Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Propose lifting of Δ sanctions

[edit]
No consensus to remove restrictions from Delta/Betacommand. I read through the entirety of the discussion, and find no plausible consensus to overturn or modify community imposed sanctions. I advise administrators to continue to follow the instructions in the community decided editing restrictions. User:Keegan (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

  • Support - as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I do believe these sanctions are quite over the top. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    What # last chance would we be on now, if granted? Tarc (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I haven't seen him doing anything contentious so Im ok with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - seems to be fine now. GiantSnowman 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support at least the edits-per-minute sanction, if not all of them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
I count at least 8 non-admins who have paricipated here. –MuZemike 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a non-admin, and my voice is just as important as anyone else's here.

GiantSnowman 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • #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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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|✉
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Then to clarify, oppose, enforce current restrictions, and add additional restrictions Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Seems like the right time. MBisanz talk 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • support partial removal (the edit limit, at least). Protonk (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lifting all the sanctions. Prodego talk 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support These restrictions are quite ridiculous. It's about time all sanctions were lifted. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Warden (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I'll asnwer as soon as you show where I said any such thing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Restrictions or not, there are two facts in this to consider:
      1. There are people that detest en.wiki's (and to some extent, the Foundation's Resolution) treatment of non-free content.
      2. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Dirk, a couple of weeks ago you deleted an Emile Bernard [1], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thank you Delta and I appreciate that explanation...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oh isn't this interesting [2]. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Ive now removed that whole section for failing WP:NFG, (aka NFCC#8, #3) ΔT The only constant 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
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 [3], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let's see him work within the sanctions for a while without getting into trouble. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments below. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Give Betacommand an inch and he'll take a mile. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Kaldari. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • RussFrancisTE81, looking at these diffs: [4][5][6][7], unless I'm missing something you appear to have voted twice against removing the sanctions (24.49.140.207 appears to be yours based on you changing the signatures). I think you need to strike one of your votes here. Acalamari 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, accidents happen. But if Delta wishes to gain the community's trust he should perhaps consider making a concious effort to stay under the limit, rather than keep testing the waters. The main problem is that Delta simply cannot be trusted to have free reign over his editing. He consistently breaks restrictions time and time again, which would suggest to me that lifting them would lead to catastrophe. The current restrictions are the only thing that even remotely encourages him to alter his bahaviour, and that is why they exist. Plain and simple. As it stands, Delta is still engaging in totally avoidable incidents, and is still escalating incidents. Until Delta proves to the community that these restrictions are completely unnecessary, they must remain. --Dorsal Axe 12:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What next? Restore his Admin bit? -- llywrch (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the sanctions are quite reasonable so should be kept, and there are still plenty of complaints. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose Delta NFCC notification bot

[edit]
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)[reply]

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Propose suspending Δ sanctions

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Support - That's a fair alternative if proposal #1 fails entirely. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The sanctions should be enforced, and more should be added Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    He hasn't convinced me, even when he's not violating his editing rate.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Same as above. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose, but would support August 1st. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as I'm opposing a full removal of restrictions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Can we request a stop

[edit]

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[8] and judging from a sample size of one that showed up on my watch list[9][10] (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[11], edit warring,[12] and being generally unhelpful and unfriendly[13] over image rationales with obvious flaws that should have just been fixed.[14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 [15][16][17]. 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)[reply]
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.[18] 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[19] 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)[reply]
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: [20] [21] - 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)[reply]

Propose topic ban

[edit]
After carefully reading and reviewing this discussion, I find that there is no consensus to impose a topic-ban to be found in it. The Arbitration Committee is now considering a similar proposal on their authority. Regards, causa sui (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
        • (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - Change the NFCC policy if you don't want it enforced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Of course, no conversation would be complete without you Crossmr. I expected no less. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified my position on this matter at my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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: [24], [25], [26], [27], plus many more. This is exactly how you fix the issue right there. Let me tell, I just opened up [28] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks, Rd232. See my alternative 'ban' below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Careful who you're tarring with that broad brush, there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite a narrow brush really; a minority, certainly, but a vocal one. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support and also unblock editors that were blocked as a result of arguments with Delta. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Another month, another Betacommand incident. Just pull the trigger already. TotientDragooned (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—should minimise (though sadly not obliterate) the amount of trouble Delta causes. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delta's recent edits ‎(repair dab link in rationale), suggest he may be willing to compromise. memphisto 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It cant be 11th hour either if Ive been doing this for more than 6 months can it? [30] and [31] Both from January of this year. ΔT The only constant 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, does valuable and necessary work. Would be nicer if he was nice about it. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support While it is of course inportant that we comply with policy, this user has demonstrated again and again that they lack the finesse required to do the work in this area. "Why," I ask myself as a rhetorical device, "if the issue is simply the NFC policy, is it always BetaCommand who ends up in the eye of the storm?" I know it's calm in the eye, that's purposeful. And there is plenty of work to be done outside this area, if Beta wants to go and do it. And if there are places that are actually going to fall in a heap without Beta, I'd rather we identify these areas and fix them for the longer term, while accepting some pain in the short term. (That last bit is pure guff: I actually don't believe the world would end.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: His "enforcement" of policy does not give him the right to steamroll over other editors, ignore context, and act horrendously incivil. He needs to learn that his incivility is unacceptable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide some evidence where I have violated WP:CIVIL to my knowledge Ive done that only once in the last year. ΔT The only constant 14:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a fairly allegation both above and on your talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Delta's contribution to NFCC enforcement is still wholly problematic in the ways it always has been - he treats 3RR as an allowance whatever the situation, he refuses point blank to communicate if in his opinion the other person is not worthy of such basic respect, he still confuses his personal opinions or essays on NFCC with the actual policy wordings or heaven forbid community consensus such as the banknotes Rfc (still awaiting closure, I wonder why), and he still as a matter of direct stated intent, chooses the most disruptive and divisive ways of enforcing this policy with all the nuance, clue & skill you would expect of a bot. Which is unfair on bots, as they're prohibited from edit warring. The problem is as always, not a problem with the policy or the community's view of it, it's a problem of Delta's making through his own editting, and is thus entirely in his control, nobody else's. And he's simply failing to learn, despite what he and others have said. His current effort is frankly nothing short of a POINT campaign - we do not use pro-forma edit summaries, templates, edit warring & threats of blocks, as a method of 'education', especially not when the issue is something so stupidly trivial as the various minor technical infringements he is finding, where despite what people claim, the rationale is not "missing", and there most certianly is not any prospect of a "copyright violation", and especially not when there is no way you can pin these failues on the part of the uploader. It's frightening people are willing to endorse this sort of clueless fear-mongering and unwiki outlook on content as remotely acceptable. I know this upsets a lot of people (most of whom happen to also be massive fans of 100% free content), but NFCC is not the be all and end all policy. You do not have special rights or powers to act like a complete dick just because you are 'enforcing' it, the term of art in 3RR is "unquestionable" for a reason. We saw with the unsourced BLP debacle where this dickish approach to 'enforcement' ends up. Delta's method of enforcement never has and never will have a lasting effect on the level of non-compliance, not in the long term anyway. His approach does however have a long term effect on the prospect of this site gaining or retaining good editors, or gaining or retaining justifiable non-free content. As always, it seems that Delta's supporters are just spoiling for a fight with people who don't see the NFCC their way, or just want to see Wikipedia become a much more hostile place in general, rather than being willing or able to put his actual behaviour under actual scrutiny against all basic norms. There is absolutely no element of 'shooting the messenger' in this proposal whatsoever, it's about protecting the community from a source of conflict and division, over an issue whose correct & lasting solution is never in all reality going to involve either him or his methods. If all people can do to defend him is undertake some very basic wikilawyering, or throw out ideological rhetoric, then that says it all. Nobody asked him to take on this task, not least the oft invoked Foundation & their licensing resolution, in whose name a lot of the resultant conflict he causes is wrongly justified. He alone is responsible for the fallout of his approach, and his claims of "harassment" are as baseless as they've always been. MickMacNee (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How many more years does the community have to put up with this sort of behavior? Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The incredible, long-running drama surrounding this user's editing stems mostly from Delta's tagging and removal of images. I think restricting Delta from doing just this would be an excellent idea, as he would still be able to assist NFCC in all other areas, thus at least providing some form of compromise. Every other user who performs these two tasks seems to be able to do it with minimal disruption to the project, and yet Delta has repeatedly proved incapable of doing this. The message is not the problem; the messenger is. --Dorsal Axe 12:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A topic ban is a very poor way to address the issues here. Δ's latest proposal is a much more constructive approach, in my view. 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Maybe this will finally end the WikiDrama. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This stuff has to be done, and no matter how often people claim that "it's not what he does, it's the way he does it", fact is, he needs to do this stuff, because nobody else is willing to do it. If enough other people were doing their share in cleaning up the bad images, we might not need Delta doing it, but the way things are, we do need him. And the wiki-hounding needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support (but only restricted to image deletion and tagging for deletion). In his new proposal, he's as much as said he will ignore the existing restrictions unless he is allowed to run a bot. I actually support his running that bot, but that deserves a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, how exactly? He said that if he were allowed the bot, he would stop doing what he is doing now. In what way does what he is doing now violate his existing restrictions? (This is a genuine question; I must have lost sight of what restrictions exactly he actually is under.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reluctantly, at this point I'm not seeing a better way out of this. The latest war at Jiggy McCue tips me over, there is no "unquestionable" problem there, and handing out block threats (and any template that mentions the possibility of blocking is implicitly a block threat) over it - no, we can't have these continuous confrontations based on one editor's interpretation of policy. I've been trying for a while to communicate to Beta that they need to change their approach, as have many others. It's not happening, so much as I hate to say it, a further restriction is indicated here. Franamax (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support largely for communication issues. I'm not as big a fan of NFCC as thumperward by any means (in fact quite the opposite), but I agree with the problems he's identified. Franamax's recent example at List of Jiggy McCue books and the discussion here seem to be a pretty clear case of bullying and editwarring. He may be right, but the language and communication style aren't appropriate. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed topic ban has serious problems; no evidence
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Your key phranse, "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" strikes me as accurate. He did it again today, July 4, 2011. With all of this dicussion, why does he continue to do it? Why not calm down? Let this get resolved, then if his view is understood and accepted, then he can turn the bots loose. 24.49.140.207 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a war on NFCC by proxy, and it needs to stop. And it's probably due time that some of the most vocal hounders of Delta get subjected to a total interaction ban. MLauba (Talk) 14:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number 1, there are some very strong NFCC folks supporting this. Number 2, do things like the revert war at List of Jiggy McCue books really not seem problematic to you? Policy is not clear there (though I'd agree they'd likely be removed in a discussion, it isn't black-and-white unless you uses essays to get your policy). I _do_ object to the blind enforcement of NFCC, but even more so, I object to driving editors away. Clear and polite conversation is much better than threats of blocks and edit warring. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose alternative 'ban'

[edit]
Failed proposal causa sui (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • 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.

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose These are all solutions in search of a problem thats not there. -- ۩ Mask 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any and all bans. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's the uploader's responsibility to write a fair-use rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not workable.24.49.140.207 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from those supporting a restriction on Delta being targeted by his friends for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • I get it bud. Support Delta's way or get all your articles targeted for "cleanup". Mathewignash (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
                    • 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)[reply]
This is an issue, it happened to me today. I had no idea the scope of this thing, but I posted that I think I was tag-teamed by a delta supporter and it was done as though I was some sort of enemy. With no communication, etc. So, this is a real issue, IMO.24.49.140.207 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • (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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Bigger issue? False claims of free licensing

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

A more community-oriented method of going forward

[edit]

Delta has identify via a toolserver script the list of articles with images that lack explicit rationale for these pages, here [32]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Rationale repair

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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) 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[reply]
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 thatcan to stop me from doing NFC enforcement (according to policy). ΔT The only constant 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The sanctions were put in place for a reason, and while there's always room for exceptions (you do have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre if the theatre is on fire), regularly exceeding those sanctions is just not on. I have no idea about copyrights, so have no idea whether or not Δ's edits are useful, critical, helpful or anything. All I see is that a rule that was established by community consensus and that the rule is being broken - regularly. If this is allowed to happen, it calls the whole process of policy enforcement into question. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Absconded Northerer . . . it is a matter of him following the rules. His opinion is not the "final say" but he acts as though he;'s above everyone (or at least me). Like my views don't matter. I dunno, it seems he did unilaterally break sanctions that were put in motion to diffuse the situation as as recently as an hour ago, he did same things again, causing my report.24.49.140.207 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I concurred with Crossmr and unhatted the discussion up to the latest proposal (which was actively being discussed). It currently has majority support (60-40). Since the discussion was not closed, it shouldn't be labeled as such. I also disagree with a cool off period; there's a reason that "cool off blocks" don't work either. Buffs (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, none of the discussions were closed. I would suggest that all discussions are re-opened. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At a 50/50 split with 60 participants, you're unlikely to get any kind of a consensus at this point either way on the first discussion, you'd need 10-15 fresh people to come into the discussion and agree with one side to swing it to even 60/40 which is where the other discussion is currently at. The second discussion is clearly an oppose. The third is probably sufficiently derailed at this point to call it where it is. Prematurely closing discussions has a way of poisoning them.--Crossmr (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and yes, they were closed The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. that's pretty unambiguous to me.--Crossmr (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved admin needs to go through and close these proposals

[edit]

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)[reply]

My involvement was minimal, limited to !voting in various proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hatting it is essentially the same as closing it. You could have easily made that suggestion without hatting it, but instead you've chosen to do what generally results in a dead discussion and nothing moving further. Hatting a discussion and hoping to open it up later simply does not work, especially on a noticeboard that moves quickly as this one does.--Crossmr (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And honestly did you even read the notice on the hat you used? The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. it says it right there. You closed a controversial discussion you were involved in.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
!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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
The proposal to topic ban Delta was 19/13 (and I didn't count the person who withdrew their support) not including his opinion, because someone's opinion on their own topic ban.. well it's very obvious. Which makes it 59.3/40.7, sorry for rounding. And honestly both Thumperward and Carl make comments that while not having "support" attached to them sound like support for the ban, so really you're looking at 21 to 13 which makes it 61.7/38.3 since we need to be so precise. Your assumption of bad faith not with-standing, my goal has been to improve the project, I've been going out and doing that the last couple days by demonstrating a better way to do NFCC.--Crossmr (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And my vote occured today, it should count . . . that's 22-13. I was not even aware of this till today . . . and I got slapped around by delta and supporter. It is getting close to 63.37%.24.49.140.207 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC edits are not exempt from normal editing behaviour. NFCC edits are one of a few kinds of edits that are exempt from 3RR and ONLY in unquestionable cases. There is no blanket exemption anywhere for NFCC edits. Even then, the policy recommends the disputes be taken to a noticeboard. NFCC is only relevant in that it's Delta's hot button topic and that's it. The actually NFCC policy itself is irrelevant.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actually NFCC policy itself is irrelevant ... yep ... that pretty much seems to sum up things, huh? Thanks for your views. — Ched :  ?  14:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that intentionally trying to quote things out of context is a violation of WP:CIVIL right? My point was clear and it's been stated several times throughout this discussion by many editors that this discussion is not about NFCC policy, it's about his behaviour. NFCC policy is irrelevant to this discussion it's obviously not irrelevant as I've been out enforcing NFCC in a community centric way that improves articles, the project and relations with users who have image trouble, what have you been doing exactly? Not an article space edit in 9 days, how interesting.--Crossmr (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr, you approach works on a fairly small scale, the issue is fairly large scale. Your last 500 article edits go back about 10 months (covering 192 articles). Lets assume the same edit rate, it would take you 26 years just to fix the current list of violations, ignoring any new violations. Yes your method does work, but on a micro scale. We need something that works on macro scale, the only approach that does that is mass removal. You also choose to ignore the fact that my actions are 100% backed by policy. I really dont think that we can wait 26 years to get the NFC issue under control. ΔT The only constant 15:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions are not 100% backed by policy and you've been told that repeatedly. The only thing backed by policy is that images are cleaned up in one way or another, how and what you are doing is totally your choice and is neither laid out by policy nor specifically protected. And if my approach was actually done by numerous editors we'd fix it a lot faster. We've seen what your approach of mass removal creates, it does not work.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your approach was done by numerous editors (which won't happen anyway), we would have numerous editors go insane and leave the project. Your approach will not work either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your basis for that is what exactly? How does personally interacting with users drive people insane? If you honestly think that you're in the wrong place.--Crossmr (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that? I don't believe I did. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then what do you think is going to make people insane via my process? Just the fact that it can't be done at 10 images/minute?--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossmr: .. sigh .. yes, you're right of course .. I haven't done a thing. And to say that NFCC is totally irrelevant to all these zOMG "ban Delta" threads is just ... wow. Sorry, I'm at a total loss for words. If you feel that quoting YOU is a violation of WP:CIVIL .. then I do apologize. — Ched :  ?  16:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is helpful/relevant but I made a graph that plots Delta's edit rate over time. The graph is in flash and is large so it may take a few seconds to show up. [33] Tim1357 talk 17:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting me out of context to make it look like I said something which I did not is a violation of CIVIL. I never said NFCC is irrelevant, I said the actually policy itself is irrelevant to this discussion. It's only relevant in that Delta has behaviour issues over it, the inner workings are not the point of this discussion despite the repeated attempts by those defending him to make it about that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying tough is this ... NFCC is not only relevant, but that it is the core of the issues here. Outside of maybe one post, Delta has been completely civil. He's tried to be helpful in pointing out what's wrong. He's maintained his composure even when picked and prodded at. His efforts have been to bring articles within the guidelines.. not out. And yet we have thread after thread .. after thread calling for his head. I wasn't quoting you out of context. It's what I saw that stuck out in my mind as the main point you were trying to make. Not that NFCC was irrelevant to Wikipedia ... but that NFCC was irrelevant to this entire subject of "Ban Delta". And I'm sorry, but to me that just isn't the case. If you were offended in some manner, then I honestly and truly do apologize .. admittedly, I was trying to make a point, but I never intended to hurt your feelings in doing so. MY belief is that not only is NFCC relevant to this conversation, but that it is the central issue here. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on it though. — Ched :  ?  23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and I did a "copy/paste" ... so it wasn't something you didn't say by the way. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No he has in fact not retained his composure all the time. The core of the issue is his behaviour and how he acts over NFCC, not NFCC policy itself. I've been applying NFCC policy in a way that hasn't generated a single incident like Delta has. There is a big difference between being CIVIL and being NOT CIVIL and a lot of middle ground. Delta rarely delves into the extremely uncivil, but his robotic-like (not saying he's using a bot, saying that there is little difference between the way he edits sometimes and the way a bot would edit the same thing) approach often results in issues regardless of whether or not he specifically starts yelling at people. Delta has repeatedly shown in the past that when those situations come up, we often have issues. And no, it wasn't just one issue. He was blocked for one issue, but there were others where he assumed bad faith and accused users of not reading things they had in fact read[34], and where he was getting aggressive with a user for doing something Delta hadn't told him not to do. The nitty gritty of NFCC policy is not relevant to this discussion because no where in NFCC does it say that users must race to remove images as fast as possible, nowhere does it say that user should be templated en masse and not spoken to, nowhere does it dictate any of his behaviour other than images and articles should be compliant. You can apply NFCC without doing it the way he's doing it and that is the problem which is exactly what the proposal was made above, and why it was actually supported by a majority until it was successfully derailed with an improper close. Just because we can doesn't mean we should our actions are more than just the actions themselves, they are also the results and you cannot deny that there has been years of drama over the way Delta does things. Him being technically correct in most cases is not really as important as the results of how he's doing it.--Crossmr (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to show diffs that Delta has not kept his composure and has been incivil. Your issue with Delta is not "how he acts over NFCC," it's how he doesn't act, which is that he does not take the time to fully make certain that a user understands why an image is not allowed on an article without a rationale by leaving a long-winded "personalized" template on their talk page. Instead, Delta decides to use his time wisely by instead leaving a detailed edit summary which includes an FAQ to NFCC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach, but of course, it can be improved. You have shown the excruciatingly tedious way to go about this and Delta has shown the way in which the absolute minimum effort is used, two complete opposites. You cannot ban someone for doing something different from how you want them to do it, as long as they are doing it by the policy (which he is). Your approach is great (though tedious) and if you and other editors want to go about it that way, that's fine, but realistically I don't see as much production coming out of it. You don't attack someone for having different views than your own the same way you shouldn't topic ban someone who approaches an issue differently than you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if Delta could just run a bot that would remove illegal images, let the bot revert only once in case it is re-added and when the image is still re-added, the bot could post a notification on a special page. Then other editors like e.g. Crossmr could watch that special page and they then act on what they see there. Count Iblis (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iv spent three years working on image removal code and Ive gotten it down to about a 5% fuckup rate, which is still way way too high for a bot, which is why Im doing it manually. Working with wiki markup is a bitch especially given the complexity of some pages. ΔT The only constant 04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any stats on how many non-free images without proper rationales are added each day? I'm talking about new ones, not ones your script detects that have been like that for ages. I noticed your lists include images that have been missing rationales for a long time. I tossed one of your lists in excel to count it quickly and noted there were about 7500 images on it, does that sound right for how many total images don't have proper rationales?--Crossmr (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complexity and the resources needed to update that list I cant do it daily and I dont track whats been added. I'll look into tracking options, with my current data format because I would rather not re-write all my tools. ΔT The only constant 11:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. He's making the minimum effort to do the job, and how has that worked out for him? It should be clear to anyone at this point that the minimum effort is not enough, and it's not really the minimum. Once again, just because we can, doesn't mean we should. It's been made clear to him over the years that the minimum isn't enough and isn't working, but it continues. My method is tedious it requires more man-power, but it also doesn't piss off the community. We are here to work with the community. That is the goal, right?--Crossmr (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have we broken the record for the longest continuous AN/I discussion? Count Iblis (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol ... gotta be getting close. I figure years from now when someone points to this, I'll know I was actually in the conversation. I can say "Been there, done that ... got the t-shirt.  :) Crossmr, I'll stop by your talk page tomorrow. Obviously I don't share your views, (I don't even see anything with the conversation link you provided), but I don't mind talking about it either. I whooped tonight though. Everybody have a good one. — Ched :  ?  03:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 July (which was yesterday)

[edit]

I'll just leave this [35] in case anyone was wondering if this discussion had had any impact. Initial removal + three reversions, Betacommand vs. three other editors, with the only non-template-ed discussion being "Its still a list article and they are not acceptable, do not re-insert them or you may be blocked." Nothing ever changes here, just the timestamps. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did start a discussion - on June 17. [36]. That said, unlike the mechanical action that images need proper rationales, I'm not so thrilled that he's edit warring on something subjective like NFLISTS (which is should, not must). This is where, if anything, further restrictions are needed to Delta to be clear that excessive edit warring, even while discussion is ongoing, is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(And more specifically to the talk page this: since the only actions on the article itself recently was Delta's removal on June 15, the restore and revert on June 17 (followed by the template message), and then the actions from June 3 with Hammersoft getting involved - I'm not seeing a "lack of discussion" being an issue here given that those are pretty much the only dates in the talk page where discussion occurs). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case it was not totally obvious, I meant lack of discussion by Betacommand. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron, please either use my current username or at least get my old one right (please at least show me a little respect). ΔT The only constant 13:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't type your new one. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its Δ, Delta, {{BCD}}, or Betacommand. NOT BetaCommand. I have never capitalized the C. ΔT The only constant 13:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I camelcase semi-automatically, and I apologise outright for the snark. But seriously man, disrespect you by purposefully inserting a capital C? Like it was some mailicous play on words that I've yet to puzzle out how it was not respectful? Barring the small dig above, I don't think that I've crossed your path enough to warrant that kind of lack of good faith. But I've changed the "C"s to "c"s now. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, check the timeline of the edits on both the actual page and the talk page. Delta reverts on June 17, drops the template. Excluding the comment from Graham which doesn't have a corresponding revert on June 18, no one responds until yesterday when there was a re-revert, and after Delta's re-re-reversion, he drops the non-template message. And then Hammersoft steps into explain more. Could Delta be more descriptive? Possibly, but he's communicating in response to actions, in a manner that seems that most other editors are never reprimanded for, so that's a lot different from before, and making that aspect of the edits a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that Betacommand is under restrictions "most editors" aren't. He's being pushed to communicate better, and this piping-hot example he fails to do so. He templates then threatens with a block. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your facts, what would you call, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52#More overuse in a list then? ΔT The only constant 14:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it "poor communication". I might even throw in "forum shopping." I'd not consider "More help is needed at Residential colleges of Rice University" to be a sterling example of communication. That's your whole contribution there, that one line: Rather than using the article talk page to do more than threaten, you go somewhere where it appears to me you think you'll get a receptive audience, rounding up a posse so to speak. Do neither you nor your handful of enablers see at all that this is the same problem it has been for years? What is it about this that makes it so hard for you to simply bend a little? Edit like a person, or something. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we better call all editors that simply drop templated messages without any other communication a problem as well. As with the above discussion, people are trying to assert that Delta needs to exhibit behavior that is neither mandatory or strongly preferred by policy/guidelines, nor part of his restrictions (including his civility one). If you feel this is wrong, propose a new restriction on Delta to be vetted by consensus, but don't accuse of things that is not otherwise written down as expected behavior. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even know what you're trying to say to me. Did I propose a block or something like that? I did not. The underlying issues are about communication, for the most part, and it's not improving. No, I suppose that's not entirely fair, there is less outright abuse, but when you're doing something really fast in a highly controversial area, then don't be afraid to use words. Is this really how bad it's gotten, "Since there is no bright line violation here, please just move along." Really? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're accusing Delta of doing something, yet there's nothing in policy or guidelines that you can pin that on. These types of accusations that Delta's doing something wrong is the witch hunt that Delta is under, even though his restrictions were in place for very specific actions that he hasn't done in a long time (misuse of bots and dealing with feedback on them, for the most part). If its a likely violation of a restriction, say it, and wait for consensus to see if he gets blocked. If the community thinks its wrong, then come out, make a proposed restriction on his activities, and get consensus. If instead people just want to take pot shots at his behavior, that's not helping the situation. If not, then we shouldn't be wasting our time talking about Delta and instead doing general editing.
  • I don't disagree that communication is an underlying issue, but his only restriction there is civility. He's been improving over the last few months with more verbose editing messages and at least dropping template messages when he makes major edits. There's still room, but when you berate him, you are going to make it less likely he will try to improve more. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communication is still an issue. I don't think he should be betated, but if he comes to a infrequent user, like myself, he should try and comminocate and act in good faith. I think acting in good faith means communication and helping peopel when asked. I felt attacked . . . and sensed that something was wrong in his actions. then I come here, make an independent report and then I see it gets grouped with a big discussion. So, my instincts were right. I must disagree that he's "improving". Today, I felt like there was nothing I could do right, despite acting in good faith and making changes I thought fixed th issue. But, he and another followed my edits around, never communicating to my talk page. So, I think he should want to imporve more---as you say, no matter what. Even IF he's criticized. Acting in good faith means, in part, IMO anyway, that in the face of criticism you don't "dig in". I had no idea there was a big deal going on, but I felt his wrath . . . RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Communication is still an issue for Delta, but he's behaved surprisingly well, here, at least in regard . RussFrancisTE81 (talk · contribs). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did the same things today that there were community sanctions on him for, so I disagree and since you and he are going to be reviewed by others over next few days, you should make your case then, not to me. You acted as a proxy, it seems. So, you, too, should be subject to the community sanction, if it is enforced. Your actions were identical. And you followed me around without communications. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is where you are wrong, I have not violated any sanctions. ΔT The only constant 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Others disagree.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs and exactly which restrictions I have violated, otherwise just like a lot of other statements its just false accusations. Also please answer my question below. ΔT The only constant 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not interesting is this, I've made my complaint. You were notfied. I don't want to be in edit-war, I don't want to wikilawyer with you. I think it is clear you violated the community sanction and I am not only one who thinks this is the case. And it has been pointed out clearly that this is about a "fight" and I don't want to engage in a fight with you when you are so dug in. Sorry, not interested. Have a nice life.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Δ has violated his restrictions in the matter which started this section, the only possible restriction he has violated in regard RussFrancisTE81 is the speed restriction. I do not have a speed restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made my complaint. Answer those who have questions. You know what you did. I may not know all rules, etc., but I know what you did is wrong. Answer to admin. I am not interested in a back and forth with you, I made it clear I don't trust you.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Process

[edit]

Maybe for people who are prolific, there needs to be a slightly different process. A lot of the processes are written more for the casual user, not the person who drives like a machine through things and wants to do massive fixes. Δelta said earlier that he had to spend 20 minutes to review something that would have taken a content-area specialist 3 minutes. So, why not let there be an in-between place for things? That way Δelta can do the massive fixes, and then if a less prolific editor needs to challenge it, there is a policy based place for these things to go that means Δelta can do all this work that he seems to enjoy and move on. Δelta's behavior strikes me as very much wanting to abide by policy, even if it is a bit curt with people at times. I saw some similar problems crop up from time to time with another editor who does TONS of page moves and biography page corrections. Other people simply can't keep up. So could some minor process change fix everyone's issues here? -- Avanu (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mind genuinely boggles. He is specifically prohibited from editing rapidly because of his long history of drama relating to bot, scripted and otherwise mass edits. The exceptions you mention are called "community sanctions". Y'know, the ones that he keeps breaking, deliberately. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He broke them today. It seems deliberately. I look at this discussion and must conclude he acted today as he has in the past that caused the "community sanction". I dunno. If there is no enforcement, is there really a "sanction".? RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: he broke none of his editing restrictions, nor any policy. Again, to remind us:
  1. Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
  2. Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
  3. Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
  4. Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.
If he has violated one of these in the last few days, we need diffs to show this to be the case. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[37] coupled with Rubin's edits at the same time [38] constiture vios of several of those IMO. It seemed to me to be clear tag-teaming of the same zealotry that caused the ban in the first place. So, I will leave it up to Admin to make final judgment, I am in no position to be final judge since I was the one making complaint. I had no idead of any kind of sanction until I came here, then, after reviewing all that has been going on and the rancor here, it became pretty clear to me that delta and his supporters enforce things that seem like they are in dispute. (see posts at hte bottom, causing one editor to volunteer to make a new template so the issue is solved) Anyway, I have posted the links and in tandum with an obvious supporter looks to have violated the things you mention here. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I have this right? Δ does some edits, another editor does some edits that support him, and Δ is in violation of his sanctions because someone supported his edits? You're effectively saying it's illegal for anyone to agree with Δ. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do this

[edit]

But I feel like I have been attacked by the delta (Δ) and another user [User:Arthur Rubin]. Now, I am not 100% sure I am right as far as the technicalities. I admit I am not an editor with the answes. But what Athur Rubins did on conjuction with the delta was nearly wiki-stalk me without telling me or suggesting HOW what I may have been doing wrong may be corrected. My user rational for NFL uniforms is 100% the same as File:AFC-1960-Uniform-NE.PNG [39]. It is almost exactly the same. So, I tried to make it more specific and the delta and Rubin kept edit-warring with me. So, I just quit. I do not trust them, they did not assume good faith with me. So, I feel gang-up on and bullied. I am more than happy to do everyting right. But I cannot do it when they are acting like they are more important than me. And they ignore otehr articles [40] and pick on ONLY me. Why don't they take on [user:Pats1]? Maybe because Pats1 is correct in using the rational for fair use and mine is exactly the same. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my edit summary? ΔT The only constant 16:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Δ misspelled WP:NFCC in his talk page comment, but, he's otherwise correct. I don't think the edits necessarily violate #3, but probably (as do the similar ones Russ refers to) violate #8, and definitely violate #10c. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually both NFC and NFCC links work. WP:NFCC is just the bare policy, while WP:NFC explains things in more detail. ΔT The only constant 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFC#3 doesn't work, while WP:NFCC#3 does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
both links  Works for me ΔT The only constant 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I don't know why my complaint was moved, but can only assume it is because the delta has been discussed on other things. My complaint is in the actions and rudeness of the delta and Rubin. But, if this needs to be grouped with other indicences, so be it, but Rubin followed me around and never contacted me. His actions were not in good faith he just warred and never posted on my talk page what the concern was, in human terms. I happen to think Pats1 is very careful in his use of images and since mine were 100% the same, that these two were tag-teaming me.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I removed the files did you read my edit summary? ΔT The only constant 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in a debate with you. This AN/I complaint is against your actions that relate to the above complaints. You've defended yourself with vigor and had your supporters. My issue is what I stated already. And I already told you yes, I read them. And now I am sure you will admit to never engaging and communicating with me, until I reported this to AN/I and then I find out your actions have been questioned for a while and you may have had a ban on this type of editing until things cooled down. From what I read above your actions are questioned by several people due to your attitude.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[41] Are the places Rubin edited this morning, 7/4/11. Clearly he followed me around and enforced the deletions by delta. That is not acting in good faith. He never posted to my talk page. Even after I asked what was going on. This is the tag-team effort I mentioned. It seems that delta is quite controversial. My issues are about being treated fairly. It seems that the used of images and what is fair and not fair use has diverse opinions. It seems some think delta (and now Rubin by is actions of following me around) and one way to look at things and from reading the above posts for many different users, it seems to me that delta is not the final authority on this issue. I admit I am not qualified to make the jusgment. But I am able to say it seems too many bridges have been burned by a so-called bot and that there is no trust on either side. That is too bad because trust is the foundation for acting in good faith. I know I don't think I can regain trust of delta or rubin because they were on me like bees on honey and I had no idea there were many otehr AN/I complaints against him. I don't want to be a part of this, but it does seem to me a decision has to be made on fair-use of NFL uniforms and it must be a consensus of admins who are apart from this issue . . . not those who have a dog in the fight.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of your images had a fair-use rationale which named the individual season articles. WP:NFCC#10c requires that each specific article be named in a separate rationale, even if all the rationales are identical. I don't think it's good policy, but until it's modified, we need to follow it. WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 may also be violated by both your additions and that of Pat1 (talk · contribs), but only yours violate WP:NFCC#10c. As for WP:STALKING, if an editor makes inappropriate edits, it's not WP:STALKING to see whether other edits made were inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aiding delta, which it seems you are, then you were stalking. But it is for the Admin to decide, not you or me. Delta seems to have violated a community sanction and you helped him, doing exactly what he was doing, so you may be in same category as black flag, who edit warred as a puppet of delta. So, you are not the final judge of yourself. And until the Admin weighs in I really don't want any further contact with you or delta. It is obvious that community sanctions mean nothing around here and you proved that this morning, you followed me around acting like a bot. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh -- this seems to be some mechanical editing where nothing is gained for the encyclopedia by the NFCC enforcers. Compare File:AFC-1961-1964-Uniform-NE.PNG and File:NFC-Trowback-Uniform-STL 1973-80.png. One of them has four rationale templates, the other has one. Our NFCC would apparently be met if the second picture had eight rationale templates instead of saying "To denote the uniform of the team in Los Angeles Rams articles." To anybody competent enough to write an encyclopedia, the files covered by the rationale are obvious, yet we have huge discussions about the insistence of people that all t's are dotted and i's are crossed. (I know that it wouldn't be hard to "fix" the rationales, but I want to stress that it strikes me as completely pointless). —Kusma (t·c) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's nonsense. But, in an effort to be overly complient . . . I have made 8 rationale templates to satisfy delta and rubin. But, my complaint against their tactics still stands. But the silliness is amazing. It's like they wanna work for code enforcement and make sure the "paperwork" is complient. Because there was only one template, their bot deemed it an violation. Silly, silly stuff. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and create a new template that should obviate this silliness. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. 24.49.140.207 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some are undoubtedly going to say this is sarcastic or that I am being dramatic and thats fine but I personally am tired of seeing a discussion about Delta every single day for months at a time for mostly petty reasons. It seems to be that no matter the result of this discussion there are those who will not stop creating discussions until Delta is banned completely. Given the countless hours of discussions already, the countless more that will come in the future and the turmoil this is causing in WP I think we should just go ahead and just ban him from the site. We should ignore the fact that he is the operator of bots, many tasks still have not been replaced by other bots, we should forget about any good that he has done or will do and just get it overwith. The discussion seems to be in support of a lift of sanctions but we continue to drag it out to make sure that we get enough votes to block him. He screwed up in the past, we punished him and he seems to be doing better but lets not continue to waste valuable time dancing around. Someone just step up, block him and his bot so we can all go back to more important things EDITING ARTICLES. --Kumioko (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't understand how someone who has been causing serious problems on en.wiki for 4 years straight, has been blocked 14 times, has gone through 2 requests for arbitration, and is still acting like Clint Eastwood hasn't been indefinitely banned from the project yet. Frankly, I don't think Betacommand's contributions are that valuable to the project, and even if they were, they certainly wouldn't be worth the trouble he causes. Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kumioko: You're incorrect. Δ does not operate a bot on en.wikipedia. He did, a LONG time ago. Not now. The rest of your opinion is just that; opinion. That a lot of people hate Δ is not a reason to ban him from the site. A large, large portion of the work that he does is very similar to the work I do. I generate heat from a lot of people too. Perhaps just maybe the problem isn't Δ, but that people hate NFCC being applied? @Kaldari: Causing problems for four years straight? Inaccurate, as a careful review of the block history will show. "Acting like Clint Eastwood"? Pray tell, how so? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think hes doing fine and I advocated for him to get a couple of his bots running again. I haven't seen him do anything aggregious in quite a while other than make some snide comments in an uncivil tone because he has been repeatedly drug into discussions like this one over and over and over and over. I believe nearly anyone other than Jesus would lose patience with the degree of determination that some are choosing to use to employ to get rid of him. I had a very similar experience and nearly left WP. I just think that no matter what he does, he is going to be continuously hounded and stalked and every time he steps on a twig someone is going to come running to ANI. I personally don't care one bit if he is doing too many edits. The more edits we do the better. I don't care how fast he is doing them. Our servers can handle a massive volume and as long as there is a low degree of error I am fine with that. Most of his calls on images deletion have been right on and other than being personally annoyed a couple of times when I saw an image removed too quickly and for dubious reasons its nothing I can't live with. I just think that we are spending way way too much time on this ANI and we all need to move on. --Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the edits, not the editor. I don't think Jesus would smite 600 images a day while threatening and berating any who would oppose him (I believe he leaves that kind of thing to the father), and if he did so we'd file a report on him too. Accusing the entire community of hounding and stalking isn't terribly productive when they've stated very clearly what their specific objections are. The problem with removing images that could just as easily be fixed isn't the server load, it's the needless trashing of the encyclopedia, which wastes a lot of time on the part of the editors who created the content in the first place and others who have to restore (ideally, if their absence is noticed) them or otherwise clean up the mess. In a spot check of 30-40 of these I observed 5-15% of the removals are just wrong, and another 30-40% are perfectly appropriate image uses that should be fixed instead of trashed. If Beta can't be bothered to spend several more seconds reviewing and potentially fixing each WP:BEFORE deleting content, I don't see why the rest of the community should be conscripted into cleaning up his mess. If we move on without resolving the issue now, Beta will continue on course despite editing restrictions, and it will only happen again. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pause or block?

[edit]

Despite my earlier request (and I'm sure that of plenty of others), Beta continues edit warring over rote image removals while this discussion is ongoing. For example:[42][43][44] It's clear that there is no community consensus over to perform these mass edits. In the meanwhile, these edits are causing disruption to the articles, and will require considerable attention from other editors to fix. They also thumb the nose at the community's attempt to discuss the matter here. If the community were to agree that these mass edits are desirable, and that Beta is the editor to do them, or if Beta promises to avoid NFCC-related edits while we make that decision, he can go ahead - but it would still be far more productive to spend the energy making technical fixes rather than deleting things. This is not a request for further consensus building with opposes and supports. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, you have had 3 years to get the process straightened out, it seems that the only time people care is when Ive placed their feet over the fire with either removing/tagging for deletion their files. Otherwise people ignore the problem. If you know of a better way to solve the problem Im all ears, but Ive been bouncing this issue around for years and this is the only effective method that works on a macro scale. ΔT The only constant 01:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, NFCC is policy, there is consensus for these edits (and even if one wants to argue that, this is a requirement from the Foundation that we manage NFC in this manner). There is no consensus, however, for Delta being the one to make these edits, but its not clear if it is just because it's Delta, if it is the style of these edits (say, if Hammersoft did the same changes), or some other factor. My argument is that there's too much hatred of Delta going on to separate out the policy issue from the Delta issue. Would it be best if Delta voluntarily step out of doing that to resolve how we need to get these image corrections made in the best manner? Possibly, but we still need to resolve how they must be handled - understanding that they have to be fixed, unlike most other "wrong" things across WP, due to the Foundation's licensing policy. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We did largely fix the problem three years ago, no thanks to certain provocations: we added at least 100,000 rationales, and deleted tens of thousands of images that were simply inappropriate under the new rules, or for which no rationale could be produced. What Beta is doing now is a mopping up operation involving several thousands, or at most a few tens of thousands, that were added or changed since the last go round - plus a distinct category that hadn't been addressed, images with a rationale for one use but not for other uses. There are two issues here. One is that the way these edits are made is unduly unhelpful, error prone, and alienating to the community. The other is that some of these edits are themselves bad edits, and no, NFCC does not require them. We decided three years ago against mass removal of logos from old articles in favor of fixing them, where the rationale is clear or simply pointing to the wrong article. The answer in the case of logos, book album covers, currency, flags, sports insignias, and several other major categories is clear: fix the rationale, don't delete the image. There isn't a good solution in the harder cases. Missing rationales should be spotted immediately and dealt with, not two years after the fact. If we have enough of a backlog that a mass approach is necessary we can do what we started to do last time, put them all in a category and let people adddress them on a schedule. I'm looking to see if there's a consensus regarding overuse with respect to compendium articles. Either way, it's unduly provocative to continue with this while it's under discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that we have the option of removal of images until they are fixed, or tagging the images (or talk pages, or articles, or something) to try to get people to fix them - we don't have the option that they have to be fixed in some reasonable time frame once they are discovered, and if they aren't, they need to be removed from articles and deleted if that's the only use of the image. It would be completely silly for those with small typos and the results of broken page moves to be deleted this way, so removal is likely undesirable, but as I've witness from what Delta's done, the only way it presently seems to get people to take action is to remove the image. And while Crossmr has offered a method whereby the images are fixed by the uninvolved editor, this is far too slow to deal with the problem in a timely manner with as minimal input from the rest of the community. That's why I have offered a solution where we tag all affected images and articles en masse (not removal), drop them into a category, and let everyone go at it with a month timeframe; there's logistics to it to figure out, but to me this is the solution that meets the immediate need of correcting these while putting the community more in charge instead of Delta in the manner that its done by. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, if you want drop me a note, I have two viable bots that could do exactly what you need done. Ive got one that repairs Disambig rationales, and Ive also got the infrastructure already in place for a notification/tagging bot including several methods to make the system efficient without killing the servers. I just need some backing and support to get them up and running. ΔT The only constant 02:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please put the code up on Sourceforge or Google Code, and it will be looked at. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont post code publicly due to WP:BEANS. Ive seen what powerful code can do in the hands of those who shouldnt have it. ΔT The only constant 03:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is not consensus for all of his edits. There is no consensus nor policy support to edit war over any images which are not "unquestionable" several editors have agreed with this is previous discussion. The policy clearly states he should be taking questionable images to the noticeboard but we find him again and again edit warring relentlessly over these kinds of images. The topic ban was clearly supported by a majority above and if he's continuing the only solution is to enact the topic ban and block him if he persists. I'm also going to cut and paste something I wrote on Ched's talk page as he'd engaged me off the board to talk about it as it highlights some of the numerous issues we've seen with Delta's behaviour in regards to this topic. BEGIN PASTE
The real issue for Delta is opposition. He's perfectly civil if no one talks to him. The problem is when people start to oppose him. This was a problem before and it's still a problem now. In addition to the incident in which he was blocked for, here he makes a bad faith assumption and essentially accuses the editor of editing without due care [45], to which the editor clearly states that he did read it [46], in addition he gets aggressive with the editor for leaving talk back messages [47], but if you note the time stamp you'll see he says that a full 11 minutes before he actually bothers to tell the editor he doesn't want talk back messages [48]. [49] and this is again in the same vein. Despite what some of his supporters say, Delta has been engaging in edit wars over questionable images which the 3RR exemption for NFCC edits does not support, this causes conflict as well. Or antagonizing admins [50], during the conversation over 2 months ago he was reminded about the "unquestionable" text in the NFCC exemption by the admin [51], but Delta continues to ignore that and plow forward. Here he makes an inappropriate and uncivil edit summary [52], and when taken to task for it [53], he gets snarky, then removes the discussion calling it "trolling". Let's look at this exchange with this user: [54] The extent of Delta's communication is template, then threaten to block and edit war on the user page. Is he right? sure is. But is he right? no he isn't. he made no real attempt to talk to the user and instead preferred to template, threaten and edit war. This is not community centric behaviour. The problem here is that due to his editing style, he sets himself up for confrontation and when it occurs he's not that great at handling it. Combine that with the fact that he edits at a higher rate and he's setting himself up for even more confrontation that he has a track record of not handling well. Even today we have another user upset at the way Delta treated them. His being right is not enough and irrelevant to the issue at hand. If he cannot handle interactions properly with editors it's a huge issue, he doesn't belong in a community setting. Is my method slower? sure is, but if we all pitch in, we can get there. The key thing is that my method works. Delta has even admitted that he doesn't know how big the problem actually is on a daily basis. All he really knows is the backlog. For all we know there might only be a hundred images a day created with rationale issues, even editing slowly a few editors could knock that out. So no, there has not been just 1 single incident. He's received 1 block for it, but opposition to him is often met with issues which is the real problem. Leaving him alone is not the answer. Him discontinuing what he's doing is the only answer. NFCC and possibly even this community is not the right place for him. and I just came across this aggressive little exchange here [55], I'm seeing assumptions of bad faith and insults and in which an admin cited him for edit warring (no block) and locked a template over his behaviour.
END PASTE
Despite the numerous discussions, his history clearly shows this continues to be an on-going issue that involves a wide variety of editors and the only constant is Delta.--Crossmr (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a second commonalty, and that's NFCC. It is WP's equivalent of politics and religion - it will incite people even before you talk about how its enforced. I've seen many examples of where Delta has properly removed images from user's pages (not article space) or without a proper rationale and immediately have the user turn around and complain on his talk page, clearly not understanding NFC. Short of requiring some magical upload bit, as long as editors are going use NFC without reading WP:NFC and understanding the nuances, there will always be the need to patrol NFCC. What we need to try to do is to remove the hot issue of Delta doing these in manner that leads to people getting doubly-upset. We also need to realize that Delta is as much as problem as people want to make him out to be. Right now, one can only agree something disruptive is happening, and we need to address it. But to assume that everything Delta is doing is purposely disruptive and the like is aggravating the problem. He clearly wants to fix it based on changes he's made over the last month, but we're still look at people criticizing his every action when there's a lot more valuable work to be done editing and dealing with NFCC. I suspect that if people turned a blind eye to Delta, only taking any action when Delta clearly is being disruptive, a lot of this would blow over. It is making the problem worse to obsess over why Delta's actions are wrong. Yes, a block/ban is the easy way out, but the community's not for that nor is that the Wikipedia way.
But granted that we can't let this sit as it is now, we need a solution to make sure its understood why NFCC management is being done. Any combination of community drive to correct, well-written template messages to get the point across, bots to tag failing articles, whatever else, needs to be explored. Taking Delta out of the picture only is a temporary gain, as likely the eyes of the anti-NFCC editors will turn to Hammersoft or Black Kite next if they continue the work Delta was doing. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What Crossmr doesn't realise is that every editor doing NFCC gets queues of people complaining to them (including some who should know better), it's just that attempting to get Delta banned has become a crusade now. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And how many subpages do we have devoted to you and your issues with NFCC enforcement?--Crossmr (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the NFCC enforcers routinely use "dont revert or you will be blocked" in lieu of talking to an editor who is trying to write an article that happens to contain a non-free image and has done nothing wrong (except maybe being only 98% correct in filling out the paperwork)? —Kusma (t·c) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. That's why there is a current proposal to ban him from NFCC and not the project. The two things are NFCC and Delta. Not NFCC and other users. NFCC and Delta don't go together. Topic bans are frequent on Wikipedia, so yes it is the wikipedia way. When an editor is constantly disruptive in a certain area, they are often banned from that area as a first measure as opposed to a site wide ban. Delta has had plenty of time to turn his behaviour around and he has failed to do so. I'd consider anything in the last 6 months to be an 11th hour plea given how long this has been going on. Nowhere have I assumed that he is purposely disruptive. I'm stating he is disruptive. I make no assumptions about the motivation behind his actions and they're irrelevant, because the end result is that they are disruptive. Nowhere have I said there is no need to patrol NFCC and that is again irrelevant to the conversation, I really don't know how many times this has to be spelled out. The nitty gritty of NFCC is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is Delta's behaviour in relation to it. He's removing non-compliant images and doing so as quickly as possibly while minimally complying with the letter of the law. It doesn't work, it hasn't work for years, and that is why a majority currently support him being banned from NFCC work, the community is currently for a ban, last I checked it was 23/15 a clear majority in favor, not counting the two users who seem to support it but didn't tag their comments as support. A block is only used to enforce the ban if he ignores it. Keep in mind he's free to turn his efforts elsewhere, and he could still continue some NFCC work off-wiki by making tools and such on the toolserver. Delta chooses his behaviour. He is ultimately responsible for it and the way he interacts with users is just not acceptable. No one forces him to act the way he does. Even if the other users are wrong it's irrelevant because that is not what is being debated here. Is delta right to remove the images? Yes. By the letter of the law he's allowed to remove the images. Is he right to template and edit war? By the letter of the NFCC/3RR law, he could be in some cases, but not all. But is it the right thing to do? No, and editors have been telling him that for years. Enough is enough. The chances have been had, he's ignored the vast majority of behavioural suggestions, anything that requires real effort on his part in modifying what he does, he took the advice on the edit summary, but that is nothing for him, he didn't take the advice on kicking disputed images to noticeboards or talking to users without threatening them with a block. That's right. The community is making a statement here. This kind of behaviour in NFCC is inappropriate. There are other ways to do it and if users want to do NFCC enforcement, they shouldn't be doing it this way. If Hammersoft or Black kite turn around and do the exact same thing, then yes, the community will focus on them, and rightfully so. It's disruptive behaviour that has no place here. The threat of another NFCC patroller turning around and acting like Delta is not some deterrent to banning Delta and frankly sounds like a mob threat.--Crossmr (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you take Delta out of "NFCC and Delta" without addressing anything about the NFCC side, at some point we will be back here with "NFCC and (someone else)" because of how people treat the NFCC. Delta's past history and mannerisms exacerbates the issue, but it is short-sighted to say Delta is the only person to blame for why we are here. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are some mini-Deltas around here but nobody quite as Delta as Delta. We ought to have a "no bull in a china shop" rule for anyone dealing with NFCC mass edits, and better yet, develop an orderly consensus approach to dealing with the backlog of NFCC#8 (and other machine-identifiable) image problems, and making sure we don't allow any new backlog to develop. This really ought to be a simple predictable thing like the citation bots or our other helper bots, and then there's nothing to be upset over. But those solutions are way outside the scope of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, If they do, then they will eventually be dealt with in the same way. There is absolutely NOTHING in NFCC that requires Delta act in the way he acts. Nothing. Not a single line of text that states he must do what he is doing in the manner he is doing it. His behaviour is his choice and that is why he should be topic banned, and you cannot ignore the majority that agree with that. All we need now is an admin to come in and enact it, but this discussion has now been derailed twice, with a close and a move, so good luck on that. If other users think they need to act like Delta to do NFCC patrol, they are wrong as well, and they'd be smart to learn from his example. This is a narrowly focused discussion solely about Delta's years of on-going disruption and his inability to get it and change.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

[edit]
  • Yes he is doing what I would do, and many editors would do, if faced with the same situation. There's an intractable editor who refuses to engage in discussion despite multiple opportunities to do so, who insists on edit warring to have his way with non-free usage, even though it clearly violates our guidelines and long standing practices as Δ has tried to explain to him. What's next? This is so out of control I can readily imagine that if he was removing gross violations of WP:BLP he'd be recommended for banning from the site too. There is apparently NOTHING Δ can do right in some people's eyes. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Delta has just violated WP:3RR here with 5 reverts in 24 hours.[56][57][58][59][60] The 3-revert rule applies in all but the most clear and obvious cases of copyvios. This isn't a copyvio, nor is it a clear or obvious violation of NFC. The guideline page (not the policy page) says that images used for visual identification in list articles should be used sparingly. Can we handle this here, or should we report it to the ANI/EW? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's a very blatant violation of WP:NFLISTS. Further, the editors edit warring against him were refusing to engage in discussion (now rectified). What Δ was doing was correct and accurate. This sort of usage isn't tolerated under WP:NFLISTS. As an aside, that 'article' fails a number of other requirements, including WP:V and WP:PLOT. It would probably fail an AfD in its current form. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usage does not violate the letter of the guideline, although it may run against a convention among Wikipedia editors on how to interpret the suggestions made in that guideline, something I'd have to check. That's far from clear, far from being an exception to 3RR, and far from the territory where Delta ought to be treading in a discussion that is about whether he should be allowed to edit anywhere close to that line, much less over it. The author's notability, and whether the books belong in a list article versus separate articles or the author's main bio, are all questions best left up to article editors, not Wikipedia's copyright warriors. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For every editor on Wikipedia, there is an interpretation of the policies and guidelines. If we said that a given editor's opinion being in disagreement with someone else's constituted a situation where we could not enforce policies and guidelines, we could never enforce anything. This violation is a blatant violation. It's happened everywhere across the project that this sort of usage is improper. Δ attempted to communicate with editors who were insistent, until later, on edit warring to their preferred version. And please, hyperbole of "copyright warriors" isn't helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, we'll call them "edit warriors". I'm not convinced that the image use is wrong, much less a policy violation. If you want to argue that it is, you'll have to point to something other than the guideline page because the language is by its own terms advisory and not conclusive. Yes, 3RR is precisely about that, cases where each editor has their own opinion. Policy is enforced through discussion and collaboration, and there are rules and process for how to handle differences. Except in a few defined cases like COPYVIO, BLP, or VANDALISM where there is an exigency requiring the immediate removal of something before any discussion or consensus-building process, you are not supposed to edit war in favor of your own preferred version of policy. Anyway, what's blatant is that Delta just edit warred over yet another image, reverting five times in 24 hours. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidemon, without being critical or in any way insulting, I understand you are not familiar with the application of this guideline. I am very familiar with it, and the removal was perfectly in line with WP:NFLISTS. Policy does get enforced through discussion and collaboration. That's how we came to WP:NFLISTS. We don't suddenly vacate WP:NFLISTS and its application because one or more editors disagree with it. If you want to vacate or modify WP:NFLISTS feel free to start a discussion at WT:NFC. As is, nothing that Δ did was out of line with how this guideline is applied. The images were a blatant failure of WP:NFLISTS, which descends from WP:NFCC #3 and #8. As is, the situation appears to be resolved in so far as editors are now discussing it. No further action is needed; there's no ongoing disruption even if there was one to begin with. There's nothing actionable here. Let's put down the spears and walk away, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone is in violation of 3RR, it's Rcsprinter123. There is absolutely no excuse for the edit warring he did, while Delta's reversions are backed up by the exemptions to 3RR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rcsprinter123 reverted 3 times, Beta 5. They are both edit warring, and I left a note to that effect on Rcsprinter123's page. If the edit war is over there is no immediate need for blocks, but this is a violation by Delta during a discussion of Delta's behavior. I am quite familiar with NFCC as I helped draft its current version. The part you are pointing to, NFLISTS, is guideline commentary by way of some examples we added to clarify application of the policy. I agree with the wording, and it does not have to be vacated. In fact, the wording of the relevant part of NFLISTS instructs editors to work by consensus, which means no 3RR exception. None of it has the force of policy, and it should not be edit warred over. Please note from introduction: "These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions. When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording." This is an invocation to use judgment and consider things, not to edit war. Clearly, the guideline example does foresee multiple images in lists; otherwise we would have simply said no multiple images in lists. Delta is taking the wrong interpretation here and elsewhere by eliminating all of the images from list articles, and edit warring over it. Equally clearly, it is intended to limit circumstances and quantity of nonfree images in lists; otherwise it would not exist and we would say the opposite, that nonfree images are allowed to illustrate the subject of lists. The history here is that we were distinguishing galleries and bare list articles which don't permit nonfree images at all, from articles that have several prose sections about different subjects such as lists of characters, teams, and so on. This particular edit war concerns a list of books by an author. We clearly contemplate this use, #6: "images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article". The guideline says they should be used "as sparingly as possible" and that editors should "Consider" -- not edit war or threaten blocks, but consider -- "restricting such uses to major...elements". The wording is advisory and not conclusive in this instance. What it urges editors to consider is to have images for some of the books, the most important, but not all. But then it explicitly instructs editors to work through this by consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, personal interpretations of WP:NFLISTS are not sufficient reason to suspend application of the guideline and the policy from which it is descended. Obviously you feel highly motivated that you are correct in your interpretation. Maybe you can sway people to vacating or modifying the guideline and the policy from which it descends. You should post a recommended modification or removal of the WP:NFLISTS to WT:NFC. Until such time as it is vacated or modified, the removal of non-free images that so blatantly violate the guideline will continue. If you're still seeking to block Δ, please include me in the event. Otherwise, WT:NFC is --> that away. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I helped write the guideline and I believe it means one thing. You and Delta have been removing images for years, and believe it means another. Indeed, personal interpretation does not suspend policies and guidelines. This particular guideline says that multiple images are allowed for identifying elements in list articles, and that how to do it is a matter for judgment and consensus. Threatening to violate other policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW over your interpretation isn't going to settle matters. Beta's doing so is the subject of this latest discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that most of the 6 points are elements I wrote, I remember why we wrote that, and the consensus from back then as it still is today is to use as little non-free on list-type articles, and nearly in all case, never one image per element. This is the standard for discographies and episode lists, and a book list of this fashion is not an exemption. I can see one cover to be representative of the series, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wikidemon: I plan on continuing my work as I have been. If you believe I am violating policies, then you know where to report me. As to what you think will settle matters, what? Block Δ? Ban him from the site? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anybody edit wars or violates WP:3RR I may file a report, sure. Actually, all three of us (me, Hammer, Masem) and Beta too were all actively debating and editing NFC back in 2008. We all had some differences at the time.[61] Here's the state of discussions[62] before Masem BOLDly added the "list" section, if original intent matters. My point is not to argue that Rcsprinter123 is right or that he will carry the day. Likely, he won't. The point is that Beta should not be violating 3RR over image deletions, particularly not now. If you call this a clearcut case that allows him to edit war again on image removals, then all of his restrictions are meaningless. If we cannot draw a meaningful line around what he may and may not do, and he doesn't respect the lines anyway, that unfortunately falls in favor of an outright ban from the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the wrong revision, as it was [63] this one I was talking about, and for sake of argument, the state of the talk pages around then: [64], [65]. Discussed before adding after a long series of issues over the use of such images. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a zillion ways in which someone can edit war. A very small facet of that is within the context of WP:NFCC enforcement. To say that we must define this as edit warring or else the restrictions are meaningless is an enormous stretch. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no stretch to say that reverting two other editors five times in 24 hours is edit warring. That's the basic definition of edit warring. You're looking for an exception, but there is none to be found in this case. The restrictions were to prevent Beta from mass editing, and some attendant incivility, lack of communication, mistakes, and edit warring. I see all of that continuing unabated, though thankfully he is making a lot more effort to communicate lately. Hey, I'm not asking for any action from this if the edit warring has stopped. But this may reflect poorly when the community makes up its mind on what to do, and for the good of Beta and the rest of us, it's better if he doesn't get into it. You're not under consideration here so your taking the lead would likely be a lot more acceptable to people, but I'd still advise strongly to stay away from 3RR territory. If you've got a winning position, others will see it, people can talk to the editor in question, and the outcome will be the same - images removed, rationales added, etc. It's just best not to try to be the horse in a one horse town. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, not to pick nits but it is a stretch. Check your time/date stamps. You claim there's no exception, but that's an opinion not supported by guidelines and policy. As to lack of communication, take a look at the edits surrounding this incident which you are, I note, going after Δ for but not asking for a block of Rcsprinter123 for (Interesting, that), and you will find that Δ did in fact communicate and the people whom you aren't reporting didn't...instead they chose to edit war. But, Δ is the bad guy, right? You claim its for the good of the community that Δ doesn't do this sort of stuff, but I guess it's ok to allow others to edit war with no remonstrance? It's ok to include non-free content in violation of policy and guideline? Just where would you like to draw the line? He has a winning position, a blatantly clear one. It's the editors who chose to edit war without communicating that don't. And Δ isn't the only horse enforcing WP:NFCC. Regardless, characterizing this as we must find in your favor or else Δ's edit restrictions are meaningless is a serious stretch. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What communication? I see 5 unchanging edit summaries, no talk on the talk page, only a notice that's a month old, and what I see as starting communication on the user's talk page is template, threaten to block, and an empty statement of "it doesn't work that way". Exactly what communication do you see? Delta has been asked repeatedly by many editors not to edit war like this, but he continues, it's why there continues to be a majority supporting his topic ban from this area. He made no real attempt to engage the editor in any helpful discussion at all instead slamming revert, making threats to block and providing short and curt responses to a couple things.--Crossmr (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No stretch at all. Edit warring is edit warring. If you think this fits in one of the limited exceptions you can make that argument in defense of Delta. I haven't seen that argument made here, and I don't think it will be a winner as these are very narrow exceptions and the guideline that applies explicitly says this is a matter for consensus. I also don't think justifying revert warring helps Delta's case, as this is central to what gets Delta in trouble with the community. Even if we did assume that image removal wins the content argument, it's definitely not for the benefit of the community to WP:BITE editors new to non-free use with semi-helpful templates, edit wars, and block warnings. This can and should be done much better. Everywhere else on the encyclopedia editors are expected to follow certain conduct rules of communication, consensus, and civility, no matter how convinced they are that policy is on their side. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AN3 report has been filed by Aaron Brenneman for those interested (here). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Process fork! I brought it up here, not there, as the lower drama option. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request civility block

[edit]
Block declined. Close as WP:SNOW - storm in a trout pond. Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am probably involved, so I am asking for uninvolved review.

Beta/Delta is under civility restrictions ( RFAR/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions ). These include:
4. Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.
Delta left the following at Wikidemon's talk page ( [66] ):
Warning
You need to stop reverting my edits without fixing the problem. ΔT The only constant 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikidemon had been repairing fixable FUR/NFCCs, as both Delta and Wikidemon subsequently agreed. However, the initial warning violated the civility parole / community restriction.
I warned Delta that he'd been uncivil ( [67] ) by assuming bad faith initially and being borderline uncivil. His response acted as if I was criticizing his NFCC / FUR actions ( I did not ) and rejected any possibility of his having been uncivil. His response assumed bad faith and was borderline uncivil.
The core problem - that Delta takes minor issues and responds in an abusive manner - was clearly called out in the community sanction and civility parole. He's at it again and has openly expressed his disdain for the issue and his sanction. I would like to request an uninvolved admin review and short block.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The assumption of good faith is a requirement under policy, not an option that may or may not be used. Buffs (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Short blocks achieve nothing other than resentment, as you ought to know George after blocking me for 10 seconds last year. Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "short" I meant "something like 24 hrs" and not "10 seconds". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to know what you mean by short after your shennigans last year. 07:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the warning above is either incivil or a failure of AGF. If Wikidemon was "reverting his edits without fixing the problem", as Wikidemon admitted he had done by mistake in a few cases, then "you need to stop reverting my edits without fixing the problem" is completely justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing it as a warning, and confrontationally, was borderline uncivil and assuming bad faith. For most normal people that would not be a blockable offense - Beta is specifically under civility parole and rejecting any feedback on that topic....
He could have left a polite request to stop or discuss first, and instead butted heads. He's under restriction to not butt heads with people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And hounding him all across the wiki and clubbing him on his head three times a week for even the tiniest shred of an imagined offense is not what that restriction is meant to achieve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is trying to excuse his every move. The restrictions are there because he is to be held to a higher standard. He's making an ownership statement about his edits "You need to stop reverting my edits.." This is not a civil statement. He can enjoin others to fix things without first making those kinds of statements.--Crossmr (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My first response described the problem ended with a polite and non-sanction-seeking "Please don't do that again" - I fail to see how that qualified as clubbing over the head, much less repeatedly. His escalation from that point is why we're here. He started out in a small hole and dug himself in further.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His response to you was no more objectionable than his initial posting. If you are going to hunt him with useless warnings, you are going to get terse responses. No, he is not under a "higher standard" than others about how he may respond to ill-conceived warnings. Frankly, you got what you deserved. This whole thing has taken on the quality of collective wiki-hounding, and the fact that a community sanction is being used to justify it doesn't make the wiki-hounding any less morally objectionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is this even a serious proposal? Completely off-base, unwarranted and punitive. MLauba (Talk) 07:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is really just grasping at straws. There is nothing uncivil about that comment. Noformation Talk 08:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.--John (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks pretty ridiculous to me. Some day we will have to do something about Georgewilliamherbert's zero-tolerance approach. It causes more disruption than it tries to prevent, and if he doesn't learn from threads such as this one, we may need an RfC/U or something to teach him. Hans Adler 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like Delta's zero tolerance approach to NFCC that has lead to years of discussion? If we can't put this to bed after 4-5 years now or whatever it is, I don't think George has got anything to worry about.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC is a zero tolerance policy, as its existence and core resolution is dictated by the Foundation. Removal of NFC images that fail to meet NFCC is a ultimate requirement from the Foundation. Of course, we allow for a period where those images can be fixed before they are deleted. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus Christ. Can you not hear yourself? You seem utterly determined to turn this into another total Wikipedia-wide civil war, the likes of which we saw over the 'unsourced BLP' issue. And unlike that issue, the Foundation does not, never has, and never will, sanction this ludicrous idea that a minor technical failure such as someone moving a page to 'invalidate' a rationale, equates to a situation where an editor needs to react the way Delta does, riding roughshod over every single other core principle. You are way overstepping your bounds here, you do not, never have, and never will, speak for the Foundation on this matter, and if you carry on with this outrageous fearmongering, which has an obvious effect on the number and quality of actual justifiable non-free content here, which is something they do allow and encourage through their resolution, then you will have to answer for it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the Resolution it is clear it is meant as an absolute. How we handle it on en.wiki (including what warnings we can give, the timing, the means of dispute resolution, etc.) can be improved, but we have been tasked to demonstrate that each non-free media file on en.wiki has an appropriate rationale for its use or have otherwise deleted them. That's not fear-mongering - that's simply stating an indisputable fact. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the resolution, as you well know, so for the 50th time of asking, how about you stop pretending otherwise, unless your intention is to directly insult me. An image whose rationale has merely been broken through a page move or disambiguation, but is still intact otherwise, is still an "appropriate rationale" as per the intent of the resolution, which is to indentify and justify the use of non-free content, nothing more, nothing less. That's an indisputable fact, unless one wants to look at this issue from a standpoint of mindnumbing and illogical obstinance, the sort of position where people will quite ridiculuously claim that such a situation is a "copyright violation", which is complete rubbish, but nonetheless entering common parlance in this farce, thanks to fearmongering like this. Yes, our own NFCC is wholly substandard in protecting both well intentioned editors and this project from people who see this issue in that sub-standard manner, but you are in no position whatsoever to legitimise their failures by invoking the name of the Foundation or their Resolution. And you have no authority or competence to be declaring otherwise, unless or until you are actually appointed to the Foundation. While you continue to mix up the two entities, to pretend that there is a circular relation between the en.wiki NFCC and the Foundation resolution, then you are doing nothing more than fear mongering, invoking the Foundation's name & intent where you have no right to do so, for no other objective than to befuddle, confuse, or otherwise deter people from even trying to properly using non-free content. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're reading far too much into what my point is which is simply "The Foundation says we need to delete images that do not have compliant licenses and rationales". For all practical purposes to this discussion, that's all the influence the Foundation's Resolution has. It may not be much, but it still is an absolute. Can we avoid deleting images where the rationale was off by one letter? Hopefully yes. You should also be aware that those like Delta and Hammer that deal with NFC are not going around shouting "copyright violations". NFC is a copyright-based policy, but built on US fair use law, so we assume that as long as the license is there and looks legit, the file is within fair use. The problems with the rationale are different, however, and thats the area that the Resolution and NFC address. (And to be completely fair, there is circular connections between en.wiki NFC and the Resolution, as they crafted that based on the example of en.wiki's NFC at the time which hasn't changed much since). --MASEM (t) 17:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, sure, we actually have rationales written down on most of our file description pages, most of them are just broken due to pagemoves. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nothing to excited about here. This is not an example of blockable behaviour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unhelpful, baseless block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This is futile. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need on my account - I appreciate Georgewilliamherbert's vigilance but please don't punish Beta on my account or for "contempt of cop". I'm okay with the (non-templated, thank you) "warning" even if it wasn't an ideal conversation starter. This arose from a mistake on my part in running through some of the image deletions we've all been discussing, which Beta interpreted reasonably but incorrectly as a blind reversion of a couple image removals. Beta engaged sincerely and thoughtfully in the discussion that ensued, and I feel a lot better about things as a result despite continuing to disagree on the substance of the issue. Actually, I'm a little chagrined that my error rate in reinserting images is about the same as Beta's in removing them :), and concerned that I've been too harsh on Beta. As a measure of how editors ought to communicate, this was good exchange and not a bad one, so not blockable on my account. As you can see, Beta gets more feisty when he's cornered, so the smoothest solution is probably don't corner him unless you feel it's absolutely necessary. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose— Ched :  ?  21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and propose a trout for Georgewilliamherbert for repeated unhelpful proposals. 28bytes (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solution

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request exemption of restrictions ΔT The only constant 02:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you agreed not to do mass removals while the matter is being discussed, even though I support that with some additional restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard

[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and unless there are immediate objections from non-partisans on either side (sadly, I've been radicalised, so I must admit to having a side now) I'm also going to file a request for enforcement for violating the primary remedy, "To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is starting to cross the line from simple "cross-posting" to forum-shopping. Is the "untoward conduct" something other than what's being discussed at WP:ANEW? 28bytes (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like starting a main noticepage proposal after all the current conversation about you has been sent to a subpage? There are Delta discussions now going on in 3 different places because of this, as such any new conversation that comes up needs to be notified in every single location because of this.--Crossmr (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi Crossmr! Fancy seeing you here. Guess my latest hint that you dial back your constant bombardment of the projectspace with Δ-related posts went in one ear and out the other, as did my previous hint. Anyway, Aaron's cross-posting is fine. His attempt to get AE to act on a request rejected by ANEW, not so much. 28bytes (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to be polite. If you're not going to actually read the discussions that you're involved in, please at least limit yourself to ramblings that don't contain bad faith. I tried quite hard to keep discussions in one place, but was reverted by Delta. And the non-close of the blatant 3rr (that I explicitly said on that page that I had not seen, since it was >< this big) drew heavy criticism. The arbitration request, like the 3rr request, failed utterly to explain why there was no action for (again) a clear violation of the "parole" he's under. Does it occur AT ALL to you and yours the reasons anyone who touches this tar baby gets labeled "antiDelta"? Can you put down the badger and step back: "What happened to brenneman anyway? Was he bored, or spoiling for a fight? Hates the non-free-content?" Or perhaps, just maybe, I walked into what appeared like a normal case of a user behaving badly, tried to do the normal things that we do in these cases, and WHAM! got hit on the head with The Hammer. Do I really need to line up the diffs where I'm maligned recently? If you can't be objective with respect to Delta or Crossmr, try and be objective about me... Go back, read (rather than skim) the discussions. Look at my contributions, they are all right there, go on. The only common denominator is Delta, and the circle of enablers. And I do understand that it's far far less threatening to your world view to blame me, I know, but I ask you again: What happened to push me to a "side"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read every word of every Δ thread, and all of your contributions to it. Have you read mine? Have you read WP:FIXNF? Have you read the comments I've made to Δ's talk page, all of which are of the vein "you may be technically right but you're needlessly antagonizing people and it would be better if you offered compromises instead"? My "world view" is that we need more compromise and flexibility and less battleground behavior, and I've said it to Δ just as I'll say it to you. If you think my "world view" is something other than that you haven't done your homework. 28bytes (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean that part where you tried to misrepresent my edits? Yeah. I remember that conversation. Do you remember that part where I went out and demonstrated how to do NFCC in a community effective manner causing no disruption? Yeah, those were fun times.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've complimented you on your work fixing NFCC problems. About 50 of them, I think? The number of your anti-Δ posts, on the other hand, is in the triple digits, correct? Please let me know if that's a misrepresentation, if it is I'll be happy to correct it. 28bytes (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was this statement true?[68] Yes or no. As I've stated before, I make my edits because I feel they improve the project. This is a conversation that has been happening for around 4 years now, something the community had once dealt with but which was thrust back upon us. It's something we need to deal with again.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#.CE.94. *shrug* I am really sorry it has come to this. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to dial down the drama a bit

[edit]

Given the ludicrous amount of forum-shopping going on here, I would suggest a interaction ban between Δ and Aaron Brenneman. Perhaps we could then start discussing the issues in a sensible manner. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 'cause A) I'm the problem, and B) I'm totally still at it. Please be a bit sensible. Calling for an interaction ban will lessen drama? And please explain why it wan't forum shopping when Delta edit-warred to keep his competing proposal on AN instead of here? And when there are closes like this and this, neither one of which explains why, despite mutiple adminstrators agreeing it was a violation, there was no action? There's a clear pattern here of other-wise sensible editors "losing all sense of porportion" the second that the touch this area. I ask again, and hope you can explain it to me Black Kite, why is it that the problem is the ever-growing queue of editors who apparantly need an interaction ban, but not Delta? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose an interaction ban as ducking the issue, shooting the messenger, and unworkable to boot. Interaction bans are usually unfair to both parties and don't solve the underlying problem that caused the disagreement unless that problem is that two editors simply don't get along. It looks like a bona fide dispute over a real issue, not just a personality conflict. To be evenhanded a ban would have to preclude Beta from editing in AB's space, but as long as Beta tags or removes images nearly everyone on Wikipedia interacts with him, willingly or not. How about a different approach? If AB's forum shopping is the issue, forum shopping is what we ought to discourage via a firmer administrative hand in managing discussion locations. Over-complaining is a self-limiting problem and not too hard to control directly. Most sensible editors learn and don't repeat themselves if an administrative report is met with overwhelming community opposition. AB's weren't and the closures were widely opposed, which shows it isn't a one-sided issue. If AB or anyone else were to file yet another report on the same issue based on the same evidence, a respected neutral admin or non-admin user (depending on the forum) could close it. Drama or no, this issue doesn't seem likely to go away on its own. It appears that Beta and several like-minded editors and supporters will continue image removals that are controversial in method or result until and unless they are stopped, and those who disagree will continue to object unless and until there's a consensus decision on how it should be done. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delta is not the one posting spurious 3RR reports and ban discussions, though, is he? That's just disruptive. If you can't do this properly, let those who are doing so continue your argument. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you can explain why Spartaz closed that 3RR report the way they did, I'd appreciate reading your rationale, since Spartaz didn't see the necessity. I try to express my views only where they are apposite, and I'm always interested in the reasons why they get totally ignored. Franamax (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely obvious NFCC violation, 3RR doesn't apply. Thing is, the scattergun approach is actually making the pitchfork and blazing torch brigade's rationales weaker. Attempting to get him blocked on such a weak basis is diluting the more relevant parts of their argument (I have no idea why I'm providing such advice, perhaps I'm just bemused). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images Beta has been edit warring over are not an NFC violation, much less NFCC. You have your interpretation that old Wikipedia practices should be changed, I have mine, and that's what WP:EW is all about, the need to discuss. Considering that in the first case the closer called it "wikihounding" when it clearly isn't (you can't claim that other people getting bothered by your behavior is hounding you if you keep engaging in that behavior when you know it bothers them), and in the second case Beta was let off for a repeat 3RR violation, those are both bad closes that only encourage Beta's battleground mentality, leading to more incidents in the future (such as his current block). If Beta is going to survive around here as an editor it's by coming to terms with other editors and learning how to build consensus, not developing a "me against the world" persecution complex. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just how long will this go on?

[edit]
Failed proposal. causa sui (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How many times has Betacommand been called to the carpet for his constant lack of decorum when it comes to images? How many times this month? This year? This decade?

Seriously, WP:ANI, it's archives, and -multiple- subpages, more than any other user has ever had, are clagged to shit with all sorts of crap about Beta wherein he acts like a jerk and a huge flamewar starts between his supporters and people with complaints.

There's a simple solution to the Betacommand problem-- there's no consensus for blocking or topic banning him, so let's attack the root of the behaviour that pisses people off.

I propose that Betacommand/Delta/whatever be placed under both civility parole -and- put under a 1rr restriction. Blam, that's all of his problematic behaviour taken care of. I don't think it's too much to ask that if he has to work on images, that he do so politely. Likewise he does have a propensity to edit war, and to prevent any kind of wiggle room or whatever, a simple 1rr restriction will cover that. Jtrainor (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why? A !vote is useless input otherwise. Jtrainor (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Civilty parole, fine, but the 1RR restriction would just encourage editors in breach of policy to edit-war their violations back in, knowing they couldn't be reverted again. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just wrong, and seems symptomatic of the knee-jerk responses on this issue from multiple warring camps. The !RR proposal, which everyone seems to just shout over top of, only requires Beta to engage in discussion and/or bring issues to a noticeboard. It conveys no advantage to the "other side", it lets Beta identify the issues and lets other editors follow them up. Lots of other editors are active in this area and are able to operate successfully. This is not an ideological war, it's an attempt to mitigate damage resulting from one editor's interpretation of policy and norms for collaborative engagement. The NFC policy can survive without Beta's follow-up enforcement. Franamax (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a knee-jerk response, it's one borne from many years of seeing restrictions placed on editors. If edit-warring is a problem, an article restriction is almost always more useful. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is already a civility restriction, and clear, unquestionable violations are excempt from any form of #RR. That is NOT the problem. People should learn to assume good faith that when Delta is removing images, that maybe it is a case of unambiguous, unquestionable violation, and discuss the matter before re-inserting the images. Maybe people are right that something is an unquestionable case, but I have not seen many of them yet. By far most of the images Delta has removed, are unquestionable violations - they either do not have a rationale pointing to the correct article (for whatever reason), or they fail WP:NFCC on other points (unquestionable overuse, unquestionable outside of mainspace). But still people choose to re-insert repeatedly. A total lack of assuming good faith on Delta (but hey, who cares, it is Delta, of course Delta is wrong). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, comments like that last bit don't help make things calmer, do they? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, clearly. But this proposal clearly is making things calmer. We will get this going on continuously. Aaron, I get the same things. If I remove images which clearly fail NFCC, unquestionably (not just missing a rationale) I get reverted with rude remarks, people go into edit wars with me. But everyone is going after Delta. And that is supposed to make the things calmer? The continuous 'you are wrong, Delta, because I don't understand your edit summary', 'you are wrong, Delta, becuause I don't see what is wrong'? Yet, if Delta is asked 'Hey, I saw you removed the image, I don't see what is wrong, such editors get constantly a clear answer. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a 1RR restriction, this will relieve 99% of the problems. Beta can easily find other editors to offer up opinions, they don't have to act as though they are the sole defender of the wiki. They have consistently indicated that their interest is in editing quickly. So fine, then move on to the next problem on the list, apparently there are so many of them out there that this constitutes a crisis. If there are objections and he is unable to explain the problem, then go on to the next one at let other more-communicative editors handle what has been identified. This seems like such an obvious solution to me that I just shake my head when it gets ignored. Franamax (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This problem is unlikely to be decided by an indefinite series of !votes. One possibility is that some respected neutral admins will step up to the plate and administrate. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Wikidemon: WP:BEANS... Island Monkey talk the talk 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY CLOSE Yet another vaguely worded proposal supported by no specific evidence with a generic "remedy" aimed at curing the problem without any recognition of reality. Case point, take a look at the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_2011#Request_civility_block section above. Case point, take a look at this edit history. One editor reverts my edits that removed a file for failing 10c. He calls my edits good faith. Δ does the same thing, and the same editor accuses Δ of violating WP:AGF. Just because there is a problem surrounding Δ's edits doesn't automatically mean he's at fault. Vaguely waiving a wand and declaring everything about Δ is all his fault, and the problem would go away if he was (banned/topic banned/some other Δ limiting remedy) fails to recognize the reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't speedy close a proposal that has another editor indicating support. As I've already indicated specific evidence has been provided twice to his on-going conflict causing behaviour both in needlessly edit warring over questionable NFCC images, assuming bad faith of users, insulting users and becoming very aggressive with them when they disagree with him. The problem has been surrounding his edits for years with dozens and dozens and probably hundreds of other users. Do you honestly see what you're saying? Despite the fact that he's had conflicts with countless users, its them, not him. Absolutely blows my mind.--Crossmr (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What blows my mind is people making accusations it's all his fault, when looking just at the five different reports filed against him on WP:EW in the last two months, not one of them found against him. Not one. Yet, it's still all his fault. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Request exemption of restrictions" discussion

[edit]

It got sent into the archives and the !vote stands at 22 support (71%) and 9 oppose (29%). OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't verified the count, but a number were "support with caveats" or "support with modifications". It's not as simple as it appears. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those percentages don't look a whole lot different from the community topic-ban discussion either, so that one brave admin should consider determing both results at the same time. Franamax (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the multiple motions/proposals/voodoocurses that were active at the time should be in ant way considered as valid or binding, including the topic ban (which I supported) and the 1RR (which I also supported). There was simply too much noise/venom/fillibustering/cheesedoodles at the time for any one thing to have credibility. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure (?)

[edit]
  • Please note that Keegan has marked the thread resolved at ANI. I've copied over that closure rationale to the section clearly involved, but I think there's a possibility that he does intend the whole page based on language used in that closure -- "I read through the entirety of the discussion, and find no plausible consensus to overturn or modify community imposed sanctions." The mention of modification suggests to me that he may intend the alternative proposals here as well. I've asked him to clarify here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In case he doesn't specify, I've closed some of them the same way. Regards, causa sui (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not clear. Have you closed these other sections in your own words, after reading them fully yourself, or just copied across Keegan's logic? It's clear from his comment on his talk page that he only intended to close the section on the proposed lifting of restrictions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While I had the impression that he'd intended to close all the discussions as no consensus, the closes I made are based on my own rationale and are my sole responsibility. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_2011&oldid=1150995472"