vowing to change it, he insists he has done nothing wrong, which both the original blocking admin, JamesBWatson and I have disagreed with. There's nothing further to be accomplished by reviewing the blocks he's had placed on him for the nth time. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. A blocked user (or any user) can compile all the info they want to, on their own PC, and save it for when (or if) they get unblocked. To post it on-wiki is defiant, and hence is self-defeating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB has emailed me a few times in the last month or so - on one occasion requesting the blocks be reviewed. A few weeks later I did take a look at some of the blocks (including his) and agree the blocks were valid because the editors were a disruptive influence. Sadly, unless he can demonstrate an understanding that his previous behaviour was unacceptable and agree to work constructively on the article talk page (keeping his temper, discussing content and understanding that his POV may not always represent the neutral one) I see no reason an unblock can be granted.

To that end; a blocked editor may only use his talk page for requesting or discussing an unblock - misuse of that privilege usually leads to it being removed. Suggest that if this happens again talk page access be removed again until it is impressed upon PhanuelB what the talk page access is for.

As a final disclosure I would not support an unblock right now because in his first email to me PhanuelB forwarded private emails from the Arbitration committee (to himself) without permission - which I do not think demonstrates the sort of change in behaviour we are looking for. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, PhanuelB seems (to me, at least) to be under the impression that an unblock will be obtained not by accepting the disruptive nature of his own conduct, but by compiling massive lists of diffs and quotes about the supposed misconduct of other users - such an approach amounts to little more than blatant WP:NOTTHEM. Furthermore, some of the comments above suggest that his emailing campaign (which has involved multiple correspondents) has, at times, bordered on harrassment. As such, I wonder whether - at some point in the not-too-distant future - his email access will need to be revoked in addition to his talk page access. In the case of this user, I'd argue that WP:ROPE is now well and truly a dead horse - the problems regarding WP:IDHT are simply too rife and entrenched. SuperMarioMan 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. PhanuelB wasted little time in mailing me (twice) following this thread, following the established trend of blaming others / arguing over the article content rather than his behaviour. If that's what everyone else is getting subject to when commenting on this issue it's probably time to disable email access, as the user seems not to get that it is his behaviour and not that of others which needs to be addressed for an unblock to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is true that PhanuelB has once again started to send disruptive emails, I would endorse revoking their email access without further delay - enough is enough. This user's approach to editing and discussion is completely incompatible with Wikipedia values. SuperMarioMan 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are posts at these people's "Injustice in Perugia" web forum following the initial block where this PhanuelB solicits other users to come here and argue on his behalf. Once again, these are people who are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia; they are here to demonstrate and advocate for a particular cause. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have disabled PhanuelB's email access. It is impossible to tell how many users have been recipients of emails, but it is clear that at least several users have each received at least several emails, and that in at least some cases this has come close to harassment. It is also clear that the emails, in common with the talk page abuse and the other editing which led to the block in the first place, are not part of any attempt to work at improving the encyclopaedia, but rather part of a concerted campaign to promote a point of view by all means available, including subverting Wikipedia to serve that purpose. Therefore email access is not helpful to Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It would certainly seem to have been a wide-ranging campaign - at least five email recipients, from all that I have read - and a persistent one at that. Definitely time to put an end to all this madness. SuperMarioMan 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, what's the deal here? Are you stalking PhanuelB? Googling for their connections? Are you a member of 'Injustice in Perugia' or one its counter sites? How in other words do you know what they wrote on another website? I find it really disturbing that you seem so bent on keeping an editor blocked that you've searched out any information you can find on them. Probably taking things out of context. Wow, just wow. Issymo (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Phanuel has more meatpuppets than Hormel, what do you expect? Now, beat it, before you get lanced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's called "due diligence". It's not all that uncommon, really. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proxy editing

The Friends of PhanuelB have made attempts to add a message her eon his behalf; Tjholme (one) and NigelPScott (one), (two). I think we're in block territory here, certainlly for the latter. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I concur with blocking the latter because he was warned on his talk page earlier today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is upsetting that some of the editors we have interacted with on the talk page may have been colluding off-wiki. I know Knox has a lot of internet support but I assumed, perhaps naively, that these individuals were here, like the rest of us, as individuals - except they shared a particular view of innocence. To now find they may be posting messages influenced by a blocked editor (at the very least) is.. disappointing to say the least. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have left a warning for NigelPScott. This edit, besides proxying yet again for PhanuelB, also contains egregious soapboxing. SuperMarioMan 23:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I would ask that everyone simply take breath and rest a sec before escalating this further. I cant speak for NigelScott. I only speak for myself. As to Proxy-editing: I didnt 'edit' for PhanuelB as such. Like a number of you I received a communication asking simply that I post a message to a Talk Page where his unblock request was being discussed. He (she?) stated that due to his block he was unable to defend himself. That he should have a say in a discussion about him seemed reasonable to me. In any event I wasnt aware that messaging the admins while blocked was a violation of WP:ANYTHING. I did a person a small favor. My bad. I received a warning from Tarc letting me know not to do it again. I'm ok with that. No need to make this into something bigger than the minor faux pas that it is. Additionally, PhanuelB's communication was a simple, straight forward request for assistance. To call it some kind of conspiracy or collusion is really a stretch. On the subject of warnings and blocks: I would like to point out that I only know about Tarc's warning because I stumbled upon the note at the bottom of my Talkpage quite by accident. I almost posted PhanuelB's note again when I saw it had been removed, thinking I hadnt saved it properly.. As I said, I cant speak for NigelScott but his double posting may well not have been some act of defiance but just the result of not knowing that posting to a ANI Talkpage is considered 'Proxy-Editing' It's been a long day.. I suggest we put this issue of blocking down for today.. Let bygones be bygones.. and take appropraite measured action when and if it happens again.. now that we're all on the same sheet of music. Regards, Jake Holmes Tjholme (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest explanation; that makes me a lot happier and I do withdraw my comments in relation to yourself. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest. Nigel did know and saw his warnings because of his preamble where he indicates that we should be running a totalitarian state and a number of other things that I won't elaborate on. Phanuel will need to appeal to ArbCom; it is no longer a matter for this noticeboard. This isn't the place to stage a defense. No one here can do anything for him now. Like many here, I have received emails from him and one held the response from a previous ArbCom appeal...this is a matter up to them. Further postings on his behalf are actually hurting his chances for appeal, seen as disruptive and potentially hurting those who, unwittingly or not, post on his behalf. Please see this excerpt of policy which forbids editing, presenting or transmitting something on behalf of an indef-blocked editor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the next editor to proxy edit for a blocked user will themselves be blocked by me. There shall be no further warnings. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if they've never been warned? That seems...excessive.LedRush (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If they're posting here, then they'll see their message and it'll serve as their warning. So far there have been three attempts to post messages from blocked users here. Three violations of our standards is what's excessive. I'm not going to tolerate a fourth. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script altering accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD in violation of WP:DATERET

User:Ohconfucius/script is running a script that automatically changes all accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD to another format, regardless of consensus or previous usage

• Vancouver
• Manhattan
• Toronto
• and many more

He documents his intent at User:Ohconfucius/script#Date_formats based on what he dislikes. The MOS permits accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD (Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD.) Changing without getting consensus appears to be a violation of WP:DATERET. --JimWae (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered discussing it with them before bringing it here? Amalthea 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The script page in question includes a detailed section on what the script does with dates and why. ANI is not supposed to be the first port of call for whining about other editors' actions, be they admins or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have. No response, yet. I realize I did not wait long after talking there, but he has donre the same thing to so many articles that I thought some wider notice should be posted somewhere. People ought not be running scripts on hundreds of articles just to enforce their personal preferences in violation of what the MOS permits. I think characterizing this as whining is very unnecessary. If this is not the place for wider notice, please advise me where is? --JimWae (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to talk to him at User talk:Ohconfucius not User talk:Ohconfucius/script. I'm not sure I agree with what he is doing, but I don't think it is personal preferences. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

... and Ohconfucius hadn't edited since. I haven't looked at the changes, and don't know where consensus lies. In general I would advise anyone doing mass formatting changes to get an explicit consensus in advance; if there isn't one for those changes and the two of you can't agree on the best way forward, the respective MOS talk page might be the first place to look for further opinions, and it may be best if Ohconfucius would hold back with further changes of that kind until there is an agreement. Amalthea 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to stir this further, and I haven't clicked on any links, but what's being described here sounds like it amounts to running an unauthorized bot.

Not again. This bot keeps cropping up as problematic on Admin various boards, even during my rather brief spell of being hyperactive here. Is the problem a vagueness of the MOS or a POV? - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep your hat on! A bit hasty to come running to ANI... JimWae created a new discussion page and expected me to be watching it, then came here while I was off line. Yes, I admit there were a couple of named cases where the formats ought not to have been unified, and these have been partially reverted. There's no reason to revert the others, as they were definitely done in accordance with MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are infringing WP:DATERET -> WP:DATERET is part of MOSNUM -> your edits are not done in accordance with MOSNUM. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• MOSNUM is above all concerned with consistency within any given article, as witnessed by the opening sentence: This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies and coordinates in English Wikipedia articles.. The reference to DATERET is not a stand-alone, and certainly doesn't trump MOSNUM of which it is a part. It is intended to be read in context of the desire for consistency expressed in that first sentence, that assuming dates were correctly formatted, they ought not to be changed by a whim. Thus alignment of all other inconsistent formatting is expressly compliant with MOSNUM. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The edit to Vancouver by Ohconfucius was specifically requested by JimWae when he added the {{Use mdy dates}} template in May. The consensus for this change was demonstrated when the template was allowed to remain by the editing community for more than a month. What, you say, that's really not what {{Use mdy dates}} means? Then change it. What, you say, a hidden template cannot demonstrate consensus? Then enact a policy that all hidden templates that demonstrate consensus must contain a diff to the version of the talk page that demonstrates consensus. But don't blame Ohconfucius for satisfying JimWae's request. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The second item on JimWae's list, Manhattan, had inconsistent date format in the reference section and was thus eligible for correction. Ohconfucius's choice of format can be justified by this edit which is the first actual choice by an editor to place an access date in the reference section. Prior date inclusions are template transclusions, and there is no telling what the transclusions looked like back in 2006, so I discount those. Since it is evident that JimWae's list is not properly screened for actual violations of WP:DATERET I don't intend to examine any further entries. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Background:

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision#Ohconfucius

Previous threads and warnings about the exact the same issue with the user (changing YYYY-MM-DD dates to something else):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive676#Ohconfucius.2C_MOSNUM_edit_warring_.2F_ARBCOM_Date_delinking_case_revisited
2. User_talk:Ohconfucius#Date_Formats
3. User_talk:Ohconfucius#Osama_bin_Laden.27s_compound_in_Abbottabad_DMY_dates_to_MDY_.3F
4. ANI - Ohconfucios_mass-changing_date_formats

Also note that according to Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, the community's consensus is to retain the YYYY-MM-DD date format. I believe Ohconfucius is acting against consensus. Can we finally at least get him to suspend his activities until he can demonstrate that consensus is on the side of his edits? My view that Ohconfucius seems to be simply ignoring all the requests and warnings urging him to stop, and just keeps going on and on with his mass-changes. The correct thing for him to do would be to launch a community discussion about the issue, and only resume his mass-changing of date formats if a consensus is formed that supports what he is doing. Nanobear (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already community consensus for Ohconfucius's edits: see WP:MOSNUM. In this case, Ohconfucius made two mistakes (ie edits that weren't consistent with MOSNUM) and as soon as he was made aware of this, he immediately reverted his changes (even though Jc3s5h shows how they were basically borderline calls that could have gone either way). This should not even have come to ANI, as it could have all been resolved by one comment to his talk page. There is absolutely no evidence in this thread that Ohconfucius is acting against consensus (all I see is an editor who made two mistakes and promptly fixed them when notified). Jenks24 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the above comments and clarifications. I think my position expressed here and elsewhere is demonstrably clear and not in violation of any policy or guideline. Unless anyone has any more to add, let's not waste any more time on the complaints of those who seem to be insisting on preserving the existence of ISO8601 dates in reference sections that may be in violation of said guideline. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for a little help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware / Gargoyle Router Firmware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hullo;

Having completed the close, I find I am now unable to delete the article. At first I thought my privledges had been mistakenly removed, but the "delete" link is still on other pages I see... Can someone please either tell me how to get to deleting that page, or if you're feeling really generous just do the deletion? (presuming you agree with the close, etc) I promise to bomb you with Wikilove if you help me. (^_^)
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The delete button worked for me. Looks like a reasoned close so I'm not going to second-guess or endorse/dispute. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a !vote and not a close to me. -Atmoz (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the interest of ANI readers, the deletion is currently being reviewed at DRV - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1. 62.200.86.169 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffpiatt Unblock Request

Jeffpiatt (talk · contribs · logs)

The user has requested an unblock. He was blocked indef for "Vandalism: repeated creation of deleted articles" preceded by several image no-nos in 2007. Personally I don't have full knowledge of the user's historyn but I would think after four years perhaps with some strict guidelines on editing and a clear understanding from the user in question regarding what does and does not constitute good image use, perhaps we could have an unblock?

That is presuming there has been no socking. I can't find any linked socks. I'm also curious to know why the user has suddenly come back. Is it just a passing fancy? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

_{I have advised the user in question and the admin who blocked them indef. S.G.^(GH) ping! 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}

Seems like a reasonable request. Indef for repeatedly creating deleted articles is perhaps harsh - that's not vandalism per se it's just irritating - and there's no sign of attempting to recreate the article in the intervening period. Fences&Windows 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to unblock, but I held off when I saw SGGH's wise comments on the editor's talk page. 4 years is a long time, and the editor's conduct prior to the block doesn't seem all that terrible. I will point out, though, that Jeffpiatt did add a very large number of images with rationale that didn't conform to WP:NFCC (dozens of them, maybe up to a hundred) that were deleted. So if Jeffpiatt is unblocked, I'd hope to see more care taken with image uploads. -- Atama頭 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it's worth a try to me. There's a big difference between (maybe) 16 and (maybe) 20. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I support giving a second chance. However, if there are any images that need to be uploaded, then they need to be checked to make sure they are valid (alternatively, we could stick a condition not to upload images on the unblock, but IMO I don't think it's necessary). –MuZemike 21:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A requirement to use WP:FfU would seem to be sufficient to fulfill that condition. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems fairly safe then. I'll unblock with the condition that admins will be watching closely for a while, and he must use WP:FfU and demonstrate a good understanding of image use. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Done with conditions per above. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-stop editing by socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne/Archive
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prince-au-Léogâne

This guy doesn't stop. Everytime a sock or IP is blocked, he starts editing from another one. The last IP to be blocked was 76.109.142.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which began editing one of the socks' userpage to indicate it was an administrator. That IP was blocked on June 30th. Within a few hours, the sockmaster began editing from 76.109.149.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and that IP's edits include using the usertalk page of a sock to spam himself. Is it possible to look into a rangeblock on this one? Singularity42 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Best ask at the SPI, although I am willing to bet that the potential range has too many good editors to allow a block. I would also suggest that any of the self promotion edits can be reverted when found, which I realise is a pain as they make many legit (but often trivial) ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple more patterns to the title blacklist, which should slow them down a bit, and softblocked 76.109.0.0/16 for 72 hours -- existing registered accounts will still be able to edit from that range, but anons will not be either able to edit or create new accounts. The next logical step in this process is to create a rule in the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been created again with a different title - see HipHop561 (talk · contribs) and 64.134.27.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Peter E. James (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, so much for the rangeblock idea. Singularity42 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm working on crafting a filter. Currently, it's in log-only mode -- I'll wait a couple of days, and see what happens. I'm going to lift the rangeblock now, since it's clearly ineffective. -- The Anome (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rememberway

This is in relation to the resent WP:POINTy disruptive edits, accusations of bad faith, edit warring and spiraling Civility issues. The user has become something of a single purpose account recently. Focusing on the articles Tau, Turn (geometry), Michael Hartl (also its AfD), and Pi. It's all based around the recent coverage of τ-day, where some people have proposed using τ = 2π in place of the mathematical constant π. He's made it his issue to include τ wherever possible. Whenever it's removed, he reverts.

After reverting my edits, Gandalf61's edits, and David Eppstein's edits (all three of us are Wikipedia Maths Project members and Maths Reference Desk regulars) at the article turn (geometry), he was given a 3RR warning by Arthur Rubin. When reverting David's edits, who is an admin, he left the edit summary: "bad faith edit that significantly damaged the article". When I undid the changes he made while accusing David of bad faith and disruptive editing; Rememberway came to my talk page to pick a fight. I archived the discussion (on my own talk page), and Rememberway undid that to say that my actions were pathetic and that he was not in an edit war.

He seemed to calm down following the 3RR warning, but has started up again, edit warring on Tau with Quandle. We can see from the edit history that Quandle was trying to engage Rememberway in discussion ([36] [37]). Rememberway's response was to issue Quandle with a 3RR warning. Given that Rememberway had initiated the reverts, I gave him a 3RR warning. His response was to quote WP:DICK, [38].

Basically, to recap, the issues are as follows:

• Possible ownership of articles.
• Edit warring with anyone that disagrees with him.
• Accusing admins of bad faith and disruptive edits.
• Edit warring with people on their own talk pages.
• Increasing levels of incivility.

Obviously, this is just one side of the story. I hope that you will check the edit histories of Tau, Turn (geometry), Pi, Michael_Hartl's AfD, User talk:Fly by Night, user talk:Quandle, user talk:Rememberway; especially the latter because he wipes all cautions and warnings. Don't take my word for it because I've lost the plot. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy ^ is seriously harassing me, and continually assuming bad faith; and basically 'making shit up'.

The Arthur Rubin thing was discussed User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#3RR.3F here, and you can see that I'd only done one revert of David Eppstein's edit that bizarrely accused me of POINT (for no reason I could see at all), and then I got accused of OWNERSHIP by Fly By Night, and of edit warring with Gandalf61, someone I had never reverted, nor him me. According to Fly by Night this constitutes OWNERSHIP of an article I had contributed to in good faith. Just totally bizarre.

He's just being totally ridiculous. Just unbelievably bad faith all the way from start to finish. -Rememberway (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As for Quandle, if you check the history of the article tau, Quandle has been removing a link to the turn article for months, and people keep putting it back in again. There was also a peak in traffic usage three days ago where people were obviously searching for information about the tau constant, and they still are, it's still dying down. Quandle's entire argument seems to be that news sources like BBC and CNN and periodicals aren't reliable sources and don't confer notability or something daft like that. -Rememberway (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night has done stuff like: "removing recent material pero WP:NOT#NEWS. The author's article is subject to an AfD. &tau'-day has been in the news today, and some people have been adding it to as many articles as they can" where I'm pretty sure he meant me, but it was immediately reverted by Waldir with the text "Restore text removed by User:Fly by Night: 1) The AfD has nothing to do with this content 2) The content was here way before today so it's not recent/news 3) Noone's been adding tau to "as many articles as they can" (otherwise, diffs?" And that was true, I'd only added brackets for a wikilink, and nobody else had either.

It's just horrible, horrible bad faith and horribly tendentious. There's much more of this crap, but I can't be bothered to put it here, can someone get him to leave me alone? -Rememberway (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN causa sui (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• In his previous accounts Rememberway was sanctioned for writing articles on words. Now he's moved on to letters. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive216#Proposed editing restrictions on User:Wolfkeeper. Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh? No? (I was AFDing articles that violated NAD). And hell no? And note I'm not under any restrictions at all. -Rememberway (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your block log [39] and talk page history tell a different story. Atama blocked you for having previous accounts and possibly evading previous sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope again. I was unblocked because I had not violated any of the restrictions while they were still in force (except for changing accounts, but they let me off that, probably because some mild stalking restarted as soon as it was clear who I was, which was why I hadn't publicised it.) -Rememberway (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper/Archive, there is evidence that Wolfkeeper/Rememberway violated sanctions on multiple occasions. Warden (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not even. Actually, I'm glad you bought it up, the edits you pointed to there were edits to talk pages, I was not ever blocked from those. Oh and I made entirely uncontroversial changes to Chav to make it follow WP:LEAD. No, this is and was just you slinging mud in the hope that some of it will stick. But it won't. That happened 9 months ago, and I am under no restrictions at all. -Rememberway (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• These edits (amongst others) by Rememberway [40] are an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. It is not surprising that such edits were immediately reverted by multiple editors connected with WikiProject Mathematics. As Wolfkeeper, he was already blocked for making pointy edits across multiple articles. This is a repetition of the same conduct. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... Disrupting to make a point is when you do the opposite of what you believe just to prove how silly it is. Given that I think that tau is notable, I'm at a complete loss to understand how I could be being POINTy, and I'm sure I've done nothing that is unreasonable at that article. -Rememberway (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream mathematics does not recognize this eccentric usage of tau. Any agenda to suggest otherwise on wikipedia is WP:UNDUE, unreasonable and disruptive. Indeed if you continue doing so, I would fully support the imposition of some new kind of long term topic ban on editing mathematics articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, mainstream maths is extremely flexible. You can set any unused symbol at all to 2 Pi and use it throughout your work without any problem at all. -Rememberway (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you have taken a small subset of my edits entirely out of context. I believe this to be completely unfair, and an entirely bad faith personal attack. While I still do not consider it very good, the Turn article is, it seems to me, significantly better organised now and better written than it previously was, and a great deal of this is due to my editing. That you are trying to threaten me with blocks says it all really. -Rememberway (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Rememberway for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, with a block rationale of "There appears to be a schism between what WP believes and what Rememberway perceives to be legitimate editing. It is unfair to expect Rememberway to exist in such an indifferent editing environment." I did review the specific complaints and found them justified, but the decision to indef block was Rememberway's responses above to the complaint here; they exemplified the behaviours complained of. It may be that Rememberway/Wolfkeeper is correct and the WP community wrong, in which case the editor need find an editing environment that is more sympathetic. Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", or small ones either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As a (relatively) new user I would appreciate criticism of my conduct. Quandle (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want more general feedback, you might like to look at WP:Editor review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Farsi and Persian

User:Kamran the Great continues to change references to Farsi to the Persian language,[41] despite being asked on multiple occasions by multiple editors to stop doing so[42], [43], [44], based on the fact that all English dictionaries consider Farsi to be an acceptable term for the language. Could an admin please try to talk sense to the guy as he is ignoring everyone else and has failed to produce a single RS to support his case? Ericoides (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the equation; Kamran the Great may explain why they should be unblocked and be allowed to continue to edit the encyclopedia. I advised them that they should consider basing any unblock request upon an undertaking to adhere to WP:Consensus and WP:RS in their contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case

Two months ago I reported that this administrator had revoked my talk page access on the ground that an innocent failure to log in was "socking". Whatever happened to WP:AGF? I would like to respond to a reader at Talk:Computus#Miscellaneous and should be grateful if my talk page access could be restored to enable me to file an unblock request to enable me to do this. The proposed text of the response is

Something very similar was legislated for Britain in the Easter Act, 1928. One of its provisions was "Before this Act shall come into force regard shall be had to any opinions officially expressed by Christian churches" (don't quote me on the exact wording). Still unimplemented yet still on the Statute Book after 83 years, this must be a record for deferred legislation. The churches cannot agree.

I've been examining Daniel's contributions and some of them are plain weird. Some of them are downright offensive, involving swearing and ridicule of people in authority (congressmen, judges, police officers, Jimmy Wales) and particular groups (Germans, obese people, voters, women). Here is a selection:

Extended content

If your brother got a hold of the account that's it. Over. Fat lady sang. Goodbye. We do not unblock admittedly compromised accounts. Start a new one if you wish to edit productively. DarkfireII2, 9 March. The evidence before the Court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire... Unitrin, 14 March. And SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!! Right? That's the truth, too? Seriously, this is trolling. It's only because of AGF that I'm not cutting this talk page off. One more request like this and it will be, however. 208.54.87.73, 19 March. What color is the sky on your planet? 92.7.157.4, 21 March. So how would you explain this edit, then, Mein Herr? Huh? Just why are people like you obsessed with this sort of thing? Huh? 64.136.197.17, 6 April. Account creation is blocked from this IP for the duration of the block since some juvenile person made edits like this and...this, daring to defile the most holy and sacred user page of OUR LEADER. In cases like this we often prevent account creation from IPs we have blocked because otherwise vandals would just go create accounts and continue their dastardly deeds. 124.129.207.254, 9 April. First, this account is blocked directly so this template isn't applicable. But letting that go...you were warned several days ago to stop vandalizing and then...you went back, Jack, and did it again...Wheel turning' round and round you went back, Jack and did it again. 192.148.117.83, 17 April. I don't find anything more convincing in your latest begging; as for what's presented at the SPI, "the evidence before the court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire. So not only am I denying this, I'm cutting access to your talk page off because you would otherwise be wasting administrators' time looking for one who'd unblock. But, since you did ask, there are other avenues for this (but that should not be taken as a guarantee of ultimate success, and per Fisher Queen above you should really consider other ways of spending your time). So, I will commend you to email.unblock-en-1@lists.wikipedia.org and see what happens. Or doesn't. Ultra X987, 25 April. We are the future. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. 138.163.160.41, 4 May. Obviously we can't handle the truth! Boredsohere, 17 May. GOO GOO G'JOOB. Talk page access revoked. Casuallybeingawalrus, 20 May. NO, IT DOESN'T. SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO: SIT BACK AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE (BY SAYING "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?" OR SOMETHING SIMILARLY CUTE), OR WE'LL HAVE TO TELL YOUR PARENTS YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD BOY. Flying Fische, 29 May. You have now officially lost your talk page access. How's that for voting for change? (Cute huh?) Vote (X) for Change, 30 May. Hi, Congressman Weiner: Per WP:GOTHACKED, we generally leave admittedly compromised accounts blocked for security reasons. If you'd like to open a new account, just make sure you note the connection on your userpage. Tpunk628, 8 June. So a group of ski-masked ninjas broke into your house, held Glocks to your head with cocked hammers, and told you they'd pull the triggers unless you opened a new account? I didn't think so either, and otherwise you can't claim you were "forced" to open a new account. And, even allowing for your full control over your own actions in doing so, there is a procedure for abandoning old accounts in favor of a new one, which you didn't follow. Talk page access revoked; we've had enough of this and we need to be able to review requests from people who might actually have a valid reason to be unblocked. Toug ma Tojer, 13 June. "It's an orangy sky; always it's some other guy...It's just a broken lullaby" You have done nothing but repeat the same basic request over and over in the hope that some new admins will take pity upon you. Well, with this previously uninvolved admin you have had the opposite effect. We have been far too patient with you, IMO. I am actually doing what BWilkins threatens to...not only declining but revoking your talk page access so we don't have to deal with this anymore. "Closing time...You don't have to go home but you can't stay here". Incogfrig, 13 June. Unfortunately there is no page here entitled Wikipedia:Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, because if there were it would be a perfect link in response to your continued (soon to be discontinued) preposterous parade of unblock requests. Whether you remember it or not, it's there...several grafs up on this page. Talk page access revoked for duration of block. "But officer, I didn't notice I was speeding". That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee with the judge at traffic court. Talk page access will still be revoked...if you're that reckless in your editing, we're doing you a favor. Dbpjmuf, 29 June.

Can a more experienced editor please notify the parties required to be notified under the rules? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case notified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• 194.66.226.95, your next step is to request a review by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org; requesting edits be made on your behalf is not the purpose of this board and could be construed as block evasion. Tiderolls 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Those edits are, in general, responses to unblock requests from vandals claiming they didn't really do it. Silly responses to unblock requests are not exactly professional behavior, but they're hardly actionable other than "hey dude tone it down a bit". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted. How come no one complains about FisherQueen's unblock denials? She's funnier than I am. Is it because she's a lesbian? Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Flip mode off: Perhaps we should stick with the original issue, rather than the completely irrelevant issue of my occasionally finding it necessary to write unblock denials in something other than boilerplate (And I rarely use profanity ... in fact I think the "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" one is probably the only one I've ever done in any off-color language). OK, it is relevant. What's wrong with quoting from popular songs? They get the point across, and they're more memorable. I would also add that some of those that he seems to think are offensive to particular groups are not ... in the "Mein Herr" one, I was alluding to the fact that the user kept adding "Jewish" to descriptions of people when it was not clearly relevant. (I do admit the Flying Fische one was a little overboard, and I said as much later).

But ... I do not know what talk-page revocation he speaks of because he provides no diff nor a user account to check. Could he please do so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Clubfoot Johnson removing talkpage comments

User believes that this sort of behaviour is acceptable and believes that removing it because editor feels it's defamatory is acceptable. An administrator is required to intervene. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments appear unnecessary and come across as a personal attack; I don't blame Clubfoot Johnson for his reactions (which are in turn not ideal). I would suggest you retract your accusations on your own accord. And please notify Clubfoot Johnson of this discussion, as is required. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have suggested to Walter Gorlitz that he retract his accusations of his own accord. To this point he has refused to do so. What are my options in requesting someone else remove these attacked from the Larry Norman talk page? It doesn't seem fair that someone can make an attack on another editor and the only issue be with the offending comment being deleted by the one who was attacked. Thanks for your help.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Strange Passerby. A couple of you folks need to tone it down before ya'all get sent to the naughty step. I also took the liberty of letting ErrantX know about this as he seems to be up to speed on that thread as well. No comment on article content. — Ched :  ?  17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate the third party review. I agree that my more recent comments may not have been helpful, but this was after many requests on my part for Walter Gorlitz to stop his personal attacks. When he not only continued but started accusing me of engaging in slanderous behaviors, I was not sure what else to do but delete his defamatory comments. He reverted each attempt I made at this, and then accused me of vandalism. I did not want to simply leave such an accusation sitting there without response, so I responded - and may have been a bit more curt in my tone than my previous responses out of frustration. I also attempted to collapse the conversation out of respect for those engaging in the actual topic, but he then pirated the label to say "Clubfoot Johnson is a single purpose account but is the editor showing a conflict of interest?" This is really becoming too much. I would appreciate any intervention you can offer on my behalf as I am not familiar with how to address this kind of harassment (he has done the same thing to me on another article). My preference would be to simply participate in the Wikipedia community without the constant harassment and stalking of this individual. Thanks.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh it quickly became apparent (when I raised the issue) this is a contentious subject :S which is derailing what is IMO an important issue. It's always worrying to see articles about controversial people bring that controversy on-wiki. But I've deliberately not commented on their little "spat" so as not to feed the flames :) thanks for the FYI Ched. more eyes on the content issue would be excellent FWIW, even though that is tangential to this AN/I --Errant ^(chat!) 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

NP .. and I notified Clubfoot. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks. No slander on my part either. And no accusations of vandalim, just notifications on editor's talk page not to remove or refactor the comments of others. No pirating of labels, I simply expanded the conversation, but that could easily be edited. And definitely no harassment.

I have noted that Clubfoot Johnson is a WP:SPA and am trying to clear the editor of my concerns regarding WP:COI. The fact that he has removed my comments several times on the article's talk page is more troubling. Sorry that I failed to notify Clubfoot Johnson that this was undergoing. First time I've done this. I now see the notice at the top of the page. There is no question though that the editor is a SPA, so I take it that there is no COI?

Now as for claims of stalking, I have been an active editor on the two only articles Clubfoot Johnson has taken an interest in for several years and simply notice a disturbing tendency to restore any material that is libellous to David Di Sabatino. I am not stalking the individual in any way, nor am I harassing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They are absolutely personal attacks, and I would like you to please stop harassing me. Your questions regarding COI have been asked and answered more than once. I suggest you move on and leave me alone. The personal attack comments have been removed from the LN talk page as, in addition to being personal attacks, were inappropriate to the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They most certainly are not personal attacks. I'm sorry you feel that your behaviour has opened you up to these charges though. I will not move on as those articles are in my field of interest as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and misuse of the term "vandalism" again

Walter Görlitz has now reported Clubfoot Johnson to WP:AIV, inappropriately, for "vandalism". There is most certainly a revert war going on regarding the comments at this talk page and it would be best if an admin stepped in and handed out some blocks. I note that WG was here very recently over his misuse of the term "vandalism" and then-abuse of Twinkle... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My apoogies. I didn't misuse the term. Twinkle's ARV tool reported it as vandalism. The editor, Clubfoot Johnson, has removed my comments on Talk:Larry Norman‎ at least five times today and was warned four times. The last was after the fourth warning. Is there a way to report without labelling it as vandalism? I didn't know that it would be labelled as vandalism when reported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference to a death in the future

Should something be made of this? An IP has filled in Josh Smith's death date as September 11, 2011. Zagalejo^^^ 21:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Revert it as vandalism, block the IP as needed. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I did revert it. Should it be considered a credible threat of violence? Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Probable vandalism, yes. Credible threat of violence, not very likely. A side effect of Wikipedia's policy of liberally granting editing privileges to practically anyone with access to the internet is a steady supply of juvenile pranksters and sophomoric nonsense. Unless you have additional information showing this is something more than simple vandalism it is usually best to not make more of it that needed. If you do have additional evidence showing this is more than simple mischief then your local police/law enforcement agency would be the appropriate people to talk with. --Allen3 ^talk 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:TreasuryTag on his talk page against another editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't for the life of me see how these remarks are allowed on someone's talk page. I have tried to remove them (and I see in the history that others have also) and frankly I don't feel like engaging the user himself due to their attitude (see ongoing editor review) so I guess I have to take things here.

In the interests of full disclosure, yes I have had a couple of disagreements with TT over the last couple of days (see Talk:Shipping_Forecast#Let's talk about the introductory statement... if you're interested, although I believe that is now settled in my favour) and that is how I became aware of the content of his talk page, and yes I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. But this is not point scoring or whatever - that seems to be a personal attack, clear as day, aggressively defended for gawd knows what reason.

Perhaps some reasonable Wikipedians will disagree.

Egg Centric 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I have seen TreasuryTag say some pretty pointed things and post in a hard-edged tone, the example you reference here seems more like sour grapes on TT's part than anything else. I just see a ranty string of WP:THIS and WP:THAT, hardly a personal attack unless you are a fluent speaker of Wikipedian. I would just let it pass and focus on those times when TT actually says something harsh. I wish there was a way for editors to resolve things without templating and feeling the need to rush to an Admin venue, but this is Wikipedia, for better or worse. -- Avanu (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying someone has a "rather lacking understanding" of a site policy or policies is not a personal attack. If it were, half of the people who commented at TT's editor review would need to be blocked, including the author of the comment that TT was responding to. On the whole TT has been remarkably restrained in responding to comments there. I don't see this as an issue that needs admin attention. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kind of snippy, but more about behavior than anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems inappropriate for TT to keep comments such of that on his talk page, but I guess there isn't a policy covering such things. He has accused me of nearly every wiki-acronym in existence, which is quite an achievement! Basket of Puppies 05:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review: Lewinsky (neologism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I deleted an article that appears to violate WP:BLP and blocked the editor who created it, an account created today with only this one article as edits. Please weigh in here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• So how is this "santorum" garbage not a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, only this one is worse. Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Hard to imagine how. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, if you're poor little Monica it's one thing, an ex-senator, presidential hopeful, it's quite another. And I doubt the senator was a pawn of a more powerful person, or that he ever created the frothy mix. I tend to be far more sympathetic towards Miss Lewinsky than Santorum. This is just a pathetic worse step against human dignity. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I've added the article name to the heading. I hope editors will explain their thinking about the BLP issue at the DRV.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
        • A quick look at Google suggests that it had do with "giving a Lewinsky". That at least reflects reality. The "santorum" thing is the extremely gross fantasy of some shock-jock and is way much more offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Sure, let's victimize Monica even more. Pile on. Dreadstar ☥
            • The people responding at DRV seem to be using it as a proxy for the "santorum (neologism)" dispute. Each article should be considered separately. This term has been discussed in many sources and has actually appeared in slang dictionaries (unlike "santorum"). There's no clear BLP violation, and requests to point to the part of that policy which it violates have gone unanswered. This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it".   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You're the one who proxied it there, Will, what the heck are you complaining about? It's a clear violation of BLP to me, but obviously not to you. Stop trying to twist this. You proxied it. Dreadstar ☥ 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it can be a BLP violation when it reflects something she did and was unashamed of it. The santorum thing IS a BLP violation because it's about a shock-jock equating his own bodily fluids to a politician. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's certainly debatable whether neologisms named after living people are BLP violations. But it does not appear to meet the criteria a speedy deletion without any discussion. There is a good reason we have a specific list of CSDs.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not a BLP violation. The argument should be notability, not BLP. The term may have been all the rage in 1998, but that's ancient history by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • "Debatable" (controversial). "WP:BLP" (contentious). Inconsistent. Will, instead of your usual 'attack the editor instead of the content' tactic, try a different path this time. Dreadstar ☥ 00:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I haven't attacked anyone personally. If I have then please post the diff instead of making an unsourced accusation (I'm a living person too!). The fact remains that "debatable" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Your posting at the Santorum neo article is close to canvassing a location that has proved to support such disputed/divisive/disruptive - content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
          • "This seems to be a simple case of "I don't like it"", is, I'm sure, not a comment about others. Nah. No way. Obviously about content. "I" being..well..you know, the "I" that means, well, not the personal I, but the All seeing eye. Yeah that one. I have more, but that'll do it until the inevitable RFARB, right?  :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
            • If that's a problem talk page then deal with its problems separately from the "Lewinsky" neologism. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks, and I consider the accusation itself to be a personal attack, one which Dreadstar has made repeatedly without evidence.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You're saying I deleted this article and blocked the editor because I didn't like it. I take that as a comment about ME, and not the actual action. Dreadstar ☥ 01:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
                • Haven't you ever seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's a well-known section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which refers to arguments for without reference to a specific policy provision. I think it's strange that you consider that a personal attack yet you consider it perfectly acceptable to tell me to "fuck off".[45] Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ironically, as opposed to the Santorum malarkey, I have actually heard "doing a Lewinsky" in actual RL conversation. But that's anecdotal, and doesn't mean anything. Deletion is correct here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • On what basis?   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • B L P  ?, perhaps? Dreadstar ☥ 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • Which provision of BLP does it violate? I've asked you before but haven't received a reply.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • This content and this DRV and this thread is disruptive. This is nothing to do with creating an online encyclopedia it is just the multiplayer online game with no educational value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistant autobiography creations

Tonight, a friend directed my attention to the existance of the article George Jay Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been deleted several times in the past when it was located at George Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which had been created and heavily edited by Georgewienbarg (talk · contribs). I've sent George Jay Wienbarg to its third AFD (second under the current title), and also discovered Davidcapurso (talk · contribs) and David Capurso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the process. This behavior should not be allowed to continue as it has for the past several years. Georgewienbarg should no longer be allowed to edit this project or to have his biography or the biographies of his associates (Davidcapurso started the current page on Wienbarg, and Georgewienbarg created David Capurso) in any form included on this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The new article looks substantially similar to the originally deleted one; can any admin confirm this? It may be a candidate for WP:CSD#G4, even though the previous one was deleted in December 2006. (Note: I can only find one previous deletion discussion; the other two prior to that were policy-based.)  Frank  |  talk  02:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Checked, and I find them not 100% identical, but substantially the same in content. These various reincarnations are obviously a tenacious attempt on the part of the author to get himself into Wikipedia. G4 seems appropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite's interpertation of NFCC=one non-free image per page maximum?

Since the liklihood of adminstrative action here is trendning to zero and there is a perfectly good talk page at WT:NFCC I'm closing this as outside the scope of ANI. Spartaz Humbug! 01:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Recently user:Black Kite went on a bot-like spree blanketly removing images from articles under WP:NFCC for everything in a category that had more than one non-free on a page. Now I know we are enforcing NFCC pretty strictly these days, but is it reasonable to justy shotgun remove the second or third image in a bot-like fashion without any talk? Particularly when the pages involved describe different versions of a fictional character, and detail pictures of the two versions? Is NFCC a blanket permission to remove anything more that one non-free image on any page at the editor's whim? NFCC #3a states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I don't think that's justification to remove the second picture on a page IF the second picture shows how a character is radically differen or has changed over the years. Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Mathew, I've explained WP:NFCC to you enough times by now. Some articles justify more than one non-free image, some justify one, and some justify none. Now I expect someone will close this section as irrelevant to WP:ANI (which it is), so as I said before, please use talkpages. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Who appointed you as the sole decision maker as to which article get one image? If you want a change on a page propose it. This bot-like shotgun removal is disruptive. Mathewignash (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) One seems reasonable, I am going to close this , theres nothing to report to an administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) How about the fact that he removed images from a page, then I restored them, as punishment for my restoring them he nominates the article for deletion. Is that being a bit too pointy? Mathewignash (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Not really. I was going through either fixing or nominating the pages, but realised after looking a bit more at that article (mainly because you reverted me on it) that it didn't actually have any third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirt Boss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - please move to - Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria - there is already a lot of discussion going on at the policy talkpage - , Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Conduct by User:Tifetondu on Bernard Tomic

I'd like an admin to look at the situation surrounding this page. Some brief background: following various back-and-forth edits, the page was fully protected by Fastily to force some proper discussion. There has been a generally productive discussion here, and a consensus had emerged just prior to the expiry of the page protection. According to the talk page consensus, Jenks24 changed the page to incorporate the new text.

Just a few hours later, Tifetondu (talk · contribs) changed the page to incorporate his/her own version of the text, completely ignoring the consensus. I undid the change once, but Tifetondu has reinstated its version. I'm not going to get into an edit war, and since Tifetondu is ignoring talk pages, it's probable that dispute resolution won't be of much use either, so I'm coming straight here. The talk page is still being used to re-evaluate consensus, but Tifetondu doesn't seem interested in discussion. All we've had so far are a series of SHOUTING comments and no real responses.

I know that things should only be brought here if specific admin assistance is sought, so I'll be plain and state that I'm asking for a temporary block for Tifetondu. The debate is already hot enough without somebody pouring hot water over everything by making unilateral edits. Thanks for your time. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I will only add that I endorse Absconded Northerner's summary of what has occurred. Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reporting User:A young communist, request to block

I had reported the following on the vandalism page, but I have been asked by administrators to move the report for such users/incidents here in the past:

A young communist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is the second time in one month I am reporting the behaviour of this user with respect to the same article Soviet War in Afghanistan. User makes similar vandalizing edits to the article and myself and some others are having to continuously undo his actions, see revision history of that article (specifically edits on 20 June 2011 and 30 June 2011, and several others in late May and early June). There is an entire section on the discussion page of that article relating to the edits he is doing but instead of discussing he continues unabated. He has been told to discuss before making the same edits and he has been warned several times already. In fact he was blocked for 60 hours for similar actions on the same article earlier this month itself but it seems to have had no effect on him. Looking at his user talk page, he has been vandalizing other articles in the past, which were reverted. He had been blocked for edit warring in the recent past and was also recently warned for personal attacks and abuse on others. As if all this wasn't enough already, he is also a known sockpuppet (again, just see his user talk page User:A young communist (talk page)). I request a longer duration block on this user this time, along with another sterner warning on his talk page. 202.3.77.210 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• No one is going to block the editor for those edits, at least not until some serious edit war breaks out. There are other elements of the editor's history (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of A young communist, for instance--see its history) that suggest a less than cooperative attitude, though. But what's happening on Soviet War in Afghanistan is far from blockable at this point. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User page question

Anyone have any thoughts on this user page, User:Calethistlefan? Parents are listed there, jobs...also, that image seems to be missing a rationale. If it's non-free, it shouldn't be in user space, but I don't know that it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User appears to be 19 years old, as far as the personal information is concerned, I don't see why we should not defer to the user. The image is scheduled for deletion shortly, so I don't see any reason to worry about it too much either, unless the deletion process doesn't result in a delete. Monty₈₄₅ 04:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tiptoety has deleted the userpage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page harressment by user:2andrewknyazev

user:2andrewknyazev keeps on harassing me on my talkpage by repeatedly adding a deleted comment [46][47][48][49][50][51],... the whole thing began when he deleted repeatedly [52][53][54][55] a sourced statement by the Economist Blog Eastern Approaches, which mentions that a soon to be released movie about the 2008 South Ossetia war has been financed by members of the Georgian Government; calling The Economist (and other media) material either "irrelevant info", "your irrelevant propaganda", "the questionable edit", telling me in condescending tone to do Original Research about the party affiliations of all the other members of production, and "to post reliable and relevant information, with proper references." When he was told by another user to stop deleting the material [56] he ignored that and immediately deleted it again. He fails to understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. Also from his edit history it is clear that he has pro Georgian POV [57][58], adds Original Research [59] or unsourced material to articles [60].

I have now inserted the material again with 4 more sources and as neutral as possible [61], and he hit my talkpage again with the same edit immediately afterwards [62] - four times! the second time with the comment: "repeated deleting would not do you any good"... and then even after another user told him twice [63][64] not do it anymore HE KEEPS DOING IT AGAIN AND AGIAN [65][66]. noclador (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And while I was writing this he did it again [67]!!! WTF!!! noclador (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

user:2andrewknyazev clearly broke 3rr on your talk page, but I think you also broke it at the article. This really seems more appropriate for WP:ANEW Monty₈₄₅ 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's at least disruptive. Whatever happened on that article is not relevant: a user has the right to not have a posting repeatedly placed on their talkpage, plus they were notified of those rules by another user. I've given them a 4im warning and trust that it will not happen again. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want him to stay clear of my talkpage! I told him after his first edit on my talkpage "Keep it to the articles talkpage!" but he never posted the question there just kept on harassing my talkpage! noclador (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

half a dozen warnings later... he does it again!! [68].... noclador (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reported this editor on AIV for his harrassment and violation of 3RR. He reverted my removal of his harrassment as "vandalism". The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks! I am still dumbfounded by this! :-O noclador (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is any admin going to block this guy? Despite a page full of warnings on his Talk page, he's now accusing a vast conspiracy of attacking him on the article's Talk page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hottest 100 Australian Albums Of All Time

This article was created by User:Tyler j1992 a few days ago. It was only a half complete list, and so was tagged for an AfD. Tyler j1992 asked me what he could do to stop the article from being deleted. I recommended that he work on it in his own user space. In order for the article not be be deleted by the AfD, and so to avoid WP:CSD#G4 when it was reintrodiced; I suggested that Tyler j1992 tag the article with {{db-author}}. That's exactly what he did. He moved it to User:Tyler_j1992/Sandbox, the AfD was closed, and the article was deleted per {{db-author}}.

Whilst reviewing the New Pages list, to my horror, I noticed that user:Ck786 had created more-or-less the same article (with two columns swapped), some information left out, and with a slightly different title; at Triple J Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time, 2011. It was well documented on the original AfD and on the orignal article's talk page that Tyler j1992 had moved it to his user space to work on it.

I was hoping that someone could take a look at this? The article, as it stands is a half empty list that will be completed sometime in the future. As it stands, the article does not deserve to be up there. Like I said, it was several days into an AfD and was looking as though it would be deleted.

I feel terrible. I offered my advice to Tyler j1992, and he followed that advice. It sets a really bad example to him: play by the rules, and someone else will come along and beat you to it. If there's nothing that can be done, then can we at least re-open the AfD? — Fly by Night (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a possible reason to delete. As the original was on Wikipedia, any recreation by another editor would need to be attributed, otherwise we are straying into WP:COPYVIO territory. If the article was not attributed when (re)created, it could possibly be deleted for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

99.90.197.244

The IP refuses to not refer to others as liars[69][70] use quality RS while trying to make a point.[71][72] The English is also unworkable. A clear history of edit warring and other issues in the block log and talk page.[73] I am requesting a 6 month block on the IP since there is nothing but trouble coming from it since April 2010[74]. Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on BelloWello

• BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Salegi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.72.159.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Letsgocrazytogether (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumler for Supervisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BelloWello's name has appeared several times on this noticeboard. When editing as WikiManOne, he was on the verge of being community banned because of his edits related to abortion. All the accounts above were operated by the same real life person who recently divided his accounts into two: one to edit or create articles connected with Democrat campaigning in Albemarle County, Virginia (last two accounts); the other IPsock to continue tendentious editing of articles relating to Seventh Day Adventism. The new accounts used as a source the real life blog of this editor, which was in blatant contravention of WP:RS. This editor has consistently used wikipedia to push an agenda. In the latest SPI, when the connection between the different accounts was mentioned, his response was defiant and aggressive, when it was evident that he was deliberately operating sockpuppets.[75] This last round of sockpuppetry and activism is the final straw. This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, his editing goals conflict with those of this encyclopedia. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community (the possibility of an indefinite block was not discounted by Jclemens, one of the checkusers who has been involved in checking several of the accounts above).

• Support as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support provided we ban Mathsci as well. Two particularly odious birds with the same righteous stone. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)