Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

AFD, AGF, and other things

I say people should put up or, um, shut up, since accusations of WP:POINT--such as the characterization of my having filed the Camel toe AfD as somehow an illicit campaign--ought to be brought to the appropriate forum and sorted out, to avoid such accusations from being bandied about in such a way as only to stifle the debate that was started. Any reading at all of best wp:EDITing practices on Wikipedia state that to debate various interpretations of the guidelines offered in good faith help the project by establishing current editing consensus. Further, it's a violation of Assuming Good Faith and a host of other basic principles to clog up content disputations with commentary about other editors. That is all. (arrgggh)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ANI not the random rambling sounding off board. What sort of admin intervention are you asking for? Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Seriously: It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination). I don't think any administrative action is required here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Andrewa#A little synopsis for my take on this. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a decent synopsis. Coming here after forumshopping to Jimbo and having brought it up on ANI already seems like a Plaxico style move; like when being accused of sockpuppetry or of not assuming good faith, claiming repeated behavior isn't pointy generally proves pointiness. tedder (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is those who insist on personal attacks that are engaged in wp:Tendentious editing. For example, the assertion has been falsely made that a pointer about a content discussion currently underway on Jimbo Wales's talkpage is wp:FORUMSHOPPING, despite what this guideline REALLY says: "You can...draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together...." What produces such dis- ...or at least mis-information as to claim exactly the opposite, I wonder? As wp:CANVASSING specifically notes, editors are ENCOURAGED to post such notices (quoting wp:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification here) "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed."

What kind of ominous, "repeated behavior" of mine does e/g user:Tedder reference, exactly? Repeated editing of Wikipedia? Indeed, this "argument" provides a precise example of the "attack" solipsisms I refer to in this report. What are the guidelines are alleged that I violated and precisely how have I done so? Is that too much to ask?--since Wp:POINT says nothing about discussing a content issue on a user's talkpage, such as at that of user:Jimbo Wales's, nor does it say anything whatsoever about an editor's bringing up what s/he perceives as personal attacks in two closely filed threads at wp:ANI.

The only consistent thread of thought whatsoever to these claims is one of ad hoc disparagement of me, personally--with the seeming circular reasoning of "User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is up to no good therefore this user's discussing an issue with Jimbo is no good, this user's discussion of other editors' chips-on-their-shoulders is no good, etc." I see an analogy with what I read within the biograrphy Henry Darger: In the Realms of the Unreal today; one episode in the book that stands out, for me, is how, at the turn of the 20th Century, the young (and likely Asperger's syndrome suffering) Barger was was falsely pigeonholed as not sane by examining physicians due to Barger's compulsive "self-abuse" (masterbation), all according to the diagnostic cul de sac: One's "self-abuse" must be due to one's mental illness; and what proves one has a mental illness is one's "self-abuse." Likewise, the aphorism "Claiming repeated behavior isn't pointy generally proves pointiness" seems philosophically suspect to me: more akin a Medieval regimen for discerning an alleged practitioner of witchcraft than a concise distillation of actual Wikipedia policies.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A large handful of users have said it's pointy. Sometimes that's called a consensus. tedder (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion remains that you are conducting a campaign to impose a personal preference which has been repeatedly rejected by consensus, and that it's in everyone's interest including your own that you stop. What would it take to persuade you to do this? Andrewa (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As a paraphrase of the old legal saw, "If the guidelines are on your side, lay out your argument according to a detailed examination of the guidelines; if the editing histories are on your side, lay out the applicable diffs; but if neither are on your side, confuse the matter by attacking your disputant's motives and character."

I have absolutelly no idea where anyone got the impression I have posted more than one AfD and one RM on this topic. The record plainly shows, after another editor moved most of Camel toe to Wiktionary, in good faith I posted this present AfD--my first and only one ever on this topic--on June 18, here" [[wp::Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination)]]--and that prior to this Wikitionary entry having been expanded, I had suggested alternate rubrics for the slang term camel toe via an RM--likewise my one and only, ever--here: Talk:Camel_toe#Requested move. To draw an analogy from the essay wp:Don't revert due to "no consensus" [first paragraph of essay's lede]:

"Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is 'no consensus' for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to 'first discuss'. Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus."' "[¶ ... ¶ ... ¶ ...]"

--in this case, we have a wolfpack of editors alleging I am conducting some kind of campaign due to my personal preferences and therefore having been guilty of violating wp:POINT. If that makes for a so-called consensus, despite there being no detailed explanation backing up this claim, then such consensus is meaningless. That's why we have ANI: these points (pardon the pun) should be hashed out here (although most effectively with diffs) and not on the live discussion pages dedicated to content, in my opinion. In any case, in the current situation, I myself have chosen NOT to provide the diffs but this is only because my disputants' arguments right here in this ANI thread illustrate the very point I am making concerning them; however, note that they have been unhelpfully posted in Talk:Camel toe and at the AFD and noone (except me) bothered to raise these behavioral issues here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But what do you want done now? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination) isn't over yet. If your AfD doesn't go your way, you can either drop it, or appeal to WP:Deletion review. If you were to respond by starting a new thread in some forum other than DRV, or attempt some other evasion, then that would be forum shopping, and ignoring consensus, which would prove your critics correct. If the article is deleted as you requested, and you then proceed to create a new article that the move discussion opposed, that would also prove your critics correct that the nomination was pointy and against consensus. So what happens next really depends on your choices. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My complaint here at ANI is not about content but about the rampant accusations regarding editor conduct focused at me in the AfD. (Nonetheless, to answer your hypothetical <sighs>: I feel no great interest, before even its occurance, in filing a Deletion review. Well, if the admin that closed somehow egregiously violated basic AfD closing practices or guidelines in some way I might consider doing so, I suppose. Does this answer to your hypothetical help? Btw, I've never filed such a review in the past, that I can remember. fwiw. <shakes head in wonder at the pointlessness of this line of inquiry>)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you a hypothetical question. I made a statement about how your choices affect the future. The question I asked was, "what do you want done now?" You brought this thread back to AIN for some purpose. What is that purpose? What are you asking the administrators to do here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I believe an appropriate response to a belabored discussion of conduct within an AfD would be to scroll it up and add a header such as, "Off topic discussion best pursued elsewhere." Be that as it may, should you now wish to document your allegations w/rgd to pointiness on my part, one would think that this thread would be an ideal place to assemble the diffs to do so. My advice to you is, if you wish to talk about hypotheticals (or "make statements" about my objectives, etc.): either closely tie such, um, speculation (or, perhaps, "analysis," if you will) to the discussion at hand or perhaps post it elsewhere.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am feeling frustrated, even hurt, and react with some anger when a coterie of editors (to whom I apologize for characterizing as wolves) use discussion space to launch what I believe to be unsupportable accusations against me. Hence this ANI, which was to report my sense of being personally attacked with the hope that someone would caution the offending parties and ask them to put forward whatever claims about my behavior in an appropriate forum for such a report. Although I did not file the ANI to discuss article content, one claim made about my allegedly wp:POINTy behavior requires me to delve slightly into the "content" area. There seems to be a belief that another editor recently raised an AfD for "Camel toe." In point of fact, it was not for camel toe but the male versions of camel toe. (Which, although we're going further and further afield of my basic subject matter here, was successful in being removed. And--although, again, I do not believe this germane to the subject at hand--I (as did many others, although it was not unanimous) voted to delete "Moose knuckle."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the admin who closed the AfD. I did so based on the arguments made in favor of deletion and keeping, and not based on how "dubious" the nomination may have been. However, if I might comment on that, I do believe there is some merit in criticizing your nomination. Not because I feel that you have been waging a campaign against the article, or that you had been forum shopping, but because the nomination itself was flawed. Your stated reason to delete the article was because you wanted to create a better article about the subject. That does not fall in line with our usual reasons for article deletion. Essentially, you wanted to improve the article by rewriting it, which can be done on any article without need for deletion. It can be argued that a request for deletion is not necessarily in good faith when you intend to immediately recreate the article as your preferred version. I'll add again that my opinion on that matter did not influence the way I closed the discussion, but I felt compelled to mention this to help explain some of the reasons why people objected to the nomination itself. If someone has a problem with the nomination of an article at AfD, it's appropriate to bring that up during the discussion itself. When you declare in your nomination statement that you intend to recreate the article (which "this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created" is explicitly saying), you can't say that others' objections are unfounded. They're going by your own words. -- Atama頭 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought-out, helpful, and even-toned reply, Atama. Apparently the nom was phrased poorly. My intention was to say something along the lines of "Hey, IMO this article fails Dicdef (that is, unless moved to a topic that might pass muster)."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that rationale was rejected, largely because you failed to take into consideration the point repeatedly made to you that the title of the subject was intimately linked with its perception in modern culture. Having thus failed to understand why people opposed the page move, you proceeded to try to simply have the page in question deleted. Editors were perfectly entitled to voice concerns about that your apparent determination not to comprehend the opposition to your proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The complaint I've raised here has to do with the most basic of wp:TALK page principles ("- Communicate.... - Be positive.... - Stay objective.... - Deal with facts....") and especially of wp:WIKIQUETTE ("Do not label or personally attack people or their edits," etc. Also see: wp:PERSONAL: "Avoid: - Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"; wp:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; wp:TALKNO: "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs.") In any case, the obvious fact is that the requested page move was only recently closed, thus I would ask--I suppose rhetorically--how it helps Wikipedia function and grow to insist on forestalling debates by insisting one side prevail before the fact, but if past is prologue, instead of a direct response, the question instead would be answered further claims of malfeasance.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Some editors here seem less interested in debating content points than in simply scoring points vis-a-vis another editor; whereas, to their point of view, I suppose, these editors look at my good faith ideas to improve WP and only see pointless effort.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle _{vécut heureuse}

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [1] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [2] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [3] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [4], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [5] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [6]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [7], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to SPI [8]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[9]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.

During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor has explained that this was due to her editing on her Iphone and forgetting to log on[10], so I think we can ignore this. Also that she had been busy for the past few days hence her recent silence on the matter [11]. But now that she is actively editing again lets hope she can clarify her stand on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I only recently edited because of egregrious copyright violations by editors on Vivian Balakrishnan. I have since rangeblocked the offending IPs from the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore for constantly copying and pasting content from government websites and repeatedly ignorning warnings. My intention is to file an RFA on the matter, particularly because I have my own concerns about COI editing, as well as what I perceive to be an overdependence on bots to fight vandalism and anonymous removal of sourced content, which is widespread not only for Singaporean politics but goes as far as home owner associations editing Wikipedia to remove criticisms about them. Our system seems very good at detecting simple cases of COI editing as well as businesses who create pages about themselves, but not particularly more elaborate cases especially concerning the non-western world. Singapore's case is unique (and to a lesser extent, India and Malaysia) because it falls outside the western world but uses English in everyday life; hence certain entities have a strong incentive to improve their English-language public relations.

I do not know why I am the only administrator to notice such egregious incidents as wholesale copying and pasting being inserted from copyrighted websites; it is for this reason that I have been acting unilaterally and then seeking consensus. I previously sought requests for advice on this board twice on how to deal with this problem, including continued conflict of interest editing, and when I received no response for several days -- except for an editor who recommended that I block them all, I went ahead with my proposed remedies -- and I didn't block anyone at that time. The impression then I got is that a) I was still alone in noticing the problem b) I would have to take care of it myself. I do not know why this concern is raised against me when it could have been raised much earlier; why did people ignore my previous requests for help and advice?

As a young administrator in 2006, I issued my willingness to be recalled based on the idea that the recallers would be (like editors generally were in 2006) informed, rational Wikipedians who would approach issues rationally in the Jeffersonian spirit. I cannot respect recall requests from people who make such accusations that I used sockpuppets in my own RFA, or from people that cannot be bothered or informed enough to even look at the rich user contributions of retired admin User:Izehar before calling that user a single purpose account, or from editors who are willing to block someone for reverting an egregriously explicit copyright violation on the grounds of "edit warring". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the "copyright" content which you are talking about are actually content from government websites, which are essentially public domain for all intent and purposes. I.e. see [12] where "Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works, provides that "Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government," defined in Title 17 USC §101, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." for something similar. So "copyright". You are free to copyWRITE the language if you think it is POV though to make it neutral (though that may introduce further subjectivity) or keep the same tone to avoid intruducing subjectivity. Your edits included additions like [[13]], "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem" which should be avoided.

What concerned me about your reply is your claim above that you had apparently rangeblocked on an article which you have COI issues with. This should NOT have been allowed considering the concerns raised here about possible abuse of administrative rights, and you should have instead raised your concerns to other uninvolved admins to action on it rather than doing so yourself.

PS Although I am not familiar with it, but there a free Internet service called Wireless@SG in Singapore locally, could this have caused some of this similar IPs to keep surfacing?

(Update: Apparently Singapore also allows that under Fair Use [14]) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Breaking my wikibreak here, but worth doing so to point out that only US Govt works are PD. SG govt sites are copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But they have a fair use exception [15]. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out, my worry is that copyediting to prevent copyvio is one way by which subjective bias to the article could be introduced [[16]]. In which case it may be safer to stick to the government site content which when viewed objectively seems to be just a choronological list of the subject's portfolio. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus (by accepting the anonymous editors' edits) seemed to say that content should generally promote Balakrishnan wherever possible and avoid all criticism; it was not a POV edit in so far it supported consensus, and I was only trying to be reconciliatory. Zhanzhao, I mean this in the most respectful way possible -- but I don't think your interpretation of copyright law really flies. The assumption that all government works are public domain (this doesn't even apply for U.S. state governments' works!) or that wholesale copying is allowed under fair use (when fair use is justified for things like critical commentary and so forth) worries me somewhat! Wikipedia's burden of proof in order to use fair use is very strict. In any case, copyright violations cannot be tolerated. It is not at all safe to stick with a copyright violation revision! This is in fact, even an exception to WP:3RR. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Singapore's copyright laws do provide for some exceptions under its fair use clause. And as I also mentioned above, my worry is that you have snuck in some NPOV wording like [[17]] which I feel is the more worrying issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here on copyright: Singapore's approach to fair dealing is not the issue here, as the Wikimedia Foundation is based in and governed by the laws of the United States (see WP:PD). Usage on Wikipedia must accord with "fair use" as defined by the United States (which may be more or less liberal than Singapore's; I haven't evaluated). If content is being used under "fair use", it needs to follow the policy and guideline at WP:NFC, which allows brief, clearly marked quotations, used transformatively. That's got nothing to do with the other issues in this thread, but I want to be sure we're all on the same page with this one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am all for summarizing that section, I am just SERIOUSLY adverse to Elle being the person to edit it down. As mention, she had been cautioned a few times on her own page that she had apparent COI issues with articles concerning Singapore politics especially where it concerns members of the ruling party. And this reason she gave for knowingly adding a NPOV statement into the main text of an article "That statement was to invite discussion, especially since no one appeared to be paying attention to the copyvio issue." is unbecoming of an administrator. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know nuts about all the rules in Wiki but the edits that La goutte de pluie made are not even rephrasing the copyrighted paragraphs. She just makes minor edits like "He contributed" to "his men contributed" in Vivian Balakrishnan page. That's not even the main point, just rephrasing of the nouns and not even correctly. I refer to ocassions when she couldn't help add in her own sarcastic opinion here and here ("While sometimes ridiculed by the youth ") and still got the cheek to argue back that people are white-washing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.234 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Going to draft an RFC on the issue of astroturfing

After spotting an IP-hopping editor -- the one with a similar editing pattern to the editor who would restore copyvio revisions at Vivian Balakrishnan deleting references wholesale at Tan Cheng Bock -- rather than attempting to rephrase and salvage material, which is the Wikipedia Way to go), I am alarmed at the proliferative extent of a possible astroturfing problem. I will be drafting an RFC for this reason. I invite the community to look at the blatant extent that copyright violations from government web sites are introduced without anyone barely winking an eyelid. It is not merely Singaporean politics I am concerned about, but other non-western articles as well. It is my concern that these pages are poorly watched, and what happens is that different editors of different views never collaborate on articles as desired. Because these edits pass through the bot filters quite well, no one notices a potential problem.

I actually do not have much concern about what actual material actually remains after discussion and consensus; what matters is that there is discussion and consensus. I am neither on the government or on the opposition -- I am currently a Singaporean college student attending a well-known college in the US -- I have no stake in the dispute. Some anonymous editors however, do -- I consider blocking COI-editors at government ministries justified. It simply irks me when anonymous editors with possible COI problems remove previous (sourced!) content (with legitimate uses) wholesale on petty grounds, rather than trying to salvage or revise the material. This is the Wikipedia Way, as I knew it. Often the removed content does not have an issue at all. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the main issue

I note that the Elle is still actively editing [18] and even personally exercising administrative powers[19] on the article in question. Granted there seems no problems with the recent edit per se, but the fact that she still doing so while recall is in limbo on the article where her actions have been called to attention is questionable. (In fact, personally range blocking a edit warred page with potential COI concerns on this particular page was the example I raised as a concern). As mentioned, her contribution history as raised by me and other editors (registered ones, not IP hoppers) throws doubts on her claims of being objective in regards to being an objective editor in matters relating to Singapore politics, specifically with regards to PAP representatives. To Elle, could you please withhold from actioning personally and placing any concerns you have to the relevant boards where actions can be taken by uninvolved editors? Thats one of the reasons Wikipedia has such notice boards in place. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread should imo be closed. While there has been a few users involved with editing articles with the user and such like and an admin stated that they would have blocked the user if the editing through protection had been seen at the time, there is only a limited request from a few users for recall ( recall requests have weight usually with over six users requesting ) so this has not been met imo and the user has rejected the request so that all to see here unless new related reports occur I imagine from their comments the user will move forward a little more cautiously and take the issues/complaints on board. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be the best. Ultimately as long as wiki procedures are followed, which in this case means the editor in question abides by wiki policy when editing, I see this report as having achieved its objective. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Elle's abusing her rights to delete Vivian Balakrishnan's page again. Is there a need to delete his background and the schools he attended... Come on, can someone stop her nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.236 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I only removed the section because of the blatant copyright violation (copied from other websites); this is a hard and fast rule for Wikipedia. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a whole chunk of edits and their details had been deleted recently [20] which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of those edits... Cant seem to find any discussion or reason on why those edits were removed so no clue from there either. In any case, lets just make sure that whatever is added adheres to wiki policy, be it on the grounds of objectivity or copyright.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. Since the editor seems to dispute my revisions the only way I could adhere to policy was by removing the entire problematic section until it could be discussed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you start a discussion for it? It must be hard for you to rephrase the section on which schools he attended. StrangePasserby requested for unprotection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.238 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Rob quoted me at length, above, about potential admin abuse on Elle/LaGoutte's part. But if you look at the AfD from which that quote was drawn, you'll see a different picture emerge. Once I saw what motivated Elle's comment about a possible speedy keep, and saw RS to document that motivation, I agreed with her. The AfD did result in a "keep", btw.

It turns out that all of Singapore was in an uproar over a grossly unqualified "yes man" candidate that the government meant to shove down their throats. Rob made some remarks about the issue on his talk page to Elle that I thought were unduly aggressive and quite offensively chauvinistic toward the entire country. I asked him to retract, and he refused. Anyway, Elle's initial comment was injudicious, but entirely understandable once one learned that the entire country was vocally angry over the situation. My first response that Rob quoted to her initial comment shouldn't be taken as evidence that she was guilty of any admin abuse. She wasn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What uproar? Don't assume "all of Singapore was in an uproar". By the way, we are talking about locking of Vivian Balakrishnan page , not Tin Pei ling. Elle is not even based in Singapore. What does she know about the country? She got the cheek to say people are whitewashing. What's with her smearing of politicians on their pages and abusing her tools everytime people do not agree with her. Till date, I still see nothing done about her and she just goes on pretending nothing is happening and that she is too busy to reply. She certainly was very free when she was busy doing edit wars over at Teo Ser Luck page to come back everyday. Each time she would say that since I did not reply within a certain number of hours, she has the right to lock/revert back to her version. So why is she keeping quiet about the recall of her tools on her page and avoiding the issue? Is this just going to drag on forever?

Seriously the articles Elle wrote about Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Tin Peiling, Vivian Balakrishnan are just crap. There was never a neutral stand. It's always with sarcasm. Even the image uploaded on The New Paper was meant to be sarcastic. She seems to just want to magnify negative issues and downplay postive aspects (if any). Aren't Wiki articles supposed to be neutral? Seriously the article on Tin Pei ling is just long and draggy like a grandmother's story. I didn't know it's so hard to summarise everything and why there's a need for very insignificant bit to be written in. Tay Ping Hui's 8 Days issue must be such a HUGE deal and of greatest most importance that Elle had to write it in. Oh wait. Isn't the photo copyrighted material? Why is Elle allowed to post it then? Double standards? - from the anonymous IP above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.245 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Diacritics controversy

Page moves while a discussion is on-going

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

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

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

Page move discussions while a discussion is on-going

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous ANI controversies

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

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

Allegations of sock puppetry

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

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

User and User talk page misconduct

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

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

Tag removal

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

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

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

Final commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page move ban for Dolovis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaming the system

While Dolovis still doesn't usually create redirects from the proper names for his stubs, when he does, he has an unusual error rate. With six of the last seven redirects, Dolovis made a "mistake" and created a page history that blocks non-admins from moving his articles (these diffs speak for themselves: [21][22][23][24][25][26]) This is just the newest way the user is gaming the system. And he does this while being the subject two active AN/I threads. Can we finally concentrate on the forest and not the trees? Prolog (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Motion of no confidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand) is under community imposed restrictions here. However, it appears he is habitually violating those restrictions. Specifically, this one:

• Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

Most recently, today, in the series of edits beginning: 2011-06-27 11:32-11:22

Previously: 2011-06-20 16:42-16:29 (where he went up to 51 edits in a ten minute period, and was warned here

Before that: 2011-05-30T10:12:53Z, for which he was blocked for one week.

And: 2011-05-18T11:25:23Z (where he went up to 95 edits in a ten minute period)

And: 2011-05-18T08:52:24Z (up to 115 edits in a ten minute period)

And: 2011-05-12T13:54:17

and so on and on (looks like at least daily sometime multiple times a day). Some of these seem to be in support of massive revert wars. At this point he seems to be ignoring warnings, or his friends are removing the warnings altogether. Either these sanctions should be removed or actually enforced. 64.217.182.58 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To wit, he has been blocked for the ones in May. The two in June, I'm counting 46 and 43, which yes, are technical, but he's clearly limiting himself. (though I did warn him on the first one in June). I'm not saying either way if these need blocking but will comment on that the intent to limit is clearly there but he needs to fine tune whatever system he has better. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. As I clarified with the blocking admin in May, contrary to the assertions of some, he was unaware of that day Delta spent basically violating his editing restrictions non-stop (he thought it had been just the once that day), and it was not considered in his warning or block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

64.217, you appear to be unconnected with Delta. Could you explain how you come to make this post here today? Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: There's an ongoing debate over Delta occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.CE.94_reported_by_User:Nightscream_.28Result:_No_Violation_Not_resolved.29
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• A few minutes after you posted that, it was closed as no violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose lifting of Δ sanctions

As far as I can see, the edit count sanctions aren't serving much purpose except to give people a club to beat him over the head with and making a lot of work for people trying to micromanage someone else. Making lots of edits isn't in and of itself a sanctionable behavior for normal editors and while I know he has a background, I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing in particular. It's time to let this go and let the hounding end. If he engages in truly disruptive behavior then just reinstitute the full ban and leave it at that. This half-measures stuff is causing more trouble than it's worth and the ones complaining about him based on technical evidence seems more disruptive to me than Δ himself does. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I do believe these sanctions are quite over the top. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Premature - Beta's behavior remains highly controversial. There is a difference between "not doing anything actionably wrong right now" and "has earned back community trust to the point sanctions should be removed". The sanctions were designed to be preventive and arguably remain so, though his bending the limits a bit seems acceptably harmless. My opinion - wet minnow for Beta for latest spree, but nothing more, and sanctions remain in place for the time being. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - shit or get off the pot. Everyone makes mistakes, and the mistakes (from what I've seen) that Delta has been making have been largely minor. Remove the sanctions, give him enough rope to hang himself, and make it clear that anything approaching prior-to-restrictions levels of disruption will be met with his final block and/or ArbCom involvement (which frankly amounts to the same thing). The important point, of course, is that if the sanctions are lifted and he is told that it is his last chance it has to be his last chance. → ROUX ₪ 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  What # last chance would we be on now, if granted? Tarc (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I haven't seen him doing anything contentious so Im ok with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Partial Removal specifically his rate limit. The editing rate one is easily gamed (again, 46 and 43 edits in ten minutes is a technical violation, but obviously it is a limited rate) by Delta's opponents, and isn't helping. That said, I think there is still value to both the civility restriction (as I don't think this is 100% resolved) and that if he is going to be doing a large scale task like these NFCC edits, he should still seek approval at VPR, and that he shouldn't be using a bot to do it. I'm not disagreeing that Delta's trying here, but I think these other three are still necessary simply to keep those that would like to see Delta gone from complaining too much about this. Removing the rate one while leaving the others in place means that if Delta engages a large scale task with rapid fire editing without seeking approval first, that's still a problem the community believes should be dealt with. But once that task is approved, the rapid fire nature isn't the issue, its how he responds, and that's being worked on. (Arguably I would love to see them all removed, but I'm realistic and know there are people that will not let this happen yet) --MASEM (t) 17:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  46 and 43 are technically violations, and an NFCC page with a broken rationale after a page move is technically a violation too.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Wikipedia could always use more lulz; let Beta run unfettered, we'll be back here soon enough. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - seems to be fine now. GiantSnowman 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support removal of the editing rate limit (#3 at restrictions), and that alone at this time. The edit rate limit is not producing any benefit to any party, except as noted by nom as a tool with which to bludgeon. So long as #1 remains in effect and is observed, there should be no concern about the size of a set of edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Beta does more useful work than half the denizens of this dramaboard put together (including me). Masem makes good points. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) - Lets not mince words here. There are a lot of people that want to see Delta get banned. Those people are going to watch him sanctions or not. Therefore, I say we remove the edits per minute sanction so that we only get dragged back to AN/I when Delta does something that's actually harmful, as opposed to now, where people bring him to task for violating the letter of the law, willfully ignoring that he hasn't violated the spirit of it, his mass edits are not controversial, they're routine cleanup. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - no one wants to see delta banned, he is more than capable of doing that without any assistance or independent desire. As I prefer to see him contribute I don't support removal of the conditions that at least hold him in check. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary. There are several editors that would like to see him permanently kicked off the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't think that there are editors that are actively trying to get Delta banned, you haven't been reading this page at all for the past month and a half. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Editors, of course, that would do nothing to replace the valuable work that Beta does. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support lifting of all restrictions. One can also think of suspending all the restrictions for a a few weeks, say until September 1. Then we can come back here on that date and see if the restrictions can be lifted permanently, or if (some of them) should be re-instated or if we should let the suspension stand until a few more weeks (e.g. if here are some minor issues and we want to see if his behavior improves or gets worse without restrictions). Count Iblis (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support at least the edits-per-minute sanction, if not all of them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The community as a whole needs to learn how to forgive and forget. The guy's editing quickly, is he editing in violation of any actual policy? If he were, say, using an unregistered bot and violating such a "speed limit" then we might have something to worry about. I don't see any evidence of such. Let him go and get rid of these pointless restrictions that serve no purpose besides providing ammunition for an editor's detractors. N419BH 18:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• comment - the idea that users want to get a user blocked is back to front - the issue is the actions of the contributor not the response. Delta's communication is minimal and his editing is creating multiple disputes and disruptions and reports.Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, Beta's edits pretty much always have very informative edit summaries and when a user actually says "Oy! Why did you do that?", he does explain it. If users want to go on and edit war over some NFCC violation after that, they don't actually deserve further communication (apart from a 3RR warning). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• User:Delta was blocked for a week thirty days ago for violating these very conditions, that is imo a good reason not to remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd support the removal of time based restrictions on edits as long as the requirement to clearly communicate when edits are challenged is imposed instead. Delta does great and necessary work, but still seems to edit war too often over things that he could easily fix himself, or at least explain clearly instead of just linking to a policy page and saying that the problem with the edit is somewhere in there. Find it. --Onorem♠Dil 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: removing the rate limit entirely risks Delta getting himself into trouble again in the future. Lifting it altogether may be simple, but it would probably be better to lift it for well-defined pre-approved tasks (where the community's agreed in advance that a mass editing task, discussed at an appropriate venue, is in principle OK). That is, lift the rate for tasks which satisfy item 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions. See how that goes for a while before considering further action. Rd232 public ^talk 18:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Per my comment above, I could see a modification to "large scale task" restriction to go along with lifting the rate editing ban, only to assert that if Delta's doing a rapid-fire task (and for purposes of being explicit, lets say that's more than 4 edits a minute), he better get VPR acceptance to do that. This still captures the intent of the community restrictions but doesn't prevent the rate from getting in the way when he's been given the OK to go ahead. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless you are, in fact, Delta's mother, the "risks Delta getting himself into trouble again in the future" argument is not one you can make. Aside from the fact that he is already ignoring the throttle restriction, you can make the argument that he could damage the project. Acting in what you proceve to be his own good, however, is inappropriate. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, you've got me, I am in fact Delta's mother! :) Jokes aside, any trouble would obviously be bad both for Delta and for the community. Rd232 public ^talk 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. These restrictions were put in place for a reason and after many last chances, last last chances and last last last chances for Beta/Delta, and were pretty much the only reason he wasn't banned from the project altogether, if I remember correctly. It'd be awesome if things could work out without any restrictions at all, but I still see the same old attitude from Beta, and foresee loads of drama if we lift this restriction. That there's some guys out there who are now after him is quite unfortunate for many reasons, but we should instead focus on stopping those people while keeping the restrictions intact. Two wrongs don't make a right. --Conti|✉ 19:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - is this an administrator only discussion? Perhaps it should be held with more input across the community in whose name sanctions were imposed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  The ballot stuffing has already occurred above, so it's kinda pointless to try and stand in the way of the freight train at this point.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • It's not an administrator only discussion, and a good number of people who have commented already are not administrators. Block/ban/topic ban lifting discussions tend to take place here because there is less drama that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Less drama on ANI? Compared to what, Tahrir Square? NW (Talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

      That's similar to what I was thinking, as well. If there is anywhere on Wikipedia with more drama than there is here, I don't know where that is.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

    • This sort of discussion should normally be at WP:AN; the proximate incident seems to be water under the bridge. Perhaps someone could move it. Rd232 public ^talk 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Whoops! I thought this was at AN, and was saying that AN has less drama than AN/I. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, this really should be at AN rather than AN/I. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

        That's what I was thinking was going on. Don't worry about it, we've all done similar things. :)
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • (Edit Conflict) To answer Graeme, no - any editor may comment, support, oppose etc, not just admins. This page is heavily watched by admins and normal editors alike so is probably a reasonable choice to have this here. Ohms, if you've got evidence to back up that bad faith accusation, please detail it in a new section. Exxolon (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

    What "bad faith accusation"? There's no "faith" needed, the evidence is right here... No assumptions necessary, just observation. This is a common pattern for AN/I as well, so my stating the obvious shouldn't be a surprise at all.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Ballot stuffing has a very specific definition - "Ballot stuffing is the illegal act of one person submitting multiple ballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person is permitted." - I can't see any evidence of this. If you are suggesting something else such as a violation of WP:CANVASS, again please submit evidence in a new section. Otherwise this looks like a blanket attack on editors who have expressed their opinion in good faith. Exxolon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

      I used a bit of hyperbole to express my view, so sue me. Are you asserting that my opinion is somehow "wrong"? You may disagree, but this is the way that I see things, and I refuse to be hounded into changing my opinions. As a matter of fact, I see what you're trying to do here as an attempt to turn this into something personal about me.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

    • • Really? I read it as a bit of snide sarcasm. Blanket attacks on editors are common around here, especially with AN/I, and the controversy over userboxes like atheism and catholicism if I remember correctly. {{ec}} But this digression is not really germane to the proposal at hand. I suggest we drop it before more healings get hurt. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I think Ohms is trying say that the voting already started and there's anyone could do to reverse the voting. However, I do think that using the phrase "ballot stuffing" is over-the-top because as of this moment, I haven't seen anyone trying to vote twice (thru socking or alternate accounts) on this matter. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I count at least 8 non-admins who have paricipated here. –MuZemike 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin, and my voice is just as important as anyone else's here.

GiantSnowman 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins are folks trusted with extra tools to perform certain tasks, not anointed of anything else such as exclusivity on making comments / comments of value. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but it seemed that, from some of the commentary here, that it is being suggested that the thread is being dominated by admins, which is not happening in the slightest. That was why I made the above comment. –MuZemike 00:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see no signs of a change in behavior. Delta's continued failure to comply with community expectations shoul not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've had to block Beta over this recently, and someone else had to block him after that. The fact that he continues violating the restriction speaks in favor of strengthening the restrictions, not removing them. History shows that the restriction is justified and necessary. What we need now is more admins with the technical ability to check the edit rate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Could you please demonstrate what purpose the edit throttle restriction serves that is not served by #1 of his restrictions? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The limit is meant to be more objective than #2, which is harder to verify except in cases of extreme negligence (which had happened, however, leading to the inclusion of #2). Moreover, it is very hard to see how he could be "manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made" at the rate of more than 4 edits per minute on an extended basis.

But a second point of the limit is to give other people the ability to review his edits. Before the restriction, he would often run BetacommandBot at extremely fast rates (many articles per second for extended periods), leading to de facto changes, because nobody could review or reverse the edits as fast as he could make them. The reason that people need to be able to review the edits is needed is that Beta has a long record of problematic editing, and of poor communication about his editing. So a key goal of #3 is to give other people time to review his edits (for example, by commenting when they see changes on their watchlist).

It's very similar to the reason we have 3RR instead of just WP:EW. If someone breaks 3RR, we know they are already breaking EW, but 3RR is objective. Similarly, if Beta violates #3, he is already violating #2, but #3 is more objective. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to respond. If #1 is adhered to, that any large scale edits get reviewed before he conducts them, then isn't the edit throttle superfluous? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • #1 is not so helpful for things like Beta's current "remove nonfree images" task, because the criteria for the task are so nebulous. If there is an objective criterion for deciding which of these images to remove, someone else could do it with a bot, and Beta doesn't need to do it at all. If there is no automatic criterion, and Beta has to read each page separately to figure out whether to remove the images, then how can he expect to do more than 4 per minute while manually and carefully reviewing each page? #1 is intended for tasks where there is an objective criterion, but only Beta thinks it is a good idea to do the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• How is it nebulous? It's a simple question; is there a rationale for the article in question present on the image description page? It's a pretty simple yes/no question. If you wish to propose a bot, that would be great. He can't run one, and there isn't one, so he does the work that many of us do (myself included; >150 of them this month alone). He's created a tool to verify whether non-free images have an appropriate rationale for the page they are on, and myself and many others use that tool (example report). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Beta has interpreted seemingly obvious tasks in very creative ways before, claiming he had all the rights to do this or that because of some previously approved task. That's what the current restriction tries to prevent. --Conti|✉

• Can you identify any times in the last year that this has happened? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Considering the restrictions that stop Beta from doing this are more than a year old, that's a rather silly thing to ask. :) --Conti|✉ 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• My point is that if the behavior has changed such that it isn't a problem anymore, the remedy provides nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• And my point is that, in my opinion, the behavior has not changed, and if the restriction is lifted, problems will arise again soon enough. --Conti|✉ 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• If you can't show he's done it in the last year, it's a rather hard case to make that it will happen again. If you say that the sanctions prevent it from happening, then you doom him to sanctions in perpetuity with no hope of removal. So, can you identify any times in the last year that this has happened? --11:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support lifting restriction #3, because anything that would permit administrators to easily block users based on counting his or her edits is absolutely pointless and serves neither to improve the user nor the encyclopedia. Leave the other restrictions in place for now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  It isn't pointless. I suggest you go read the pages and pages of discussion that came before these restrictions to understand why they're in place. The community doesn't just lay these kinds of restrictions on someone for giggles. They exist because there were serious problems created when Delta used automated tools and edited quickly.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting and support enforcement. I believe that Delta has good intentions, but that fact that he can't even manage to obey explicit sanctions - and is continuing to get into edit wars over images he removes - does not bode well for his ability to behave himself if turned loose. He's received last chance after last chance, and these sanctions were settled on as the only way to let him back into the community without all hell breaking loose. Well, bits and pieces of hell keep breaking loose even with the restrictions in place; it strikes me as institutional masochism to remove them and cheerfully wave him back to his old ways. What needs to happen is enforcement of his current sanctions, until such time as he is able to obey them under his own power. Then, perhaps, we can consider removing them, with the knowledge that he realizes the benefit of controlling his rate; removing them when he's hardly even trying to obey them is only rewarding noncompliance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but if I was, I would oppose this if I was. Delta wrongfully believes that being right entitles him to be incivil and edit war. It doesn't. Delta needs more sanctions, and better enforced ones, not less ones Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• The admins' noticeboards are used to ask for help from administrators, but any editor is free to comment. That includes the support or opposition of measures seeking community involvement. -- Atama頭 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Then to clarify, oppose, enforce current restrictions, and add additional restrictions Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing all restrictions. If a block is issued simply on the basis of an editor "editing too fast" and without reviewing the contents of those edits, then I say the restriction is far too strict. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  I know your accounts been here long enough to have been around during the old betacommand discussions. Did you participate in those? There is a reason he's not allowed to make automated edits, and that he's supposed to edit slowly and carefully. Because he was frequently causing issues with his edits. Is there any evidence that that won't continue?--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support lifting the edit count restriction because it is obviously ridiculous. No opinion on the other restrictions. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting the edit count restriction - in my opinion, the people that keep bringing him here over violating it are being more disruptive with their efforts to get him removed from the project than he is. Indifferent to the other restrictions, but it may be best to maintain them. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is probably time to stop arguing about the propriety of slapping Δ's wrists when he "technically" violates limitations placed by the community to try and limit the damage he was doing to the collegiate and consensual editing environment by his attitude, and see if he cannot manage to contribute without violating (technically, of course) any of the projects policies, guidelines and practices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems like the right time. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  What time would that be? He had 3 blocks stand last month for his behaviour, and continues to violate them. His restrictions exist for a reason.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Instead of removing them because we're tired of hearing about them, why don't we just enforce them like they're meant to be? It's nice that Delta has recently tried to improve his edit summary. But how many years has this taken? As my final statement in the last discussion, I asked him to please kick disputed NFCC issues off to the noticeboard to let others deal with, but what do we see going on at 3RR right now? Another dispute over him edit warring over a technically right, but oh so obvious error (page move breaking a rationale), and not taking the time to help someone who didn't spot the error, and instead just hammering the revert button. To me these kinds of edits violate his editing restrictions. He is supposed to thoroughly review his edit before making it, and if someone is reviewing their edits to make sure they benefit the project, he should be realizing that causing this kind of unnecessary drama and disruption does not help things. In the time he spent reverting he easily could have told the person that the page move broke the rationale, or updated it himself as the image was obviously appropriate before it remains appropriate after the move. There is no ambiguity of "I have no idea what the intended use of this image is" or any other excuse for not working with people.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• support partial removal (the edit limit, at least). Protonk (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting all the sanctions. Prodego ^talk 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question Has Delta/Beta requested the lifting of this restriction anywhere? ... I only ask because ... well, he's able to, and usually that's what I see in these types of situations. Just wondering. I think it gets a little "iffy" when too many folks start speaking for someone else. I've noticed that Delta has been MUCH more communicative on his talk page with folks. I'd kinda like his view on it all. — Ched :  ?  00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Answer, Ive made several back channel inquires over the last year and a half, about different restrictions and options regarding them to multiple people over the course to see about appealing the restrictions, and until this last month or so, the complaints Ive made about harassment and personal attacks where ignored. As long as those issues persisted I knew my chances of a successful request where slim. Most of the situations that people bring up are at least three years old. Hell Ive got half a dozen functioning bots that I could have operating including a functioning webcite/archive.org bot, however the harassment and hoops I have to jump through to get any one task at least proposed under my sanctions just isnt worth the headache, so the wiki just goes without. I have also noticed that my not saying stuff I can actually say more. (I know that sounds weird, but it does work out) Because a lot of the time regardless of what I say people will not listen, however if someone else repeats what I am saying they tend to listen. As for my communication issues Iv asked repeatedly for guidance/suggestions and have been told (until recently) that you need to improve what your saying, I ask for specifics and was ignored. How am I supposed to improve the messages/how I tell users of issues if no one is willing to help come up with a better solution? This reminds me of a sound bite that went viral a few years ago </me searches email records> of a major city in the US and a comment made by their mayor at the time Frank Jackson. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest using the model of other editor actions as a guide to improving your own communication skills. How are they doing it? When other editors find the need to step in on your own talk page to erxplain an issue to an editor questioning your removal, what approach do they take? Is it successful? The motif I pick up from your talk page is that you just keep saying things like "there's no FUR" followed by "there's no FUR" - then someone else steps in and says "the article was moved, I've updated the FUR link". Why are you forcing that work onto someone else, when you could have easily checked the move log or just even said "there is a FUR for a similar article name but it's not the exact right one, maybe you should look at that"? Many of these issues seem eminently simple to explain or resolve, yet apparently you decline to make that small effort. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose (with caveat). Beta using automated means (whether bots, tools, or fast cut-and-paste fingers) to edit war across multiple pages on image deletion matters is a recipe for trouble. Yes, we'll be back here if the sanctions continue. And yes, we'll be back here if they don't. I'm not in favor of giving him a rope to hang himself right now. He's a capable and enthusiastic fixer of things so why not put that to the best use? Sometimes he's right on policy, a stuck stopwatch is right four times a minute...sometimes he's wrong, and sometimes he's in between. He has a knack for doing things at the edge of policy where some editors feel strongly one way, and some feel the other. And whether he's right or wrong, there have been persistent problems with civility, collaborating with others, sneaking around with hidden bots, and mistakes get amplified when there are civility, accessibility, and unattended bots. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting Baseball Bugs' comment below, this shouldn't be a life sentence. If we find a good working relationship, Beta is always welcome here. I haven't closely followed any recent developments so please discount my opinion accordingly. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. He needs to do this at a rate we can keep up with, especially when he's pulling images that lost the connection in the FUR because of a page move. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support These restrictions are quite ridiculous. It's about time all sanctions were lifted. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting the edit rate restriction, the edits that people want to base the sanction enforcement on are totally proper edits but for the sanction, not at all the type of thing the sanction is meant to prevent. No opinion on the other ones. Monty₈₄₅ 02:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comments - I like the fact that he's a lot more willing to communicate - especially if we don't treat him like a jerk (which I also admit to doing at times). I also have some reservations. Perhaps there could have a "trial period" of lifted sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting the edit rate restriction. I for one, want to know just how many edits Δ can achieve in a 10 minute period. I suggest at least a week of warm ups, and then a minimum of 3 sustained runs for a solid average. Possibly the developers should be consulted to ensure there is no possibility of damage to the servers.50.94.116.132 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  We need to contact Guinness World Records for official monitors so that any record set will be officially recognized. Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Back in the day, I had BCBot hit 1.38 edits per second, for over an hour. I think thats a record that cannot ever be beaten. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Uhh yeah, there lies the rub. Exactly how fsat are you planning to edit should thie specific restriction be lifted? If you're contemplating anything more than once every 15 seconds, doesn't that become a bot task? Franamax (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting any of the restrictions. Delta could have been blocked this morning, and said block would likely have been lengthy. The reward for ignoring restrictions should not be the removal of the restrictions. Follow them for a while, prove they're no longer necessary, then let's have this conversation. Not less than 24 hours after a blockable violation of them was committed. Courcelles 03:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. A good communicator would have approached the Nightscream/Breen incident of just a day ago, totally differently. 180 degrees differently. And if that's not enough, he showed his true current form just a week ago, when you could observe barely a beam of light inbetween his 4 rapid restorations of that personal attack on me, much less an effort at communication. Sure he threw me a template, but that was merely a necessary step in the WP:GAME he was playing. I seriously hope that's not what people are ascribing as good in the above treatises. If anything, for his ongoing post-ban bad behaviour both caught and not, he should already be on a strict 1RR, if not gone completely for good this time. It's alarming to see how that excuse 'technically' is yet again rearing its head over how he still behaves toward others. We've been down that road before. It. Does. Not. Work. MickMacNee (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Courcelles. Hobit (talk) 12:43 am, Today (UTC−4)
• Oppose The edit rate limit is not there as some arbitrary gotcha, it has sound underlying reasons. One reason is Beta's focus on making edits as fast as possible, perhaps as an end in itself. I recall reading an off-site paper by Beta vaunting their skill at multi-threading edit commits to achieve maximum possible speed (though I would have to ask Beta to dig that one up). Another is that Beta does indeed occasionally make mistakes, and does also repeatedly revert to their preferred version with minimal discussion. Which gets to the main reason, Beta is minimally communicative at the best of times. Simple inspection of their talk page shows numerous recent instances where an editor has questioned their edit: Beta keeps saying there is something wrong, then another editor (often Masem) steps in and notes that an article was moved and the problem has been fixed. The communication problem apparently cannot be fixed on the "supply side", and allowing Beta to run at full(er than full) speed is just going to overwhelm his interlocutors. Additionally, Beta can easily avoid these sort of "gotcha" moments when it comes to the rate restriction: just consider it as a "3 per min per 10 min" instead of a 4 and they will never exceed the limit. Or, given the advertised coding skills and the fact that AWB seems to be open-sourced, code in a module that will guarantee 3.9998 edits per minute. Just because someone insists on testing theit community-set limits is no reason to lift them. Franamax (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Alternatively implement the recently proposed 1RR restriction on NFCC edits and only then let Beta edit as fast as possible. In which case, probably 0RR would be better as they could run through the work list in a few days, then everyone could get down to the discussable cases instead of this death by 4epm. Franamax (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Betacommand constantly violates the sanctions and restrictions he's under and you want to reward him? What's wrong with you? He should be community banned, not being given an attaboy for violating (yet again) the sanctions he's been put under. That guy has a rap sheet incredibly long for someone who hasn't been indeffed yet and has not substantially changed any of his behaviour that led to him gaining such a rap sheet. His 'good work' can easily be done by other people and in a less obnoxious manner. Jtrainor (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, until User:Δbot ultimately breaks down again, leaving WP:SPI botless. But then again, nobody came forward to volunteer to run any bots, despite multiple requests to do so; moreover, nobody comes forward to help address any problems with SPI in general aside from launch complaints at it without any possible ways to move forward. –MuZemike 07:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, in my opinion the uniquely Wikipedian sport of suck-hunting, and the WP:SPI process in particular, is a toxic drain on community resources that breeds paranoia, siege mentality, and hostility (often undeserved or higly specious) towards new users. The project would be better off binning it entirely. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, then you folks deal with the vandals and disruptive editors, without any help whatsoever. See how long you last without going nuts. –MuZemike 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe I haven't indulged in enough Wiki-Dianetics yet to think that everything is fine and dandy in wiki-la-la-land. –MuZemike 07:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Delta does amazing work here that is, frankly, a very important, misunderstood and unappreciated aspect of Wikipedia. I don't think another editor is under as much scrutiny as he is, and if other editors were, you'd likely find a lot of policy violations in their edit histories too - I'm not saying this excuses his behaviour in the past, just pointing out the whole glass houses thing. I believe that if we viewed his entire edit history and judged it in its negative or positive contribution to Wikipedia, it would come out very positive indeed. N^oformation ^Talk 07:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting or loosening edit speed restrictions The edit count restrictions are absolutely pointless and should be removed or loosened. No opinion on the other restrictions. --SilentBlues | Talk 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support lifting - This edit restriction is totally superfluous. Apparently Delta is allowed to make no errors at 39 edits per 10 minutes, but not at 41 edits per 10 minutes. This sanction should be lifted, as it just totally, utterly, completely does not serve any purpose, except for editors to use as a stick to hound ∆ - there are no significant, unambiguous errors found (in any case at a higher rate than any other editor would make), so the only reason ∆ gets hounded is because he sometimes makes too many edits in short period of time as defined in this edit restriction. And that after 25k+ edits and 1 year. Keeping this in place is just pathetic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  As stated above, the reason for a specific rate restriction is to serve as a bright line, much as we tolerate the odd bit of back-and-forth reverting as a matter of course but consider 3RR to be a line not to be overstepped. The reason for that bright line is an epic history of questionable automated editing. And one edit per 15 seconds, sustained over any length of time, is an extremely rapid rate indeed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, 1 edit per 15 seconds is pretty fast, and Delta does not make significant errors at that speed, which he often gets close to (seen two cases which just pass that limit). That does show that even at that 'extremely rapid rate'-limit is superfluous - if Delta does not make mistakes at 1 edit per 15 seconds, then 1 edit per 10 seconds, or 1 edit per 5 seconds is not going to make thát difference. And if it does become a problem, at least editors have a reason to complain, in stead of complaining that 43 edits is a technical violation. Lift this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  You've been here long enough to know why these edit restrictions exist. He gets hounded because he doesn't act within the guidelines the community laid out for his return. The fact that he continually violates them, for whatever reason it is, shows he is not editing with the care expected of him.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Crossmr, I am not saying that Delta should be violating the restrictions that are there, he should respect them. What I say is that this restriction is totally superfluous - are you keeping the restriction so that Delta can show that he can keep a restriction, or are you keeping a restriction because you expect Delta to make mistakes when that restriction would not be in place? From your answer, clearly the former. This restriction is nothing more than saying to a little kid: 'look, sit here at the table. I will put a lot of nice candies here, just in front of you, but be aware, every time I see you eat one, I will whack you with a trout' - And that is just what I said it was, pathetic. Restrictions are supposed to prevent a problem, not to punish - and that is at this time exactly what it does, punish. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  The reason the restriction is in place is not because if he went slightly faster he might make more errors (compare to the road death fatalities at 40mph compared to 30mph) but because the community as a whole has decided that it can't trust him to make any use of automation at all, and that short of having a warden looking over his shoulder the only way we can ensure that doesn't happen is to draw a bright line over which we consider his edits too rapid to have been made fully by his own hand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, Chris. I know that restriction was put in place because 'the community as a whole has decided that it can't trust him to make any use of automation at all' - So the point that editors should be making is 'I don't think we can trust Delta with going faster than this', not 'Delta passes the limit too often, he disrespects the community'. So the question stays, Chris: "are you keeping the restriction so that Delta can show that he can keep himself to a restriction, or are you keeping a restriction because you expect Delta to make mistakes when that restriction would not be in place?" - Do you trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per 15 seconds, do you trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per 60 seconds, do you trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per second? If the answer is 'no' (though the number of mistakes is really low), you should not trust Delta to edit at 1 edit per 60 seconds, or even, you should not trust Delta to edit at all - hence, this speed restriction is superfluous. If your answer is 'yes', then this edit restriction is certainly superfluous. I support lifting the sanction, I do trust Delta to edit at a much higher speed, and if I am proven wrong, we do have Special:Block for a reason. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not about "mistakes". It's not even about trying to correct him, really. It is about preventing him from making automated edits, a restriction imposed on him a long time ago which he has repeatedly flouted. We cannot directly observe him making automated edits: we can only observe his edits themselves and make inferences from them. And the community has decided that one obvious sign of the restriction being flouted again is editing at a sustained rapid pace that would not be plausible if all the edits were manual. If you let a man out on parole with an anklet which signals the police if he moves out of a given ten-block radius, it is not because the eleventh block is somehow crucial: it is that the only way to be sure that he is not trying to escape is to set a bright line on how far he can travel. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not make much of a difference, Thumperward, it is exactly what I said, you do not trust Delta to edit faster: you do not want Delta to edit at a higher speed because these edits may be automated, and you do not trust Delta to make automated edits. Well, let me then again rephrase - I think that we can trust Delta now to make edits at a higher speed, even if some/all of those would be automated. If that person shows for a year that he is save in that ten-block radius (even if he sometimes helps an old lady to the eleventh block .. something that that person would certainly be told off for at the very least), and does 25,000 steps without making the mistakes for which the parole was in place, then you still think that that ten-block restriction should be there. I would argue, keep the anklet so we know where he is, but at the very least, give him the freedom to go further (state lines? Country borders? Whereever?), and see if he is worth the trust. If proven not - put him in jail for a month, and make it a 5 block radius after that .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Quantity has a quality all of its own". Warden (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support after consideration mostly per Dirk. And thank you Delta for taking the time to respond so directly, and extensively to my question. For me the bottom line is the "net positive". The NFCC stuff is surely important, else the WMF would not have bothered with it's declaration. All due respect to those on the "oppose" side, and I truly understand all the hard feelings, anger, and disappointment over all the past issues. TBH... I wouldn't have bothered drafting WP:FIXNF (at User:28bytes suggestion) if I didn't believe in the NFC efforts. I can easily imagine Delta sitting in front of a computer scratching his head wondering "what part of the freakin policy don't you people understand?". I think he's done an amazing job at trying to communicate the issues, answer the questions, and remain calm in the face of some very rough badgering over the entire ordeal. At times, even by admins. who continue to poke and hound long after an issue has been answered. The phrase "Asked and answered counselor, please move on" comes to mind for some reason ... but I'm now drifting into tl;dr territory. — Ched :  ?  10:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  The Foundation think the resolution is important yes. Our internal take on it via the NFCC, not so much, not when you compare their complete indifference to how they continually intervene and advise on it (i.e. never), compared to something like BLP. The irony is, to take the Nightscream incident as a perfect example of what you presumably think is good communication, at no point was that image in violation of the resolution, and certainly at no point was it in any way a 'copyright violation', as some people still like to erroneously claim. And at no point did Delta give a straight answer to a straight question on that issue, preferring to paint the enquirer as a moron or worse. You want to talk respect for policy, well which policy calls that good conduct? As always, where Delta's outlook is concerned, there is apparently only one policy here at all. This is not behaviour that needs to be unleashed at bot like speeds. This is not behaviour that should be happening at all, but it does, because people are easily confused & befuddled when confronted by the NFCC enforcers who very much like to be seen as Foundation spokespeople, when they aren't. I'm not talking about the n00b uploaders here, but established editors involved in debates like this. WP:FIXNF is actually a serious retrograde step in that regard, as more muddying of the waters between what certain editors want the Resolution to say and want the NFCC to be viewed, compared to what it actually says & how it is actually viewed, by the whole community, because like it or not, the NFCC is an en.wiki document open to consensus checks & balances like anything else. It is not, and never has been, a Foundation edict. MickMacNee (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Infact I am disturbed in the extreme to see you talking as if Delta's work is somehow related to any legal issue, or that he has some specific legal competence to offer the site in that regard. The Foundation counsel no less has confirmed many times that our lame ass disputes over NFCC have nothing whatsoever to do with any legal liability issues. This kind of loose talk needs to be stamped on, hard, just like the "copyright violation" nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)1

I'm sorry you feel such disdain for my efforts here Mick. All I can say is that my honest intent was to try to improve the NFC situation with the "fixnf" essay. I apologize if it is a "step backward". I understand your point, and I am equally aware that the WMF doesn't spend much time stepping in and attempting to clarify things on a daily "thread to thread" basis here. I do my very best to read, research, and draw the best conclusions I can. Apologies if I'm not up to your standards. — Ched :  ?  12:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The WMF do not step in on anything to do with the NFCC, ever, period. That was my point. And my standards are not high at all, I just expect people not to perpetuate certain NFCC myths as fact, particularly after they've been pointed out as such by the people who are experienced observers of this area. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure I understand - we have a whole set of policies here, why do you consider that pages do not have to comply with the NFC policies, but do have to with all the other policies? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  I'll asnwer as soon as you show where I said any such thing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, the image Delta removed in the Nightscream-Delta case did not comply with the resolution (it did not have applicable rationale - it was broken), nor with the NFC policy ("The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item .." - as said, it was broken). So what Delta did, was remove an image which did not comply with NFC (yes, there would be another solution, actually, there are more than one). And the reason for removal was clearly stated in the edit summary ("one or more files removed due to missing rationale"). But you seem here to be opposed that Delta is bringing the article in line with policy using one of the methods. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Circular logic is circular. You do not show non-compliance with the resolution by showing non-compliance with the NFCC, not least when to do so you need to distort its own meaning so blatantly - the rationale was most certainly not "missing", and it did have the name of the article on it, it just did not link directly to the page, which as you point out, is a mere recommendation. There are a hundred better ways this technical anomaly can be handled in terms of acheiving 'compliance' when found, 99.999% of which do not result in the Gordian knots you claim they do. In anyone's book, if they are truly interested in all the goals & principles of this project, Delta's approach to this issue is at the bottom of the pile. The very bottom. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, there was no reference to the article, it had a reference to a disambiguation page. Sure, it was easy to fix, but the rationale did not have the name of each article in it. As I said 'The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well I'm assuming you just glossed over the part where I said technical anomoly them. This kind of intentional myopia is not and never will be part of the actual intent of the NFCC, or the resolution for that matter. The fact it's how you choose to read it, just so you can defend the willfull & deliberate poor behaviour of those seeking to 'enforce' it in their chosen manner, is neither here nor there. Except of course, rather worryingly, you apparently block people for edit warring to defend such bot like interpretations of the world, instead of expecting them to act like a human, and give a straight answer to a straight question explaining the anomoly. That is truly a scary thought. Or are you still figuring out how to explain how Delta can both be removing the image repeatedly for the lack of a rationale, yet apparently have no clue why Nightscream understandably didn't understand what he was on about, given the fact the rationale was not "missing", and it as clear as day had a reference to the intended article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  MickMacNee, did the rationale state that it was to be displayed on 'Breen (Star Trek)'? No, the rationale stated that it was to be displayed on 'Breen'. Is that 'The name of each article', no. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, and this resulted from a page move. There was no ambiguity over where the image was to be used. If you want to try and excuse his behaviour because of a minor technicality, then you cannot excuse his behaviour when he violates his editing restrictions by hitting 43 and 46 edits per 10 minutes. NFCC exemptions for 3RR are only for unquestionable cases. This is yet another one which is easily questioned, and extremely easy to note where the error was.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Crossmr, clearly it was blatantly obvious that the error was easy to spot. Let me be clear, there is no need to edit war over this, not about inclusion, not about removal. If it gets removed, you assume in good faith, that the remover did not see that something happened which broke the rationale, if it gets re-inserted, you assume in good faith that the inserter did not see that something was (obviously???) broken. If it then gets re-removed, something apparently is broken - yet, both sides do not engage in a decent discussion, the discussion is immediately started up in a 'you don't say what is wrong', 'you point to whole policies but don't explain what is exactly wrong', etc. etc. The point was - for one reason or another, the rationale was not correct, it was broken. And that it is obvious may go for Delta, it goes in exactly the same way for Nightscream.

  Noting on this, I have after this incident and the aftermath, adapted my detection script for the bot suggested (vide infra). It does note that a rationale is pointing to a disambiguation page now, and flags the rationale as 'maybe correct, but should be repaired'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because Delta has continually caused trouble around the same issues, both before and after restrictions were imposed. His persistent failure to stick to the restrictions is not an argument for lifting them; quite the reverse, actually. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 12:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the sanctions, support enforcing them. As noted several times above, we have (collectively) wasted thousands of man hours on discussions around this user's issues. Perhaps I'm reading MASEM wrong, but "46 and 43 edits in ten minutes is a technical violation" doesn't strike me a good reason to lift the sanctions, but instead a good reason for a block. With respect to the "good work" and SPI, any organisation with a single point of failure needs to have a long look at itself. Finally, while the most recent go on the round-a-bout was a "no violation" as pointed out above by the ever-reliable Hammersoft, I'd encourage everyone to have a read of the discussion and follow the diffs. In particular, follow the diffs to BetaCommand's talk page... He links to whole policy page, tells user, "if you refuse to read the information that I give you do I need to make it in XXXXL font, red and blinking so that you see it?" and later "Ive really tried to avoid the term RTFM, but goddammit more people need to do it." And we're saying that Beta's communication strategy has improved? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Restrictions or not, there are two facts in this to consider:
    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)

• Comment: the trend here is somewhat towards lifting the speed restriction, at the same time as concerns about Delta's communication remain (whilst acknowledging some improvements, the recent incident at WP:AN/EW is indicative). Perhaps lifting the speed restriction on approved mass editing tasks (community restriction #1) should be combined with 1RR on those tasks. That pushes Delta a bit more towards adequate explanation, when his edits are contested. Given the new NFC advice and that some cases are easy to fix for someone interested in keeping the NFC file, enough explanation when the removal is contested would help a lot to reduce conflict. And being forced to go from edit summary to talk page (once 1RR is hit) would ensure better explanation when required, as well as more likelihood of others chipping in in a constructive way. Rd232 public ^talk 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think that lifting the sanctions will improve the project or improve communications between editors and Delta. As it is many of his rapid fire deletions without clear explanation, freak out people who are unfamiliar with Fair Use rules, causing edit wars, arguments, time wasting BS, that amount to nothing anyway. I wonder sometimes why Delta just doesn't add the required Fair use information instead of blasting the images to kingdom come. In my opinion, and Delta and I have conversed rationally, he improves by slowing down. Without the speed restrictions and the sanctions there would be no improvement and instead we would all be talking ban him again. He has improved, but I wouldn't want to see all of those bots again...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• comment OK .. here's the deal. There are a ton of "non-free" images being used in articles that simply do not adhere to our own policies out there. Regardless of any legal ramifications, they don't meet our own policy requirements. Delta has the ability to do the technical coding to run through it all very quickly, and remove the things that are out of compliance with our own policies. It's supposed to be incumbent on anyone wishing to use a "non-free" image, to ensure that all the criteria are met. The images being removed are ones that don't meet those criteria. Wave a magic wand, remove everything that is outside our policies, and then move forward to reinstate those items in the proper fashion, ... with the proper criteria. There's plenty of folks willing to help "fix" the things that are broken, ... clean up the mess - and then start working on how to use the "non-free" stuff in the proper fashion. It's not freakin "Rocket Surgery" folks. ... k .. done venting now. — Ched :  ?  14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We've been there already. It was called BetaCommandBot, and it was a complete and utter disaster causing drama and disruption way beyond what can be jusitified for the 'compliance' issue. And that was in no small part due precisely to who the operator was and his own personal makeup, rather than the work it did. But at least bot's don't edit war, so you might be onto something if someone takes over a bot, and the fixers concentrate on fixing images that are identified as having been reverted back into articles in a human manner. Sure, that takes time, but so does referencing unreferenced BLPs and patrolling new pages in non-bitey ways, which is something the Foundation has at least taken a position on before. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're also again perpetuating another NFCC myth - that these violations are occuring due to some failure on the part of the person wanting to use the image, and thus if he cannot be bothered, we can't either. This is not true, many of these failures are outside the control of the original uploader, unless you want to argue that by uploading a non-free image here in a proper manner, you become personally responsible for monitoring its continuing compliance forever. Some people here certainly have that outlook to non-free content, but it's not the wiki way. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a myth. NFCC, like verification policy, requires those that want to use the image to meet the requirements for the image. So if, as commonly happens, someone thinks that an image with an existing rationale on page A would work well on page B and use it without adding a rationale on page B, even if that rationale is essentially identical (it shouldn't be, but that's a different matter altogether) as page A, it is the onus on that user to correct that. It is courtsey but not required that someone like Delta correct it, and if he were only doing a task involving tens of images, sure, I would think he'd take the time to do this. But the task he's doing has 10,000s of images - he has to run this in a bot-like faction. If you don't the fact that the onus is on those wanting to keep the image, that's a change you need to make at NFC and not blame Delta for. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the problem is that Delta gets himself caught up in edit wars over trivial mistakes, which in reality makes him no better than a bot. If Delta isn't going to take the time to point out to user X that the reason he keeps removing the image is because the FUR was broken in the page move, then we might as well have a bot parsing the FUR rationale for a link and hammering it into oblivion until the user relents. Of course no one would want that, and yet there are those that tolerate and almost seem to encourage Delta to do that very thing. While he often removes images that clearly don't meet policy, he also gets tangled up in very questionable removals.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If people aren't going to take the time to read and understand the pages that Delta is now pointing to with his edit summaries on identification of a bad image, that's even worse - that's encouraging lazy editing. NFC is not a simple policy. Users using NFC really need to know the hows and whys of how this policy came around, and not just assume it's just a "fair use thing"; just pointing to #10 and saying you need the article name worsens the situation even though it is an easier fix. Secondly, as noted, the Foundation requires use to delete images that fail our NFC policy. Now Delta isn't deleting anything, but simply removing it from articles where rationale don't exist (Again, based on the Foundation's language) and these would only be deleted if no one bothered to fix it and remained orphaned. Delta is running through 10,000s of images that no way we'd be able to get a bot to do (because of the backlash against this action), and so he cannot stop on the trivialities to fix. Unless, of course, a cadre of editors would be willing to step forward and help with the task (which I don't see happening). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) more times than I can count. The problem is, that many images are not as binarily "complaint/notcompliant" as you imply. If they were, it would be simple. There is a non-trivial "gray area" of images which have miniscule problems that a normal human editor using normal human judgement would be able to fix rather than delete (for example, a simply typographical error in a template or a moved article which leaves mistagged images in its wake). Delta refuses to use this sort of normal human judgement, and when he encounters such situations, he becomes rude and unhelpful. The tasks you note need to be done, they just need to be done by a person capable of dealing with the fuzzy edges of policy violations, and a person who can weild a scalpel as skillfully as an axe. Delta is very good at technical solutions which can deal with binary "yes/no" decision making. He's not good at fixing the nuanced problems that occur all to often with image violations. That is why his editing restrictions exist at all; they aren't a sort of arbitrary revenge designed to "get" him because people don't like him. They are a real response to a real behavior pattern which caused real problems; problems that I note have recurred in recent weeks in exactly the same manner as when the restrictions were enacted in the first place. In other words, Delta has not learned how to behave in a more collegial manner when dealing with image problems. We all want these image problems dealt with, we just want them dealt with by someone who does not behave as Delta does. For this reason, I would oppose lifting the sanctions, because Delta has not changed his behavior that led to the original sanctions in the first place. --Jayron32 15:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The other day there was this ridiculous edit war between Ceoil and Delta at List of large triptychs by Francis Bacon over Fair use, after Delta removed the 3 or 4 images in the article, when he knows perfectly well how to write a fair use rationale - in fact he told me how he wanted them worded - that's the problem here. This is a voluntary project and issuing orders to others when you can do the job yourself doesn't sit well with hard working productive contributors who might not know the fair use policies and it doesn't always sit well with those of us who do know the Fair use policies...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Good point, Modernist. Problem is, the images, like anything, are supposed to be following policy. Although any editor can make sure that that is done, it is no-one's task to write rationales, but it should be the task of everyone to have everything here on Wikipedia follow policy. That goes for WP:V, it goes for WP:NFC - still, editors delete unsourced information without pointing to policy, without notifying editors, or posting to talkpages, but when it comes to removal of images, that is apparently a big nono. One could also do the effort to WP:PRESERVE the unsourced sentence in order to actually add a source (or at least, a {{cn}} - but we all know for how long those tags stay without being solved) - but no-one is suggesting that ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Dirk, a couple of weeks ago you deleted an Emile Bernard [28], made me crazy, initially I thought you were crazy, I think it had both a public domain tag and fair use rationales, finally I just added a fair use tag. For most editors these policies are like martian...Modernist (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  That would be because you included {{Non-free use rationale}} which tags the file as non-free. When examining a file we usually go with the most restrictive license unless other solid proof is available. Ive gone ahead and removed the rationale templates as not needed, and thus the licensing issues have been resolved. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you Delta and I appreciate that explanation...Modernist (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  (ec)Yes, but also WP:V is martian to a lot of editors. People do not understand that statements need a source. This has nothing to do with Delta, this has nothing to do with fair-use, it has to do with editors who fail to sit for a sec when someone tells them there is a problem with something, and actually fix it. And, as we know, adding a {{cn}} to something has a very low rate of actually getting fixed, but removing the statement altogether does get a higher fix-rate, and at least the page does not violate policy. Here, it is the same, you can tag the image, you can notify wikiproject, editors, talkpages, whoever, nothing will happen. However, if you remove the image, you get a quite high number of editors who actually solve the problem. As I said below, I am trying to real-time monitor the additions of non-free material - I see when editors re-add an image after I, Delta or whoever removes them from display, and quite some do get solved. The actual 'screamers' on our talkpages are a very, very small minority. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  The problem is Delta is still sitting ther hammering NFCC issues that have extremely minor and obvious problems. His latest one was just at 3RR over a page move. There is absolutely no ambiguity in an NFCC rationale after a page move. He can't sit there and say "I have no idea what the intended use is", the use is very clear and the rationale just needed updating for the page move, not a new one, not an image being put on a mysterious article for no reason, it was an image that was totally fine, the page was moved and then Delta starts edit warring over its removal, and it isn't the first time. This violation of NFCC that he's using to basically shield his edit warring is trivial, and once again does not fall into the "unquestionable" exemption provided for NFCC.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  That it was not blatantly obvious is clear, since also Nightscream did not see what was wrong. Crossmr, it needs at least 2 editors to edit war. It should never be necessary to edit war, editors should always try to work it out together. There obviously was something wrong, whether it is blatantly clear, totally unclear, whether Delta does his best to explain, whether an editor does still not understand, it is never a reason to edit war. And indeed, this turned out to be blatantly clear, and those get discussed, but by far the majority of the images that are removed do not have a fair-use rationale written down on the image description page - the number of cases which are broken rationales are very minimal. And that combined with numerous cases where there actually is no fair-use for the use of the image, with or without rationale. Sure, Delta or I will probably remove cases which are actually simple to resolve, and editors have been asked for three years now to do that, but a) most cases are not simple to resolve, b) they may be simple to resolve for Delta, they are even simpler to resolve for editors who are knowledgeable in the subject, and c) some are plain violations, they are not fair use. I will go on with the suggestion of the bot-notification below in regard to this. --Dirk Beetstra^{T C} 07:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  And yet, while the other party often changes, it's always Delta at the center of these, that's the problem. Since he wants to do this work, its incumbent upon him to be better at it than the other people. As much as I would expect someone who does NPP to be better at spotting issues than someone who has never done it at all, I would expect someone who spends so much time on NFCC to be better at it than the random editors he encounters over issues. Once again Delta is supposed to be taking the utmost care with his edits, and he's failing to do so. Yet, you want to reward that? If they both violated 3RR, block them both.However in this case I will note that Nightscream did provide further information stating exactly where the rationale was (and mistakingly reading it perhaps not realizing the page had been moved) while delta hammered away with the exact same edit message. The problem is not the difficult ones, if he can't handle the easy ones, what confidence do we have that he's going to handle the difficult ones? Despite his new edit summary, which I congratulated him on, he's taken absolutely no recommendations about his conduct from anyone who has asked him to cool it on hammering the revert button, that doesn't include just me. Others have also mentioned this in discussions as well. The edit summaries, the detection scripts, etc these are all still treating symptoms and not treating the problem.--Crossmr (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm, I do see that editors are more and more starting to issue personal attacks, and to continue and push those personal attacks aimed at Delta (and Delta is not the only one on the receiving end, I just started in this field, and I already have some personal attacks at my person as well). Note that there is NEVER a reason to issue personal attacks, or any form of uncivility - you can ALWAYS word your question or problem in a friendly way. This work apparently attracts that - people feel the need to yell. And maybe Delta is more often at the receiving end (and I wonder, if that is solely because of the work, or also as a result of his civility restriction, though I now have to take care not to assume bad faith on the people that yell at Delta). Here I do note, that though the number of people yelling at Delta is significantly bigger than the number of times that Delta yelled back (though I see cases where Delta was on the edge where there was no yelling at him).

  Regarding 'if he can't handle the easy ones, what confidence do we have that he's going to handle the difficult ones?' - the difficult ones are the ones that Delta can not solve, which should be solved by 'a specialist' anyway (and note, difficult ones are not the 'broken' rationales, but the ones which do not have, and never had a rationale) - it are the easy ones where both sides should come together. Most broken ones are (relatively) easy to solve, some are blatantly clear, but also there, there are some which are almost impossible to track. For many more difficult cases, well, WikiProjects have been notified, talkpage messages have been left, but nothing has been done, and I do not expect that anything will be done. Still, there are many difficult cases which do not have a proper rationale, or do not have a rationale at all (or for which a rationale can not even be constructed). Maybe we should try the 'remove the image for which, for whatever reason, the rationale is broken' (yes, fixing the rationales would be better, I've invited numerous editors already to look at this list and help out), and when it gets re-inserted, a bot should notify the editor that there is something (however obvious it maybe is) is wrong. See bot-discussion below.

  I will note something below regarding the Nightscream situation, I got just notified of a wonderful example. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  You're focusing on civility as the only problem here and it isn't the only problem, though using some interpretatinos of civility you could extend it to that. The relentless hammering of the revert button with no change in edit summary or anything else is about as cold and bot-like as you can get, and really isn't congenial to a community environment, and thus could be see as not very civilized. The problem is the disruption caused by his behaviour. Whether he's just lost it and finally yelled at someone, or simply making bad-faith accusations (like how he's more than once accused an editor of not reading what he wrote when they later stated they did), or whether he's coldly reverting someone until they snap in frustration, it's all down to him. We all end up facing a little uncivil behaviour now and then when we're engaged in disputes or depending on the work we do, it's how we handle it and what we're doing that makes the difference. This "I'm right! The End justifies the means" mentality just doesn't fly in a community. How many times can the community, or its members, say to him "Please don't do this!" and then have him turn around 2 days later and have another drama fest over the same behaviour and then do nothing? We've done it far too many times. I mentioned before that I'm getting extreme deja vu, and frankly it's getting frighteningly vivid and it isn't just Delta's behaviour that's giving it to me. At some point if you keep acting a certain way and people keeping blowing up at you, you have to turn around and ask yourself, should I change what I'm doing or how I do it?--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  Also the yelling of 'read what I say' was preceded by 'look, it is there' .. bad faith also there goes both ways. And (quite) some editors feel the need to yell immediately. Yes, he may be coldly reverting until the other snaps, but quite some snap at the first removal (and not only to Delta, I must add). And a little uncivil behaviour is .. 'fine' (I still think it is never necessary, but well), but if editors continue and continue, even after warnings .. and some of those right from the start. Well, as I say, even the first uncivil remark is not necessary.

  Sure, things have to change. But that is already true for 3-4 years. We have stuff that violates our policies. And sure, just like with a lot of violations of other policies, most of those are not a big issue, still work should be done to solve it. And many things were already tried. And does that now mean that maybe we should just leave violations stand? Any suggested solution gets shot down, and nothing gets done. Lets notify editors when they insert an image. You know what is going to happen, we get some editors who get 50 notifications from a bot that they used 50 different images on 50 different pages where they did not write a rationale. Those editors are going to yell at either the bot, the bot operator - but they still do not write the rationales. When their images get removed they yell even harder, and in the end the bot gets blocked for over-notifying editors. Wherever we go, people are not going to like that when they use a non-free image, that they have to write a rationale, even if that rationale is, strictly, superfluous if that image is fair-use. Or llets tag the images as lacking a fair-use rationale - well, that is going to be the same as {{cn}} tags, nothing will be done about it, it looks ugly in an infobox, so they get removed and not solved, and we end up at the same place. Notification on talkpages, similar - nothing is going to be done about it, the notifications erode, and go away. Notify WikiProjects - similar, nothing is done. The only thing that apparently works, is removing the images from display, and hope that they get solved (and most of them do get solved 'silently'). I am afraid you all have Delta at a loss here, he wants to help with something, he tries to help with something, but whatever he does, or however he does it, he finds opposition, there even is opposition before he can help - or he is removing a situation where something is wrong, but apparently, Delta should be the one who sees what exactly is wrong, not the one who is re-inserting the image. Does Delta, on re-insertion of an image, notify the editor that there is something wrong, and maybe the editor should have a second look? Like for the Nightscream case: "You included it on Breen (Star Trek), but I only see a rationale for Breen, which is not the same article. Maybe the rationale needs to be made more specifically?"? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, because Delta does it all the time. The individuals he interacts with may only have minor or likely no experience with NFCC. It isn't a race, but in the past it has often seemed like it's a race. No one has asked Delta to fix every image he touches, just the more obvious ones. If he's taking the time to check image placements and FURs as he is supposed to do (and not simply parsing is there a FUR box on the page that has this article name in it), he should as is humanly normal be able to pick up on common issues, especially with someone who apparently has all this experience. Though in a previous discussion Delta blamed his edit warring on the fact that he was working off diffs and didn't notice that an image hadn't been added to the page when he reverted it because he mis-read a diff instead of looking at a page. Given that statement, I have to wonder how it is that he's parsing all this information at the rate he's editing (I'm assuming nothing, I'm just wondering if his editing style is something causing him issues). Because honestly, anyone who looks at this should have spotted the error if they were aware that one existed. Delta assumed there was an error. If he looks at the FUR and sees "Breen" and looks at the article and sees "Breen (Star Trek)" as the article name, and the fact that the image doesn't appear on Breen, it really could not be anymore obvious unless someone was sitting there holding his hand. Perhaps one of the major issues, is the entire mentality surrounding NFCC. It seems that many involved feel as though it's an impending emergency that the images be removed as quickly as possible. I think it's incumbent on the people who work in NFCC to work with the community as a whole. Just as any part of the project has to. Instead of telling users to fix their FUR or have it removed, perhaps they instead should approach the users individually without a template and offer their assistance to help them fix their images if possible. Perhaps the real problem is that approaching people in disputes robotically does nothing to solve the situation. While it's convenient for them, it's not convenient for the project. Frankly a brighter more helpful image might go a long way towards recruiting people to help out with it. I'm sure some people who might want to help may stay away because of the stigma attached to NFCC work.--Crossmr (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  About the rate - it is often a matter of having a handful of windows open, and checking all the removals diffs for obvious mistakes - and then click save on all the windows. Even if I edit like that and save every diff after checking (and not first check 25 diffs, and then press save), I easily do 4-5 per minute if not more. And do note, there are only very, very few cases where the situation is as obvious as in the Nightscream case. We observe that Delta does this work often at or just above speed limit, it are numerous removals, still only a few are very obvious. Of the 100s of cases I have removed, I have now heard about one where it was a link to a disambiguation page in stead of the correct page, there is a bit higher rate on obvious typos, but still, I think that most of them do not have any article-specific rationale.

  I just did a check of 10 of my older removals: 1 had a rationale which went to a disambig (film poster, disambig contained a handful of movies .. semi-obvious as it was displayed on one of them), 1 has as a filename which suggests that it is the logo for the page it was displayed on (but there is no rationale at all on the image description page), for one I can synthesise that it is the icon for the subject (but again, there is no rationale at all), the other 7 do not have any specific rationale pointing to the use where they are. 5 of the 10 do not carry any fair-use rationale, and I would assess 3 of the uses not being fair-use at all (mainly ornamental use, they are fair use elsewhere). Moreover, one image is tagged as possibly replaceable (and I think that for the use for which fair-use is claimed it certainly is - though it is also 60 years old and therefore maybe not copyrighted anymore - hence tagged wrongly). All in all, a whole set of problems in one go - I maybe could/should have fixed one of them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  You didn't really address anything I said there of value, including the suggestion I made for NFCC, if you'd like I'll draft up something far more detailed that would actually benefit the community. The problem is is when they are that obvious and what happens as a result. Who knows how many more are actually obvious? Do you really want to hold up his editing history as evidence again? Last time that was done, I took a cursory look, noted several violations, which some people tried to excuse away, but in the very recent history we've seen several of these kinds of edit wars over clearly "questionable" NFCC issues.--Crossmr (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  I see that, Crossmr, and maybe you should have a look at the bot proposal. I would certainly value your input in the wording of any remarks left to users and on the talkpages suggesting to fix the FUR first. We could start with the cases that are now currently being added, and slowly eat away the backlog in one way or another. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  As noted before the section was removed, a bot won't help the situation at all, and I also said that above. But it doesn't really go towards solving the discussion we're having right now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  Oh isn't this interesting [29]. Someone noted this on Delta's talk page and I just noticed it. I wonder if this tool has anything to do with some of the more obvious mistakes Delta has made. I also noticed that Hammersoft's replies essentially stopped as soon as it was brought up too. Delta may be making his edits by pushing the buttons himself, but now I'm wondering if he's using automated tools to help him make parts of those edits, because honestly I have to wonder how anyone could miss some of these more obvious ones, and I thought it might only happen if someone wasn't actually looking at the page itself and just parsing a binary yes/no, which is exactly what this tool does. This may need its own section for discussion, because if he's making obvious mistakes and creating drama/disruption based on his reliance on a partially automated process, well that is certainly going to violate his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me? You're taking my supposed lack of continuing to post somewhere over some unspecified period of time as silent assent by me that your speculation about his actions are correct?!?!?! What? If you want evidence of a conspiracy, you need only dig long and hard enough and you will find evidence...whether there really is a conspiracy or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Masem's proposal to eliminate the rate restriction, retaining only the civility restriction. I see the same small group of editors dragging Δ into AN/I for violation of the rate throttle, while manifestly failing to demonstrate why the violations are such a dire threat, or in some cases, where they are any threat at all. (When the restriction was originally enacted, Betacommand was making a substantially higher number of problematic edits than he is now.) If the removal of the throttle reestablishes a higher error rate, I'm sure that the Δ lynch mob will be ready to pass out torches and pitchforks, and they'll also be ready for any civility violations. And FWIW, I'd take the original complainant more seriously if he logged in under his username rather than his IP address. It smacks of gaming the system or perhaps unwillingness to be held accountable for a vendetta. Horologium (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose That an editor has violated editing restrictions and others have reported him or her is not a reason to lift those restrictions. If people are tired of hearing about it then the solution is to ratchet up the restrictions or ban the editor violating them. ElKevbo (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose After this it is pretty clear that he prefers delete images that just have a minimal error than resolve the problems by himself. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Ive now removed that whole section for failing WP:NFG, (aka NFCC#8, #3) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to speak to the lack of communication. The edit summary said nothing, and the real question is why you think they fail #3 and #8. (I'd certainly question #3, and someone could debate #8). I've seen the process before - the images are removed because of a lack of a FUR, a FUR is added and they are reinserted by someone thinking they are doing right thing, then they get removed for failing something else, wasting everyone's time. If they didn't meet #3 and #8, why wasn't that made clear in the first place? - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because On my first look I was just checking for one thing does it have a rationale? If not remove it. Since Tbhotch brought it up I decided to take a second look at the issue and found the files failed other criteria. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a problem of one page, it is a common problem in your editing. You prefer to remove valid images with a poor rationale/summary instead of solve the problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File:Vaccines_WDYEFTV_cover.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=436738583 1] and 2. You prefer to waste other people time and delete valid images when you, by yourself, can fix the problems. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Restrictions are unnecessary - particularly the edit rate, which makes for excessive drama and trouble. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support NFCC work, like BLP work, is essential to Wikipedia. When Delta does good NFCC work, it is very valuable. I suggest to up-the-ante: remove all restrictions. Monitor Delta for a year: if there is one failure to attempt communication, ban him from direct NFCC work - he could develop scripts and give them to a user with better communicative skills to run. An "end justifies the means' attitude cannot survive in an open, cooperative environment like Wikipedia.

When one productive editor is lost due to entanglement with Delta, I question the net value of his work. jmcw (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, the case of Pdfpdf involved the use of a replaceable non-free image outside of mainspace - that combined with clearly showing that they did not understand the use of non-free material (something they actually said that they did not understand), and that they were in a particularly incivil way reacting on the removal of said non-free material, indeed made me, for the protection of the project, hand out an indefinite block on that account until the editor could convince an (independent) administrators that they would work further in line with that policy then indeed, the editor would be unblocked. And again, we seem to be here worried about the loss of one 'productive editor', while the loss of Delta (who, I think, is also a productive editor) is hardly taken into account. And if I may say, I am surprised that Delta is still here after a continuous string of personal attacks on his person. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I continue to believe that an indef block without trying to discuss what the editor was doing wrong was moving too quick. The first recourse when someone doesn't understand a policy should be to explain things, especially when they have already shown a willingness to admit when they were wrong. But I guess we've had this discussion. We should probably include Dapi89 ‎ as an editor who has retired in the last week after a run-in with Delta. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

'without trying to discuss', Bilby? That discussion could still take place, we have (user-)talkpages for a reason. Both had plenty of chance to stop and say that they don't understand what was wrong, and open themselves to discussion. Pdfpdf did nothing else than yell until he got blocked, Dapi89 similarly did not want to discuss (tossing in very mild incivility), but pushed an image which was, in that use, not fair-use. Not with, not without rationale. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, without trying to discuss. With Pdfpdf, he self-reverts, showing that he now understands what was meant by the policy. Using an very questionable edit summary. 20 hours later you block him for incivility. This is probably called for. An hour later that becomes indef for failure to understand the NFC policy, based on an edit seven months earlier [30], and another poor rationale that had subsequently been removed when Pdfpdf tagged the file for deletion himself. In the meantime there was no attempt to discuss anything between the 2 week block for incivility and the indef block for copyvio, using a block message in regard to disruptive editing and vandalism. Given the he had self-reverted and tagged the problematic file for deletion, and that the previous problem was 7 months old, why wasn't discussing first a consideration? I hadn't noticed how old the reason was that you used for the block until now, but I'm surprised to see that it was seven months old. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason was not 7 months old, that diff shows (and there are more diffs around that time, I did not bother to take them all) where Pdfpdf was told that images have to comply with WP:NFCC. Several months later, he uploads a replaceable image, and places it outside of mainspace, holds on that it should be there, then finally retracts that part and shows that the image was in fact replaceable. His request for deletion also does not show understanding of that, he asks for someone else to upload a copyrighted image - no, someone else should upload a free image. Does he show that he understand that images should not be replaceable? No, he clearly states later, that he does not understand NFCC. Hence, there is a significant risk that they will still upload images which are in violation of NFCC, and seen the later remarks, I do not expect that if he would be pointed to that, that they would not start trolling again. When shown wrong, he should have stopped trolling, which would have prevented the first block - and some understanding would have quickly lifted the indef. Note, I blocked another editor inbetween, and had a short discussion after that, which has quickly resulted in lifting the block. A bit of civility and understanding would have carried a long way with Pdfpdf - but that is not shown on Wiki before the block, not after the block, and also not off-wiki. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There is little risk. He was blocked for two weeks. What makes you feel that you couldn't have discussed the issue during that two weeks? Or that the problem would have continued during that period, given that he couldn't edit?

The whole process was a mess. In short, an editor who didn't understand the policy asked for an explanation as to why it was wrong, only the response by Delta was simply to point to a policy without explaining why. (Pdfpdf should have figured it out based on that, and did, but I agree he should have looked before reverting). He gets annoyed, writes some rather short edit summaries, then realises he is wrong, self-reverts and nominates the image for deletion before moving on to other edits. 20 hours later you turn up and block him for two weeks for personal attacks. And an hour later you notice a seven month old poor rationale, with presumably similar problems from back then, and indef block him as a disruptive editor. At which point he responds poorly to the block. I'm not really surprised about his response. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The risk is that they were continuing with these violations after the block expires. An indef block is to make sure that Wikipedia is protected from further damage until the editor can show that they understand what they were blocked for. Blocks are not punitative, blocks are to protect against further damage - and I still think, and Pdfpdf has said, that he does not understand NFC. To me, he still has not shown that he understands NFC (and I don't think he managed to convince other administrators either). And I do excuse one or maybe two angry or frustrated remarks (though I still think there is never need for that) - but not continuing after you figure out the other editor was right, or continuing after being warned to cool down. And note, the first block is not 20 hours after the last personal attacks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right - it was seven hours after the last comment personal attack. As to my main point - what did you think Pdfpdf could have done, while blocked for two weeks, that was so serious that you needed to indef in order to protect Wikipedia from an already blocked editor rather than trying to discuss the issue in the meantime? There was zero risk that he would cause any issues with NFC while already blocked for two weeks, and there was no attempt to discuss the issue with him first. You had the time to raise the issue first. You chose to jump straight to an indef block instead. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like it might need a community block review, and frankly, given Beetstra's very obvious position in this entire issue, I don't think he should be handing out indefinite blocks to anyone Delta has a dispute with. He could have the appearance of being WP:INVOLVED as a frequent advocate of Delta, he certainly hasn't only been acting in only an administrative capacity.--Crossmr (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh, Crossmr .. so, any administrator who is against Delta removing images is now involved, and can't block Delta (and obviously will not block anyone who is in an excessive way being uncivil against Delta), and anyone who supports Delta's actions will obviously not block Delta when Delta is abusing his editing privileges, and they obviously will not block anyone who is excessively uncivil against Delta. Note, Pdfpdf had all time to ask for an independent review on-wiki, and has also asked for independent review off-wiki. Several other editors/administrators have commented, but I still stand by my point that this is a block to protect Wikipedia from further NFC and NPA violations from Pdfpdf until Pdfpdf convinces us that that block is not needed anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any editor who is as involved as you are should refrain from taking any administrative action in relation to Delta and individuals in disputes with him, unless I'd say that the action they're taking contravenes their stance. If you were to block Delta or one of the others who are constantly on his side it obviously wouldn't look like you were using your powers to further your position. But blocking someone involved in a dispute with Delta who you vigorously and persistently defend in just about every discussion going on him? Yes, that has a clear appearance of being involved and an inappropriate block. I seem to recall last time around there being discussions over who was allowed to actually block Delta because of this kind of an issue. Yup, and so help me god if we aren't having the same discussion about him and overzelous application of NFCC policy Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_is_making_automated_edits, nearly 3 years later.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bilby - if I did something wrong, it is the following: In stead of sitting here for 10 minutes, looking at the string of personal attacks, looking if there are (independent) warnings looking at the blocking history of Pdfpdf, and looking if they were warned for that, I actually should have sat here for 20-25 minutes, and look further in the history - My overall conclusion would then have been: Pdfpdf repeatedly has issues with applying WP:NFC, and does so on multiple points (2 months ago, ornamental use / list, and using non-free material outside of mainspace, now, using a replaceable non-free image outside of mainspace without rationale), showing no improvement to getting the policy that he is using on a regular basis, and when he is pointed to the violations he is consistently issuing personal attacks (2 months ago calling it mildly, though incorrectly, vandalism, now using words like 'rude', 'lazy', 'arrogant', 'bad faith', and accusing another editor of 'whining', all right direct from the start, not first a 'normal' edit summary) at the editors removing the violations, and does so (in the last case) with a continuous string of personal attacks (even if I rate most of the attacks as 1-3 on a scale of 1-10, Pdfpdf easily passes 10 points .. - Pdfpdf was blocked for WP:NPA a year ago, they should know that something like that should not be pushed - note, the personal attacks by Pdfpdf were discussed on AN/I and the block was a result of that thread). In the meantime, 3 other editors (including Delta, 2 of them being an administrator) comment against Pdfpdf along the lines of 'Delta is right', 'Your accusations of Delta are wrong', and '. Seen that this situation occurs now, and 2 months ago, I do not see any improvement, these are plain violations of policies, and the editor does not show understanding about the whole of the policies, I would conclude that it is better that Pdfpdf would not edit until he can convince the community that he will try and follow our NFC policy (and certainly try not to violate it) and not to use continued incivility against editors. Hence, I would have blocked Pdfpdf indefinite immediately. And the only thing that Pdfpdf now has told us since the block, is that he indeed does not understand NFC, but I have not seen anything that he would try to follow the policies - I am (still) not in the least convinced that they would not continue after the 2 weeks would have passed.

Maybe I should stop digging further .. Pdfpdf's misunderstanding of NFC goes way further back than the one diff I linked. It becomes more obvious to me why he starts with yelling at Delta when Delta removes images on pages Pdfpdf is watching. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

None of which addresses my main concern. But this isn't the place for it. I'll see where we sit, and it may be worth taking Crossmr's advice and looking into this and other blocks separately. - Bilby (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose So because Betacommand is completely recalcitrant and incapable of editing without repeatedly violates his community sanctions, we should lift them? What? TotientDragooned (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting edit speed limit. The time the community has wasted in examining the countless bad faith reports from a handful of users who obviously want Delta banned outright is ridiculous. It's not the edit rate that is the problem. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting all the restrictions. He's been blocked for violations twice in the past month. Why should he be trusted to follow the rules now? He just doesn't get it. "Quite simple, I piss a lot of people off enforcing NFC because they do not like the message, and prefer to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I remove/tag for deletion a lot of files, and people want to see WP:NFC die a quick death. However with users like myself pushing enforcement, thats not possible". It is the manner in which he goes about his self-declared mission that is the problem, not the mission he's chosen to do. There seems to be little support remaining for the edits/minute restrictions, so I do not oppose its removal or increase in limits. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've been inactive for a while, but I recall when these restrictions were initially imposed. They should only be lifted if something has changed. My initial review seems to indicate that very little has changed. Betacommand still takes insufficient care with individual edits and uses automation to excess. NFCC warriors still love him and think he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. People who love photos and don't care about copyright still want him banned. Most editors just wish the drama would go away. Admittedly, my review was very surface-level. If someone could show me how Betacommand has changed his ways, I could change my opinion. But most of the supports I see here seem to either comment on the NFCC issues instead of Beta's issues or seem to argue that the restrictions were always wrong, which I certainly do not agree with. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have seen no indication that he either (a) knows what he's doing or (b) accepts that his earlier behaviour is wrong. Many of his issues - a lack of communication, for example - persist regardless of the sanctions. There's no reason to think he's somehow silently fixed those problems that the sanctions cover. I'd rather not let him out of his box given what happened last time. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, rather strongly. These restrictions were a result of years of drama surrounding ∆, over the same issues that are still going on today, and for which there is not enough evidence to show long-term improvement. If it took years to get the restrictions, it seems to me that we should consider lifting the restrictions only when ∆ has shown that he can edit under them for a similar period of time. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anyone cares about my views.... As noted above, the response to Δ violating a provision is to remove the provision? Not in any sensible environment. A separate discussion might be made as to whether it should be modified (50 in 10 minutes, or 80 in 20 minutes, rather than 40 in 10 minutes), but removing it is <redacted>. And there's no real claim he's been following the other provisions, just that we don't have proof he's violating them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's see him work within the sanctions for a while without getting into trouble. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments below. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per many above, and because part of the reason for throttling Δ's edits in this regard was because of, among other things, his error rate. I have little confidence that removing this restriction will result in anything but even more drama as his mistakes are likely to increase with his edit rate. That being said, if he goes over by one or two every once in a while, big deal. But overall, the point is to ensure Δ is paying more attention to his work, and given the continuing drama on that front, I don't see great value in lifting this sanction. Resolute 22:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The sanctions are pointless and just serve to get in the way of good work. Keep the civility sanctions if you wish, but the edit rate issue is just flat dumb. -- ۩ Mask 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose Delta NFCC notification bot

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement, opening statement left
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a certain view on NFCC that non-compliant uses (even merely technically non-compliant uses which are easily fixable and in no way a legal problem) need to be removed immediately, to the point of allowing a WP:3RR exemption for NFCC removal. That is the view of a minority, and it is the root of this entire long-running saga (which goes well beyond Delta, though he's at the centre of it). If we could just agree to give notice of impending removal, we'd have a lot less drama. A bot would be highly suitable for this, to leave a note on the talkpage about non-compliance. Editors can then follow up manually for NFCC uses not fixed a week later; it would be a WP:PROD-like system (and could probably use some of the same template/category tracking technology). Delta could operate such a bot, since it would be mere notification. Such notification would also serve to educate a lot more users on these issues; seeing an image unexpectedly removed from an article you're watching is really not a good time to be suddenly confronted with the intricacies of NFCC. Talk pages obviously also offer more space for an explanation than an edit summary does. Rd232 public talk 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose suspending Δ sanctions

This proposal is the same as proposed above, except that instead of lifting the sanctions, we lift it temporarily until September 1. Until that time, the sanctions are not valid and Δ will be treated like any other editor. Then on September 1, we discuss here if the sanctions can be lifted, should be reinstated, or if we should let the suspension stand and re-evaluate the situation again some time later. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Same reasons as above, in general, but with the added note that trying to discuss it as a fait accompli in a month two months is probably the second-quickest route to the shit hitting the fan wrt Delta (the first-quickest being just removing his restrictions and waving him on). Count Iblis, what's your reasoning for proposing this? Are you hoping Delta can show himself to be responsible when released, even though (I believe that) he hasn't even shown himself to be responsible when restrained? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - That's a fair alternative if proposal #1 fails entirely. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: The sanctions should be enforced, and more should be added Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - surely, if the sanctions are lifted temporarily then come the date they have to reinstated and then discussion would follow. At the moment your suggestion reads that the sanctions would be lifted, then on the 1st Sep discussion could start as to whether they would be reinstated. That said and personally speaking, the suggestion of a trial alleviation of the sanctions (or elements of the sanctions) to give Delta a chance to demonstrate their editing seems more constructive than a simple choice between retain or remove them entirely. On the one hand Delta may be able to convince the nay-sayers that they are a better editor than they have been credited. And on the other it might supply enough rope to hang them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  He hasn't convinced me, even when he's not violating his editing rate.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Come september, I expect we'll see another no-consensus discussion as we're starting to generate above, except that it'll be a no-consensus on reinstating the restrictions. It seems like this proposal will do little more than remove them entirely regardless of whether or not his editing has genuinely improved. Delta has plenty of opportunity to show us his editing and behaviour has improved within the confines of his current restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Delta's restrictions should be lifted when he's shown that they are no longer needed. I !voted for the easing of the sanctions to allow him to build and run the SPI bot. That worked well, and the next easing that came up I !voted in favor of as well, but this time around he's fallen back into his previous behavior, and that just cannot be the case if he wants the entire package to be lifted, even temporarily. I'd also prefer to have Delta himself make these requests, not his advocates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, and if anything there should be more restrictions on his actions. I've found Delta's actions to be highly questionable, and purposely distuptive, using the LETTER of the law over the spirit. For instance here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Optimus_Prime_(other_incarnations)&diff=435288571&oldid=435212494 someone merges content of two pages which were previously disambiguated. Delta swoops in and removes images based on lacking non-free rational, but the rational is simple worded with the other disambig page. It would seem to be less work to simply change the disambig of the rational to the new page, but he removed it. As I went in to fix the rationals, he continued to delete them as I tried to restore them to make the changes. He wasn't showing any common sense, merely beligerantly removing images. That's not helpful. Mathewignash (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Am I misreading that article history, or did two other editors remove (some of) the same non-free file uses before and after Delta's editing there? I say this because I think part of the problem in discussing Delta is treating things he does as unique when they're not. (Some of the things will be unique, but others not.) Also, would notification (with 7 days before removal) have helped in this case, do you think? Rd232 public ^talk 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Well there is a complicated page history there that needs further investigation (I don't have time right now, maybe tomorrow, but I will note that Delta nailed one of those images only 3 minutes after the rationale (which was right) was altered. Not sure why it was altered, but that is some very fast responsiveness.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as above. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal would change the status-quo and therefore lower the bar for the restrictions to be removed. As it stands now, a "no consensus" discussion on the merits of the restrictions will result in them staying in place. If this proposal passes, come September 1, a "no consensus" discussion on the restrictions will result in them being removed. I'm not inherently opposed to lifting the restrictions on a trial basis, but this is just seems like an attempt to game the system. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Question to opposers. What if we would agree now that no consensus on September 1 means that the restrictions will stay as they exist now? The whole exercise of temporarily lifting the sanctions is to see if his behavior without the sanctions is good enough for a consensus to arise to make some changes to the restrictions. Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, he's not behaving while under sanction, so we're supposed to lift the sanctions to see how he'll behave without them? How about he behaves well under these sanctions until some set date, and then the sanctions will be lifted? I could support that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two types of problems here. One has to do with Delta's behavior, the other is the lack of consensus on what to do. The latter is driven by a perception that some have here that the restrictions are counterproductive, leading to problems instead of preventing them. So, it's like doing a physics experiment where you see some effect, but then there is a discussion on whether that's a real effect or an artifact of the measurement apparatus that perhaps is not be functioning correctly. If there are heated discussions among the experimenters about this and no consensus can be reached, it may be best to re-assemble the apparatus and start all over again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors are not jars of copper sulphate. Resolving a problem whereby a user ignores his sanctions by lifting the sanctions sends out completely the wrong message to other sanctioned editors. We already have enough of a problem with treating each successive block of an inexperienced user as more sever but each one by a hardened veteran as less severe as it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please look above to a link to a Betacommand discussion from 2008. It's nearly identical to this one. Nearly 3 years later.. and it's the same discussion. The result of that discussion was an indefinite block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This makes absolutely not sense. His behaviour isn't good enough now. We've got drama, we've got edit wars, we've got users upset at him, how would letting him loose possibly improve that situation?--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, but would support August 1st. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons as I'm opposing a full removal of restrictions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, the sanctions are there for a reason. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks judgment, or simply refuses to exercise it, by being unable to deal with anything less than the absolutes he prefers and by being unable to edit in anything but a bot-like manner. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks the ability or willingness to collaborate or even communicate with any editor who doesn't already agree with him. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he wants only to "fix" NFC problems in the quickest way for him, regardless of whether the problem is easily fixable, such as by correcting a moved title in a NFUR as many have noted before. His approach is often the equivalent of deleting any text sentence that contains typos rather than copyediting it, because hey, it's not his job to fix things. Speeding him up obviously would just multiply the collateral damage.

  Fundamentally, I don't think he should be handling NFC at all, or any policy administration for that matter, because he has demonstrated a rigid, authoritarian approach that is completely at odds with the spirit of Wikipedia and corrosive to consensus. And exercising his will in that way is apparently his only interest in participating here, which raises a big red flag for me. Rather than work with editors to come to an understanding where there is disagreement or simply take the time to explain things, he considers himself a "policy enforcer" rather than a volunteer contributor as we all are. Such an approach is not in the best interest of the project, is not constructive, and is not competent. And it only increases animosity towards NFC to have him as its mute, bot-like zealot. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  • More forcefully stated than I would perhaps have done, but this is indeed the truth of the matter.

    Delta's work on the SPI bot seems to have been drama-free, presumably because he was only dealing with a small number of CUs, clerks and other admins, not with rank-and-file editors. It is those interactions in which Delta's behavioral problems come to the fore. Much to-do has been made in this section about "some editors" wanting to "ban" Delta from the site, but I don't want to ban him, I just want him to control his behavior.

    A reasonable compromise would be to bar him from doing automated or semi-automated policy enforcement which brings him into contact with a large number of editors, and increases the chance of problems occuring, which would leave him free to do... everything else that goes into building an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I think Postdlf has hit the nail on the head: Delta only seems to want to do the things that he's good at doing from a technical standpoint, but very, very bad at doing from the standpoint of interacting with other editors. Those are the horns of this particular dilemma, and no one really seems to be able to find a solution to that paradox. We could begin by finding other tasks like the SPI bot for him to do: stuff that's useful, makes good use of his talents, and yet keeps him out of range of the hoi polloi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any reduction in sanctions - editor waffles from an addition to a detriment to the project. I do not support banning, but continued close monitoring and increasing blocks and sanctions. Until behavior improves (fixing easy problems rather than deletion, and polite responses to questions from ignorant newbies and others) sanctions MUST remain. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I just took a gander at his edit count and within a week he has 3,000 edits, all doing the same thing...removing non-free images from every article. He's starting at A and working his way through the categories listings. He had 1000 edits over the past 24 hours. It might take the average editor months to get 1000 edits. He's racking up about 125 edits each hour he's on Wikipedia. At some point it just becomes disruptive to the projects. I mean, when it comes to non-free images being overused I'm right there ready to remove them (and I'm not saying that some of his edits are not good for the pages), but the level of removal that he is going for seems more like intentional disruption than good faith editing. This, to me, appears to be more like someone who is taking the letter of the law that we have established and turning it against us. Removing a non-free image because it links to the wrong page (by "wrong page" I mean it still links to its original page before it was moved), hardly seems like a real reason to remove an image. I think someone needs to start enforcing these sanctions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we request a stop

Pending consensus on whether Delta's entitled to embark on this latest mass deletion effort? He's made at least 720 edits in the last 12 hours[31] and judging from a sample size of one that showed up on my watch list[32][33] (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[34], edit warring,[35] and being generally unhelpful and unfriendly[36] over image rationales with obvious flaws that should have just been fixed.[37] Moreover, nearly all of the images he's removing are perfectly valid uses here but simply have flaws or missing information in their use rationale templates, a technical shortcoming that deserves a technical fix. This is nearly the exact scenario that played out a few years ago all over the encyclopedia and that led indirectly to his current restrictions. Whether it's a bot, or cut and paste, one edit a minute or ten, mass edits + poor judgment + lack of communication = damage to the encyclopedia. Could we at least ask Delta to stop until we see if he has consensus, and perhaps steer him in a more productive direction for fixing these image rationales? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree here. While I fully admit that I did not understand the rules of NFCC, and that he was correct, Delta gave me two templated edit summaries and a warning when I undid him once. There was nothing helpful there, and we didn't sort it out until he actually started talking to me. See here. Him racing through all these images is disruptive as for most of them, the images will disappear forever, and the minimum of work needed to fix the issues will not be done in the name of "It must be removed now!". Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, please, please - I'm finding a goodly number of these are the result of page moves where the backlink wasn't updated. It would be just as simple to create a bot to fix these non-updated backlinks rather than undo the work of thousands of people who took the time to upload the images, put (at that time) valid backlinks in the FuR's, only to have their work undone because of a page move. I have worked regularly to fix these, but there is no way that the few people that work on images can deal with the massive backlog that this has created. Perhaps a limited # a day unti the backlog is dealt with, but this is not the answer. Skier Dude (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The accusations of a high error rate are unfounded. Δ didn't remove an image that was tagged as free license or PD Wikidemon, and you know it. You criticize Δ for removing it because it should be marked as PD. Yet, you didn't raise a single finger to the people who experienced editor who uploaded the image and tagged it improperly (Connormah) and you didn't leave a complaint with Sfan00 IMG who subsequently touched the image. Why not? Why do you find it so easy to criticize Δ for making an error, but you can't be bothered to find fault with two experienced editors who committed an error? Why? Of course, it gets better. You accuse him of being rude because he's violating DTTR which ISN'T POLICY. It's an ESSAY. Got it? ESSAY. How about I accuse you of violating template the regulars. Afterall, it is an essay too and is every bit as valid as DTTR. You accuse him of using an automated tool because of this article history? Where in that is ANY evidence he's using an automated tool? Maybe you baselessly accuse me of using an automated tool [38][39][40]. 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)

Propose topic ban

Due to ongoing activity which, while clearly in good faith, has raised significant objections and tension, and can be done without as much drama and lower error rates by other users ...

Proposed for community consideration:

Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals. This does not apply to policy discussions or development.

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • For informational purposes: Block logs of Delta [41] and Beta [42]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No, for blacklisting and smearing purposes. Can an editor ever put their past behind them or not? Or is this a permanent stain on him that he can never get past, no matter how proper his edits? Unreal. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • If the editor never changes his behaviour? No. No he can't. Can anyone ever disagree with Delta without being insulted, accused of bad faith, etc? Unreal. Absolutely unreal.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, it just happened to me again. I get notice from delta about him removing my image from the page Fireflight (Transformers) because it lacks a fair use rational for that page. I look at it seems someone had moved the page from it's original Fireflight to Fireflight (Transformers), but hadn't update the fair use rational to the new spelling of the page. So Delta removes the image and posted a notice to me about my lack of a fair use rational. He could have EASILY seen that there was a perfect rational already written with the old page named before the move and fixed it, or even notified me to make the fix, but no.... he removes the image. Delta is not helping himself with his continued actions. I believe the answer to out problem is to topic ban him and see he he can focus his energies elsewhere for a while, and we will learn by his actions in other places of Wikipedia if he's trying to be helpful or just wants to start trouble. Mathewignash (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  So you are saying we should ignore WP:NFCC#10c? which is a key part of our non-free content policy? Oh and we can do without the insults and personal attacks. I am not harassing nor am I even tagging things for deletion. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • No one said to IGNORE NCCC#10c, which says the fair use rational must mention the name of the article. I am saying you are making the wrong choice by removing the image over fixing the name when you could easily update the name. Removing a CORRECT picture from an article on a technicality when you could easily fix it's rational is reducing the quailty of wikipedia articles, not improving them. Doing it over and over to the point of annoying editors is disruptive. So I endorce topic banning you from something you do that reduces article quality and disrupts wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

    Acting in my capacity as an administrator, I have left a warning for Delta reminding him that his restriction requires him to carefully examine every edit. A careful editor would indeed be expected to notice what is going on with Fireflight and Fireflight (Transformers); it is obvious that Delta did not examine what was going on before making that edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and please change the biased wording. My removals are 100% correct and 100% according to policy. The drama factor will be the same regardless of who does it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • But just because you are correct doesn't mean you are right. I appreciate the information you gave me at your talk, but you simply can't remove thousands of images and point to the same place with no effort to actually fix the wrongs. Instead of just tagging and removing, why not actually fix the individual articles and images? Support topic ban, with hopes that Delta understands that I bear him absolutely no ill will because of our recent clash. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This has been an ongoing issue that hasnt been fixed, WP:NFCC states Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof thus the burden to ensure files meet policy is on those who want to use it not me. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • So to be clear, you are telling us that you are "seeking to remove or delete" all these images, rather than to make sure they are policy compliant? Thparkth (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
        • My goal is to remove non-compliant files, get those users involved in the article to take a look see if the problems are fixable and fix them if they are. There was a case today with Blue Harvest (Family Guy) that was a complete cluster fuck. I did a removal for a 10c violation and was reverted, I took a quick look and discovered a can of worms that took 20+ minutes to straighten out. (involved two almost dupliate articles on the exact same TV episode). Someone who is active in that area could have solved the issue in less than 3 minutes. Quite often it is difficult for those not involved in an article to write a valid rationale (No just a generic copy/paste rationale) with normally quite a bit of research (20+ minutes per file normally) while those who are familiar with the topic can typically do it in less than 5. It is far far easier to get others who know the subject to fix the issues than it is for an outsider, it also then familiarizes them with NFCC, and hopefully reduces the over all issues with lacking rationales due to them actively checking and fixing issues of their own. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
          • My goal is to remove non-compliant files which is entirely the wrong goal and the entire problem with the mentality surrounding this. Your goal should be to improve the project and the articles within. In doing so you might remove some files, but in reality you should be trying to ensure that each article has the appropriate images in it in the right way, even if that includes fair use images. A blanket goal of simply removing non-compliant files damages the project as you're potentially damaging articles by removing images that should otherwise be there for the readers understanding because someone made a mistake, and doing so in a way that cause disruption, drama, and drives users from the project. If this is truly your goal then this proposal is right on track. You might be able to cherry pick a few examples where you've actually done something to help an article, but the reality is, you've found yourself edit warring over typos and page moves several times in the very recent past rather than fixing them. All the Blue Harvest's in the world don't really make up for that kind of behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)This has nothing whatsoever to do with burden of proof, since that refers to whether or not you are correct. I never said you weren't correct (note the section right above this), only that there is no way to remove hundreds of images with no ill effects. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, they are not. Policy on supports the repeated removal of NFCC images that are unquestionable cases. rationales broken by page moves, or types are questionable and your repeatedly hammering the revert button on those is not support by policy. The policy actually suggests you kick those off to a noticeboard for discussion, you know like many other people have suggested to you.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support for now at least. Any action on this scale needs careful planning and discussion. Even if done in an entirely error-free and policy-compliant manner, it still has a significant negative impact on the morale of thousands of good-faith and valued content editors. That needs to be managed somehow. Δ's inflexible mechanical approach is currently causing too much collateral damage. Δ should not proceed with this until he has the confidence of the community. (I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to gain that confidence though, after some discussion, and although there are philosophical differences between us, I do see his work in this area as valuable.) Thparkth (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support at an absolute minimum. At this point it's WP:COMPETENCE issues, pure and simple. Beta has demonstrated an ability to code rudimentary bots. That's great. Unfortunately, he has not demonstrated an ability to bug-check these bots. He has not demonstrated an ability to keep tabs on the bots and swiftly fix issues they create. He has not demonstrated an ability to communicate in a timely manner. He has not demonstrated an ability to communicate in a civil manner. His automated edits create just as many problems as they solve, and his constant sledgehammer approach to virtually all aspects of his Wikipedia presence creates massive ill-will. In his absence, a replacement will spring up. The project will not die without his efforts. Badger Drink (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• So who replaced the missing rationale tagging bot that I ran three years ago... Wait no one. Your logic is faulty. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will survive if you focus your energies on something besides image removal. Perhaps you could do something like ADD MISSING or FIX EXISTING rationals for images instead of removing the images? I'd find that very helpful. Mathewignash (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for obvious reasons. What's the point of this? Consensus to topic ban Delta will likely never happen. He is important to Wikipedia and those familiar with NFCC rules know this, he will also have dozens of uninvolved editors like myself who support his work. Your only chance of getting him topic banned will be somewhere else, but certainly not on ANI. N^oformation ^Talk 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • For information - Beta/Delta has been indefinitely blocked both by community, admins, and Arbcom at times in the past. He's come back successfully from those more than any other user, but he certainly can be and has been strongly sanctioned in various ways. He is currently under another community sanction ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions ) that may have been violated in various ways in the current instance, though I am not going to action anything under that. He has been blocked for violations of that recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - At a minimum, this will allow the dust to clear, so that everyone can approach this problem with an eye to a solution that accomodates everyone's needs, including Delta's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Change the NFCC policy if you don't want it enforced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No change is proposed in the policy. Enforcement can continue to be done by any other user, who hopefully can do so in a less community-ire-raising manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per my earlier comments, and as the proposer stated, quite succinctly and correctly, that whatever Delta does "can be done without as much drama and lower error rates by other users." That's hard to dispute. I have no faith in that changing, and it is a waste of time to keep dealing with it.

  BTW, this isn't a referendum on NFC policy, but rather on what one editor does in its name, and how he seems to care about no other aspect of Wikipedia content or policy. I think it's quite shameful actually that he repeatedly invokes the importance of NFC policy to excuse his unwillingness to observe the other standards and goals that guide us here. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Eagles 24/7. To single out an editor who is within policy, and attempt to ban them is ...<not sure of what word to use that wouldn't get close to the wp:civ thing>. What you are suggesting is that we "ban" someone who is trying to bring things into compliance, .. because a lot of editors are fighting to keep things out of compliance. That makes it pretty easy for me to oppose that type of "solution". Sorry. — Ched :  ?  02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  He's not always within policy, policy only allows you to edit war over NFCC that are unquestionable cases, several of Delta's edit wars have been over questionable cases.--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Lots of other people enforce NFCC issues and FUR issues. Beta consistently does so in manners that generate community uproar and outrage, both about his behavior and about the policy. Beta's response to the ANI threads above was to increase automated edits and engage in several new edit wars, rather than calm the situation down. I don't know how this can be defended as being "within policy". The NFCC issue is not the only policy in play. Compare and contrast COPYVIO issues and Moonriddengirl's excellent, non-abusive, consensus-building responses with Beta's NFCC/FUR actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a clear case of people not liking the message, so going after the messanger. People have gone after Delta, Damiens, Future Perfect, pretty much anyone that dosen't allow people to do whatever the heck they want with images, even when it breaks policy, get targeted for this. You should all be ashamed of your downright pathetic, bad faith, and at this point not at all concealed campaign to change policy by axing anyone that enforces it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, this is a case of not liking how the messenger does things. The message is fine, NFCC images need rationales, bludgeoning newbies with templates, static unchanging edit summaries, and causing seasoned editors to quit is not the message of NFCC.--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Of course, no conversation would be complete without you Crossmr. I expected no less. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  I've clarified my position on this matter at my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nor would it be complete without your insults and assumptions of bad faith. It's utterly amazing that you can watch Delta annoy so much of the community and yet think it's me that has some kind of nefarious purpose by stating my opinion on his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As usual, the only defence for Delta's behaviour is "but NFCC is really important!". The importance of NFCC does not excuse behaviour. Whether or not his actions are technically within policy is irrelevant, as the collateral damage and drama he is causing as a result of his bullheaded, mindless push forward is not benefitting the project. I would be happy to reverse this support if Delta undertakes to slow down on his tagging, and seek better ways to get his message out, i.e.: along the lines of our brief discussion here. Resolute 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  I could have said bot up and running within 3 hours, but the headache and hoops that I would need to go through would make the process take 6 months. If you can avoid that hassle I could have it operating ASAP with advanced notifications. (Not that I that it is effective in my opinion). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  The hoops are there with good reason, alas. I am happy to help you in any fashion I can to expedite such a request, as I think the underlying truth of the matter is that we need a better way of dealing with NFCC removals far more than we need to remove you from the task. However, no harm will come to Wikipedia if you take a small step back from this and help work out other potential delivery messages. Hell, I doubt you need to run a bot to determine which WikiProjects have the highest numbers of quesitonable images. Leaving messages at those project pages could have benefits. And if not, making the effort should help you gain credit when you resume tagging images that aren't addressed. As you said above, it takes you 20 minutes on some images, but knowledgable editors can do it in a quarter of the time - well, one or two people might be watchiing an article talk page, but dozens could be watching a project talk page. Look for ways to spread your concerns to the most people, and you might start to bring in editors willing to help. Or continue as you have, and well... Resolute 03:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  If you can get me a list of projects and a relatively easy way to get all associated articles with them, it would be trivial to run reports. But getting the logistics together for something like that would require assistance. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, you already have a script that matches a bad image to its article. Could you not then have your script check the talk page of that article for project banners? I don't know the technical side of it, but DASHBot has a task that matches uBLPs to projects. You'd probably have to collate it somewhat manually, but at least as a trial involving a few projects, noting the risk of image removal/deletion, hopefully would yield some results. Resolute 03:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, This previous ruling combined with the ongoing behavior pretty much assures that if a topic ban isn't imposed here it will be imposed by the committee later. Dealing with this again and again is itself disruptive, as evidenced by the comment directly above this one where Sven Manguard insultingly accuses all who support stopping the continued misbehavior of bad faith. Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It has come to my attention that at least some of the images Delta is editing have issues that are obvious to any careful editor: the image was uploaded with a valid rationale but the name of the article has changed. For example Delta removed File:Tiger Mascot.JPG from Elmwood Park High School (Illinois). The FUR on that image referred to Elmwood Park High School. That latter article was moved to Elmwood Park High School (Illinois) to make a dab page. It is hard for me to believe that Delta is following the requirement of his edit restriction that he must carefully and manually examine every edit. What sort of careful editor would not notice the FUR pointing to Elmwood Park High School and the use on Elmwood Park High School (Illinois) (both of which are visible on the file page) and check the move log? I have come across at least two other flawed edits of this sort by Delta from the past 24 hours. It is true that careful editing takes longer, but it is what Delta is required to do by his restriction. If he is unwilling to carefully look at the pages he edits, despite the restriction, a topic ban may indeed be necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm agaisnt what Triangle/Delta wants. Because he is being selective in what he says. He does not explain to users who add these images, the fair use, He fobs them off with a warning, then backs it up with the patronising template on his user talk. If I were a new user - or one who was not familiar with the policy or fair use choices.. it would put me off. Hammersoft also wades in if anyone questions him. Who is in cahoots here? I've seen familiar happening in previous discussions, they stick together like glue, even though 13 overs 6 editors agreed with the past non-free images proposals. I think this mass removal game is unfair if the editor cannot be bothered to give fair explanations or offer users a chance to rectify their mistakes. Seems to me like one mission to rid all non free media with no questions asked.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support This disruptive behaviour has been going on for years. In fact I pointed above to a conversation we had nearly 3 years ago which is essentially the same as this one. The reason we're talking about banning Delta and not any other user is because no other NFCC user has generated the kind of disruption that Delta has generated and it's purely down to his behaviour. If any other NFCC worker starts to generate that same kind of disruption then they could expect to find themselves the subject of the same kind of discussion I'm sure.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support As GWH points out above, there are much better ways to handle NFCC/copyvio problems than the ones Delta uses. CBM's Elmwood Park example is fairly typical of the problems here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's all very well saying "oh there are better ways to do this" but the problem is that no-one actually will. I bet you won't see any of the supporters actually lifting a finger to do it... Black Kite (t) (c) 06:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • So.. just for clarification here, your logic on opposing this is "Because no one does anything better" we can let him carry on his disruptive merry way? Wow. Just wow, you then combine that with an assumption of bad faith. How about the fact that several other people do this work and don't seem to generate a tenth of the noise he does. That should be evidence enough that there is a better way to do it and it is being done right now.--Crossmr (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a false dichotomy. Anyway, it's trivial to see how it could be done better: simply take what he's doing right now, and then remove the robotic lack of common sense or respect for the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Not at all - we've previous evidence of NF enforcement dropping off when Beta is stopped from doing it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Nobody is denying that he does a lot of work. The problem is that he is incapable of doing it without intimidating contributors, inconveniencing regular FUR cleanuppers, and causing a metric ton of drama. Nobody is irreplaceable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• NFCC is very important to me. I'd be happy having no non-free content at all. But that's not the community's position, and a semi-mindless drive to enforce NFCC by deleting anything which isn't strictly compliant with what is evidently very little regard to fixing mostly-valid cases is disruptive, plain and simple. Whether or not he's technically operating within policy is irrelevant: what with NFCC being largely a community policy rather than something forced upon us by the law, it is compliance with community which is expected first and not compliance with policy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. These pages do not comply with policy. Work towards a solution in stead of removing a symptom. By all means, help Delta in making sure that removals are not necessary, set up a system where images are tagged, restart a bot tagging the images, and do work towards fixing the problems. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Delta is not the symptom, he is the problem. His behaviour has been going on for years. No one else generates the noise he does over this, and you simply cannot deny that. Tagging images is not the solution, even those on the side of Delta have said that already. The proposal is not over his removals, this is nothing more than a strawman. The proposal is over his behaviour and how he does the removals. The ends do not justify the means here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  So, how is banning Delta going to get the pages their FURs? Not to speak about all the images which are used, but where the use is certainly not Fair-use, but a plain violation. Oh wait, it is the presumed 'Delta does not communicate in a decent way' - Well, there are two very decent threads on his talkpage where a question was asked, and where Delta nicely and in a civil way explains. But editors only see the cases where Delta does not give the answer they want, or Delta does not give an answer that they understand. What about proposals that actually fix the problem - getting editors to fix the FURs in a proper way, remove the other violations, and informing/teaching new users when they use non-free material that they should then also add a FUR. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, but it stops the disruption that he is causing. That is the point of this proposal. Stop trying to make it into something it isn't. If you can't actually defend Delta's behaviour on its own merit rather than trying to tangent off onto an issue that really has nothing to do with what we're discussing, then that really should tell you something. In fact every single oppose breaks down to the same irrelevant argument. Trying to make it about NFCC when really, that is not the main problem. The discussion is about Delta and his behaviour, that's it. While many would prefer him entirely gone, I'll settle for having him removed from his most disruptive area right now and see how that goes, but if you want to solve the NFCC issue, go out and FIX it instead of wasting time defending someone who has been disrupting this encyclopedia in the exact same way for years on end. Because, that is exactly what I'm doing right now: [43], [44], [45], [46], plus many more. This is exactly how you fix the issue right there. Let me tell, I just opened up [47] and started going through it and in all but one of the articles I chose from the first bit, my untrained NFCC eye was able to spot the problem before I even went to the article, and you're telling me Delta has no way of knowing what he's supposed to do? Please. There is a whole big list there, we've got plenty of work to do.--Crossmr (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  The proposed topic ban is 'Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals.' - Now, it does not specifically say it, but 'topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity' also suggests that he is not allowed to fix fair-use where he can, and the rest suggests that he is not allowed to remove images for which no fair-use rationale can be created. As Delta says 'teach a man how to fish, and he has food for a lifetime', adapt this ban-proposal to something else, and help Delta to fix the rationales. That is what has been suggested (by Delta, and others) for years now, but that never took a hold, and until very recently no collaborative effort in order to solve the problem has been performed. Even my suggestion to notify users who insert a non-free image but where the image does not have a FUR (some time after the edit) gets shot down. The only thing left, indeed, is that there will come a collaborative effort to actually fix them.

  I do appreciate that you are helping out - it is something that many users should have done already for a long time, and that would maybe have encouraged Delta and others to do the same (and I think that is what Delta has been suggesting as well) - even if it is not required from you or Delta or anyone else. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nothing stops Delta from going out and doing that on his own. In fact it's been mentioned to him for years. This is exactly the point. It's proposed he be banned from the process because he can't seemingly work within it without causing extreme disruption. Disruption that has gone on for years. He's had so many chances to turn his behaviour around it's absolutely ridiculous. At any point he could have started trying to fix rationales rather than hammering the revert button. People keep trying to make it seem like Delta has no choice but to do what he does, but he has had choice and continually chosen the wrong one. There have been several users collaborating on it, it's very easy to see who they are because they repeatedly show up to defend him in every discussion. Yet at no time did anyone in that group seem to try to guide him towards this, yet they've repeatedly defended his every edit. If anyone who defends delta wants things to change, then they have to actually change. Which means Delta needs to be out of the process. While he recently updated his edit summary, he then went through and caused disruption again with his plowing ahead regardless of on-going discussions, or anything else. In fact some of the ones I went to fix, I noted Delta had already been through and had a go at just blindly removing the image, an image that I could spot the problem with from orbit with my eyes closed. If you want things to change then you should support his removal from the process because the process that needs to happen really can't have him as a part of it. He's shown that over the years that he's not really interested in that kind of thing. He's stated above his goal is to remove non-compliant images. His goal isn't to improve articles, his goal isn't to improve the project, it's to remove non-compliant images, and it shows in his editing style. Last time around I near begged him to kick dispute images off to the noticeboard and he turned around and did it again and again.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  We'll stay on opposite sites here, Crossmr. Ever so often it has been asked to solve the problem, to bring everything in line with policy, and every time people don't help. If editors 3 years ago would have made sure that there were mechanisms available to solve the problem, and if editors would have been responsive to fixing the problems when they were pointed out to them, then we would not even be here, Delta would be jobless. I can agree that deleting them all from display is not a solution, but all other solutions just run into a situation that nothing is happening (and the problem only grows bigger and bigger). And that is exactly what will happen if you ban Delta from NFC work, two weeks after the start of the ban, nothing will happen anymore, everyone will forget NFC. But well, I think that is my biggest frustration on Wikipedia anyway, and this is just another example of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  And in the end, Crossmr, we both want the same thing. I am willing to help with solutions to make the problem gradually smaller, I am willing to help repairing rationales, I am willing to help in detection systems for finding those which are likely a 'problem' (like Delta is generating that list that you now use), I am also willing to help to find a way to 'teach'/notify new users that they are using non-free material and that they should be having a look if the rationale is OK. I am sure, that if there is a collaborative effort to actually help Delta, that then also Delta is then also willing to cooperate. But until very, very lately, I have not seen any such effort (and forgive me, but I am skeptic if it will last). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  If you are able to do all of the above, then I fail to see why we should not expect the same from others working on NFCC. Furthermore, I find the assertion that Delta is solely responsible for upholding NFCC to be severely disparaging of the rest of the community. Do you know how many times people have argued that such-and-such an editor is so indispensable that removing said editor would cause the sky to fall down? How many times has it been true so far? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, we both want the same thing, but Delta doesn't. We both want to improve the project, he wants to remove non-compliant images. Delta needs no special mechanisms to fix the problem. What special mechanisms did I use to do what I just did? Nothing. The reason so few people get involved with NFCC right now is because it's toxic and as long as Delta stays involved with it, and the group of editors who defend him to the death continue to do so, it will stay toxic. Run NFCC as a friendly, helpful process and you'll have no end to the amount of users who will get involved in it and help out. Continue to run it as it is and eventually the whole thing will come crashing down. Your first message to a user over an NFCC issue should never include the word "block" or even a warning sign. Have a look at the messages I just left those users (both for people using images and people who moved pages, which was most of the problems) and you'll get an idea what the message should look like. NFCC has been built up to be some kind of scary minefield and it's perpetuated every time Delta goes out and works in it. Delta has known of the problems with his editing for years, and it's time for the community to stop coddling him. If we have to have a collaborative effort to keep one single user, it's not the community's problem, it's a problem with the editor. All you're really doing is making a stronger argument for why Delta shouldn't be here. Not why we should keep him. Immediately overhaul NFCC, start manually checking images, because honestly it looks like some people are not actually looking at the images they're removing. There is no other way to say it, but it honestly seems that Delta may be using a tool that tells him if an image is compliant without actually visiting the page to inspect it himself which is why he's missing these ridiculously obvious ones. Stop templating users, start writing individual messages, and things will improve. But they simply cannot improve in the current environment that they're in, and honestly that may mean that some current NFCC workers may also have to move on to other work if their main goal is the same as Delta's in that they just want to remove non-compliant images.--Crossmr (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thumperward - I would never say that anyone is dispensable - every single user is useful.

  Crossmr - you used the list provided by Delta. That list is already there for some time. And I still say, if editors would set out to help Delta solving the problem in other ways, then he would be willing to help (there are enough questions on Delta's talkpage and in his archives where he is asked why a rationale is broken, and he gives an answer). And no, I do not think we need a collaborative effort to keep one user, we need a collaborative effort to get something up to policy, and not just let it get further down, because whatever you say, up till a couple of weeks ago, there was exactly one user who actually cared about NFC, and thousands of editors who (for whatever reason) made the situation worse. And if that collaborative effort has as a side effect that we keep yet another user, then, IMHO, that is just another gain. We are collaboratively writing an encyclopedia here, and getting everything in line with WP:NFC is also a part of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  And I don't believe that Delta does not want to get everything in line with WP:NFC. If his goal is to remove images, then he would also remove images which are having a valid FUR. If there are other ways, then by all means - show him. But I predict, in 2-3 weeks time, everything is back to the old, no-one cares anymore, and nothing is going to happen. And then it is back to those very, very few who actually care. We've been there before, so much for collaborative effort to get this 'pedia up to policy standards. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  He didn't say he wanted to remove all images, he said he wanted to remove all non-compliant images which is exactly what he's doing in a robotic manner. You said above If editors 3 years ago would have made sure that there were mechanisms available to solve the problem. Delta provided that tool, no one else. Delta could have provided it 3 years ago (I have no idea when he created it), but once again you dance around the issue of Delta editing without actually looking at the page. Considering how many times I've seen that danced around so far, I'm beginning to suspect that that is exactly what is happening. To be honest I don't think Delta does care about NFCC, he cares about removing non-compliant images as if it's a race, and be damned the collateral damage. The problem is, that regardless of foundation directives, NFCC is not the only part of this encyclopedia. Delta has made trivial effort over the years to stay here, and it's only been his vocal cheerleaders who have kept him here. The conversation here with you is exactly the same as it has been since this has started. You're desperately trying to make this about something else other than Delta, but it is him and has always been him. It's not NFCC (though it needs improvement), it's not all the other users on the project, it is Delta plain and simple. He's had over 9000 last chances, and frankly it's enough. In the end, no one forces him to act the way he does, the project carries on without him, and he is ultimately responsible for his behaviour. He's essentially refused to make anything but the most trivial changes, heck he was blocked within 24 hours after having his indef block lifted in 2009 for violating his restrictions. The ones he'd just super duper with a cherry on top promised to follow. He's continually violated his restrictions, excessively so over the last 2 months and yet we get no end to the same group of people showing up to try and excuse away every single violation. The community has already done this for years, and in fact there has been once or twice where an admin has said they're willing to go through and block every single one of his defenders for wasting the community's time with this, and honestly that is all it is. A waste. With all the time the community has spent in dealing with him, all the users he's chased away, it is a giant waste of time, and no matter what good you think he does, it's grossly out-weight by his disruption and damage.The community doesn't need to spend one ounce of effort on keeping him because it is on him at this point, and he's utterly failed at finding anyway to effectively integrate himself with it. Perhaps if those who spent all this time singing his praises actually did something to straighten him out rather then let him carry on as he does, this discussion would have been done years ago.--Crossmr (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  I've wasted enough time on this. I'll just add this one as another example of a massive, collaborative failure of Wikipedia, and move on to other tasks. You (pl.) are setting a pathetic example. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Please don't give up. There's a lot of pessimism about being able to handle this topic better, but more and better tools should help, and we should be able to learn from past mistakes; and I think you're on the right path with your suggestions at the NFCC RFC. Rd232 public ^talk 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, Rd232. See my alternative 'ban' below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Have no problem with his desire to want to resolve FUR image problems on WP, but the modus operandi is just wrong. Any editor can fix any problem on Wikipedia by just deleting it. The whole point of collaborative community editing is that you fix the problems that occur, deletion of content is the last action that should be used on an article, not the first. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Blindly deleting images which have a malformed or damaged rationale is not contributing to the project. If the rationale was created in good faith, fellow editors can also show good faith by fixing the issue. memphisto 10:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. While we should work towards elimination of all non-free images, I think the amount of drama we get from Δ's work in the area (for years) is not worth it. —Kusma (t·c) 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am frankly astonished by this. We are voting to stop a user keeping articles within policy, and some of those voting for this sanction (one, especially) are habitual abusers of the NFCC policy. What next? Shall we let Grawp sockpuppets vote to topic-ban admins from blocking people? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Careful who you're tarring with that broad brush, there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Quite a narrow brush really; a minority, certainly, but a vocal one. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The insinuation is still that those of us who aren't opposed to the NFCC (even strong enforcement, if done properly: the canonical example is, as previously mentioned, Moonriddengirl's exemplary copyvio work) are being led along by people who want nonfree images to proliferate. Whether or not a vocal minority want Delta gone for the wrong reasons, it doesn't make the proposal invalid when it's supported by plenty of people who don't see things that way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
• Oppose. As someone whose fairly active in the NFCC area, the amount of 'Blame the Messenger' that gets directed at Delta is frankly absurd, nearly laughably so if it weren't so unsettling. -- ۩ Mask 11:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And those of us who aren't using Delta as a proxy to attack NFCC? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with caveat: make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed. Notification, education, fixing, development of tools, etc. That gives the community a break from this drama, and some time to come up with better ways to address these problems, without those who favour strong enforcement of NFCC feeling that they're somehow permanently losing the argument. I think we could just do with a respite, and allowing Delta to be active on the topic but not in the ways that so often causes friction should be a good compromise, bearing in mind that he is not the sole standard-bearer of NFCC enforcement and there are certainly others who can and do remove images which really need removing. Rd232 public ^talk 12:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Almost sensible, I would also suggest to allow for removal of images for which no fair-use rationale can be constructed. E.g. images outside mainspace. Will try to construct something below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose If you don't like how the policy is being maintained, change the policy, don't attack the editor that's following it. No editor is required to fix trivial mistakes of FURs, per policy. If you don't like that, WT:NFC and WT:BURDEN are that thataway. If you want to make the special case for Delta that no one else has to follow, then let's refine the community restriction to specifically spell out what Delta's expected to do that is otherwise not outlined in polcy. But topic banning for doing something within the defined bounds of current policy and restrictions without addressing the problems with the latter? Do note that if there is a serious discussion on changing NFC or the editing restrictions that I would support a 2 week or less temporary topic ban as, as others have said "to let the dust settle", but again, that requires a serious discussion and not one influenced by emotion. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is not with the NFCC policy. Beta is indeed required to do things that other people are not required to do, and that's the whole point of the restriction he is under. There's no need to change NFCC, and many NFCC patrollers do just fine under the current system. But Beta is not one of them, it seems. For example, this image File:Gen Sir Edward Hutton.jpg is clearly PD. Beta removed it twice, even after someone else pointed out it is obviously PD. That's not what productive NFCC patrollers do, and frankly it's not what any collegial editor would do. It appears to be just belligerence, even if it is within the broadest possible interpretation of what is permissible under NFCC policy. Productive NFCC patrollers handle these things well, but Beta does not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not clearly PD: it has two country-specific PD licenses and a non-free rationale. It is an old picture, but the source info given in the rationale, on a simple read-through, doesn't give me enough to know if the PD licenses apply - they are more likely due to the age (late 1890s photo), but its completely possible that the photographer died in, say, 1970, and thus life+50 for Canada would still apply. Someone would have to do research to confirm that. That's above and beyond the work that an NFC patrol needs to handle. Until that point is confirmed, we have to treat such images as non-free. But these cases (where the uploader likely was confused as to what the image upload process was, which is confusing) are exceptions as they aren't trivial fixes. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And to reintroduce this WP:RFC/Non-free content enforcement to propose and comment on ideas to change NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  How many times do we need to repeat that is has nothing to do with the policy? The policy is an entirely separate issue, and this is about Delta's behaviour. It manifests itself most when he enforces the policy, but it actually has nothing to do with the policy at all.--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support and also unblock editors that were blocked as a result of arguments with Delta. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support the same as User:Mathewignash said above. Instead of fixing the link of File:Crying Time.jpg (it was Crying Time instead of Crying Time (album)), he reverted the edits and put a rude message on my talk page. This is out of the question.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 13:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• A templated warning message [48] is not a rude message. If you think it is, that's a different discussion altogether. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • removed as dab repairing. I won't either support nor oppose, as this was the only issue. I didn't look and won't look in his contributions anymore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Shooting the messenger will not resolve the perpetual issues with NFCC. No system is perfect, but anything can be improved. So given our policy on NFCC, why won't anyone else work together with him to improve the system? Or come up with a better way to deal with non-free content? Because it's horrible, tedious work that nobody wants to bother with. It's work that by definition should be done with a bot, yet everyone seems determined to force the community to do it by hand. We should forget about being a free encyclopedia and just accept that a significant number of our images always will be unlicensed copyright violations and/or in violation of our own policies. Night Ranger (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  The problem is not the message, the message is fine. The problem is the messenger, so to use your analogy, shooting him is correct. This is not about NFCC, and stop trying to derail the discussion by making it about that. This is purely about Delta's behaviour and nothing else. As for a better way to handle the work, well, see my contributions I lined out above, or the work I've done repairing several today that Delta has either previously blown off or would have blown off as they were on his list. Then see the follow-up reply on my talk page. That's how you do it, and that's the response you generate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  If it's about the messenger, then put this in context of the civility restriction. And even then, you'd find it hard to enforce that : he has a now well-written edit summary that points to appropriate places for how to fix, he drops a template message to the editor, and I've not seen him approach incivility on his talk page, short of being brief and to the point. Hundreds of other editors act the same way. You cannot carve out brand new exceptions for one editor without identify through consensus that that's a problem. Realistically, the problem that I'm seeing from supports is a combination of their tolerance with NFC policy conjugated with their tolerance for Delta's current behavior presumed on his past behavior: separate them, there are no identifiable issues or there are issues that have specific changes in policy that need to be made; together, we're seeing a witch hunt. And I will be clear: If I were in Delta's shoes, I would be fixing the small typos and being a bit more helpful; I don't think his current approach to his work is the easiest route for everyone. But that's me, that's not what policy requires. --User:Masem 15:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely unreal. You don't like the edits, so you want to prevent him from doing them. Yet, they are perfectly in line with policy and best practices. This is yet another attempt to shut down NFCC enforcement. You don't like NFCC, fine, but start the process to suspend NFCC or get it revoked. End running the system by shooting one of the best NFCC enforcement people on the project, you might as well shoot yourself in the foot. Or maybe that's the intent? Destroy NFCC so we stop having these wars? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Our best practices (a pillar of the community, no less) are not supportive of making NFCC a poisonous place to work. Tackling copyright violation in articles is also a tough and ugly job, but that seems to be getting done right. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with NFCC. I know it's much easier to argue his case if you try to make it about that, but it's utterly irrelevant.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Then pray tell what is it about when an editor is conducting edit entirely within policy? The reason to ban Δ from this work can be applied to anyone doing NFCC enforcement. If his work here is disruptive, then so are my thousands of edits doing EXACTLY the same kind of work. Stopping him won't stop the enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but now you're just being absurd. It can plainly be seen that the reason nobody is calling for other NFCC enforcers to be topic banned is that other NFCC enforcers don't edit the same way that Delta does. This sounds like one of those Ireland Arbcom cases where a group of editors are completely unable to see that an editor who spent every day edit warring and hurling abuse at other people was being criticised for anything other than which side of the British Isles debate he was on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I edit the same way Δ does. I just did it again Why aren't you stopping me? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just how hard do you want to be chucking that WP:BOOMERANG, Hammersoft?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• No one asked for enforcement to stop. You're basically inventing strawmen to try and make a point. The reason to ban him from this work is because when he does this work he causes endless disruption because he does so with little care. The way we can tell his work is disruptive and yours isn't is because you don't have a subpage dedicated to you with years long history attached to it. I've actually gone out and done a little clean-up/enforcement myself this evening and lead by example. There is a much better way to do NFCC that actually helps the community and the articles involved. His edits are not entirely within policy. He's repeatedly edit warred on questionable images, even when there was no image on the page (because he wasn't taking proper care with his edits), and even policy suggests that images be kicked to a noticeboard, but he does none of this. He just plows ahead and causes disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support almost exactly as per Rd232. It is possible to be operating within the letter of the law so awkwardly that you must be asked to stop because you've broken too many toes and elbowed too many faces in your pursuit of obeying the law. This is more or less where we sit with Delta. He enforces NFC policy - a honorable task - but does it in the style of an automaton who either can't or won't explain any particular action in detail when asked. Perhaps he knows the explanation to each and just doesn't want to share it; perhaps he's operating so quickly that even he doesn't know his rationale for each action. Either way, the removal of images that are obviously in the "oops, let's fix that" basket and not the "no license, burn it" basket, and the inability to explain to upset uploaders why, exactly, is simply too much heat and not enough light. I see little reason to bar Delta from even looking at NFC, or anything so draconian; what I would like to see is him enjoined from removing images but permitted to discuss, fix, raise issues about, etc them. Delta's detailed knowledge of policy is worth something, and if we can just funnel him into applying it in ways that he is less able to slip into a robot mindset about, then I think it would be a win for everyone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Another month, another Betacommand incident. Just pull the trigger already. TotientDragooned (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support—should minimise (though sadly not obliterate) the amount of trouble Delta causes. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Delta's recent edits ‎(repair dab link in rationale), suggest he may be willing to compromise. memphisto 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  The 11th hour plea? I believe we've seen those before. He wasn't willing to compromise before, but now that there is a majority building against him suddenly he's game? As Beetstra pointed out above, how long will that last?--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  It cant be 11th hour either if Ive been doing this for more than 6 months can it? [49] and [50] Both from January of this year. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  It can't be an 11th hour plea if no one has identified what policies or restrictions he's violated, and instead are going after him as an easy target for NFC enforcement, and he's trying to figure out what he's exactly guilty of. What should we do if Hammersoft or Black Kite takes up Delta's work with the same approach? Ban them too? --MASEM (t) 14:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  If that approach were performed in the same exact manner, definitely would merit the same measures. But I agree with Memphisto here. If all this drama has prompted Delta to abandon zillions of removals to perform zillions of repairings instead, that's a huge improvement to the project that should be encouraged and welcome. Diego Moya (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Uhhhhh... yes? This is not about the policy. It is about the behaviour. If anyone else acted like Delta (recalcitrant, unwilling or unable to comprehend criticism, and constantly breaking any condition set on them) they'd be blocked too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• WHAT BEHAVIOR. For God's sake produce some evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, if they cause the same level of disruption. But they'd have a long way to go before that happens. I've already outlined and lead by example tonight on how to do it without disruption. Anyone here that wants to actually help the project, rather than race to the NFCC finish line leaving crushed editors in their wake is free to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban has serious problems; no evidence

In the proposal by Georgewilliamherbert, he indicated that the reason for the topic ban is because the work being done is raising objections, tension, causing drama, and there are significant errors. The problem here is many fold; (1) no errors have been identified (other than page moves, which is refuted) (2) No effort's been made to identify how Δ actually induced tension/drama/objections. With this in mind, the very same proposal could be made against anyone who conducts this sort of work. With no factual evidence to support the topic ban, it has no validity. This is a massive case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stopping Δ will not stop all the other editors who are doing the exact same work. It's time for the next step in WP:DR if you want a topic ban, so at least SOME idea of providing actual evidence to support positions can be pursued. As is, this topic ban is void on the face of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that page moves are refuted. Many still believe they should be fixed, I went out and fixed a bunch tonight. And while I conducted the work tonight, I received a lovely thank you, no crying editors and I did it all without templates and actually taking care to improve the articles with NFCC issues rather than race through because if we don't finish them all by tomorrow morning wikipedia is sure to be sued into oblivion right? The supporters have Delta have a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and are desperately trying to focus on NFCC because if they have to actually talk about his behaviour, they can't defend it. Delta has repeatedly edit warred over questionable cases, operated in a bot-like manner during many of those situations which escalates things, and ignored obvious mistakes that could have been fixed in far less time then he spent hammering the revert button. His behaviour is not improving this encyclopedia, despite the foundations need to ensure NFCC compliance.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• 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 to death of hearing it from all of Δ's haters who jump on the band wagon every time there's the slightest peep that someone raised about his edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• If "Accusations of running a bot or being bot-like" had "never stuck either" Delta wouldn't have been repeatedly blocked for it, nor be under an edit rate sanction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• And again, he can never get past his past which is now YEARS in the past? Ever? Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Were his block log not imtimately tied to his present problems, for enough. I've got blocks for edit warring over Middle Eastern politics: that's in the past now because I stopped caring and the other guy vanished in disgrace. Betacommand is currently still under sanctions related to his old actions and still getting blocked for breaking them. That's inappropriate behaviour no matter who or what the problem is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, and that he hasn't gotten blocked doesn't mean he's right either. There are several editors who think he should be blocked for that kind of edit warring. I said he's operated in a bot-like manner, meaning he has all the personality and interaction ability of a bot. He simply templates and hammers away with the same edit summary doing nothing to fix the situation. It's disruptive plain and simple. It doesn't necessarily need to be laid out in black and white in a policy to be considered disruptive editing. What makes me right is that I improved several articles tonight, including removing some images and I doubt you'll ever see a complaint or hurt feeling about any of those edits. I individually approached every editor involved and helpfully pointed out the issues and offered my assistance. That's how you do NFCC in a community. The way some people do it is as if they believe it's some kind of game and they're trying to get that achievement for most images removed. Let's not forget that Delta clearly stated that his goal was not to improve the project and articles but to remove non-compliant images. That alone is disruptive and not conducive to building a community.--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll defend Delta's behavior - its not how I'd behave, but there's nothing in policy that vilifies how Delta is behaving presently, given numerous other editors that may have not be as frequent in editing but respond in similar curt manners. I'd agree that if an RFC/U were started there would be some legs to request Delta to improve, but we're not at a point where the civility restriction has been passed. I'll point to the previous long-standing confrontation with Gavin Collins, who was extremely difficult to work with in trying to define notability policy and eventually had to resort to an RFC/U because nothing he was doing was "wrong" just.. bureaucratic for lack of a better word. I would have loved to block Gavin only to make forward progress on discussions but there was nothing to stick him to; such behavior was tolerated - barely, but tolerated. Only then at RFC/U ultimately it was found he was seriously violating copyrights, and indef banned. This is very comparable to Delta's case right now, and thus the topic ban is way too premature before any other actions such as looking at NFC policy, expected behavior policy, or an RFC/U on Delta's behavior (NOT what he edits, how he edits), have been attempted. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• You think that the Gavin Collins situation was a model for how to deal with recalcitrant editors? (note that I supported Gavin for a long time, and think that this is a pretty telling comparison.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's not a model - but it is how WP's approach is set up to handle difficult editors when its more personality conflicts rather than actual behavior that get in the way of progress. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Propose alternative 'ban'

• Images for which a fair-use rationale can (probably) be created, but which do not have such rationale on the file description page, or for which the rationale may be broken, should not be removed from the articles, but an effort should be done to write or repair the rationale.

I would like to urge the community to come up with a process to, collaboratively, fix the articles which do not have a rationale. We may want to put some deadline on it to show that there is a collaborative effort still going on after three months.

• Support as nominator - note, this proposal now also includes others who perform the same methodology as Delta. Feel free to adapt the wording. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as too broad: we cannot fill in missing rationales if they don't exist; but we can address the page move aspect: I would suggest that Images where a rationale exists but points to the wrong page where the image is otherwise not used, likely as a result of a page move, should not be removed but instead the rationale corrected to point to the correct page. which is covering, I think, 90% of the complaints falling on Delta's talk page right now. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, don't think so. Most moves leave behind a redirect, which actually is detected by the script. I've also asked for disambig-detection to solve that part. The problems are page-splits, typo's, which are relatively easy to fix, and those which plainly do not have a rationale. A lot of 'yelling' goes on if the page has no rationale written down at all, while one could be created. So, I suggest to give the community time to fix that, give the tools to categorise missing/broken rationales.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs)

  While a missing rationale can be created, except in fringe cases (like, say, a logo being used to ID a company) the NFCC patrol will have no idea what the source, copyright holder, and intent is of the image in question. This has to be provided by the uploader or those that use the images. So, no, one cannot expect NFCC editors to make this up.

  But there are page moves that don't leave behind the proper redirect page (Which I do know Delta's checks would otherwise follow), that's the page move problem that I'm talking about. I would consider simple one-off typos a possible inclusion as well. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, in my 'urge the community to come up with a process to, collaboratively, fix the articles which do not have a rationale' - when one sees that one can not construct a rationale easily, one can have a look in the history of the page, and at the history of the image for who to contact. That should then be done as part of that collaborative effort (it is what people are constantly asking of Delta - when there is no rationale, Delta should write it - IMHO, we should ask the editor who used it or uploaded it). If that fails - then there is only one solution - delete the image from display and wait for someone to re-insert it - then it becomes that editors task to write the rationale. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need to focus on the problem, which is Beta's editing rather than the NFCC policy. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we have a lot of productive NFCC editors and one who causes problems, the solution is to deal with that one editor individually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  For me, the problem is that there are broken and missing rationales. I suggest here an alternative to Delta's methodology. What keeps 50 other editors from taking over Delta's task and removing all - nothing would keep me. Or are you up to get to a list of 50 banned editors who can't remove images anymore? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't know how many zillions of times this idea has been refuted. It's at least a hundred. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A more community-oriented method of going forward

Delta has identify via a toolserver script the list of articles with images that lack explicit rationale for these pages, here [51]. I propose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikilove

HI folks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great April Fools' Day contribution, only 3 months late

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jj98

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what is going on with this user currently, thus I am posting here briefly. I first encountered the user at RfD, where they nominated their own implausible redirect for deletion. Fair enough, I deleted it under CSD R3 and CSD G7. I then, by pure coincidence, later bumped into the user nominating an article they had created at AfD for being "non-notable." This one was more odd, as the user created it, then sent it to AfD all within 60 seconds. I deleted as G7 again, closed the AfD and posted on the users talk page asking them what was going on.

Since then they have not replied to me, but I assume they have read the message as they have replied to later posts on their talk page. I also noticed that this user seems to be going around creating categories for various WikiProjects, only to tag them for db-g7 a couple of hours later. Sometimes he then recreates them identical to how they were pre-g7. Some pages deletion logs have him creating and then requesting g7 on the page multiple times. He also makes edits to assessment templates (grade/importance), undoes himself, then redoes himself within quick succession.

One recent create and g7 however caught my eye: Fucktoon Network redirecting to Cartoon Network. There are several instances of him making disruptive edits before undoing himself in his contribution history: [52]. I've found several edits like that in his contributions which are disruptive, but he usually immediately reverts himself.

As the rest of his edits other than these are constructive, i'm wondering what should be done here. The disruptive edits obviously need to stop, regardless of him undoing himself, but I also think that the creation of pages only to g7, AfD or RfD them immediately is borderline disruptive. As he won't reply to me ([53]) I would be grateful of others views on this somewhat odd situation. (I initially thought the account could be compromised, but the mixture of normal editing between the disruptive stuff makes me think otherwise.) Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified at this diff's timestamp. [54] --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am here again, and it is considered offensive like "Crap" and "Shit". Well, I been nominating some for deletions, including WikiProjects that have died from 2006 and 2011. Well, I don't take no offense, the Courage Wolf isn't notable yet, and it is getting some hits Google. Also, I tired nominated myself for deletion like Portal:Cartoon Network, and kept. Usually, I don't make disruptive edits myself, and I got blocked before for messing around the images, while I am been editing the Courage the Cowardly Dog article myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the account is compromised, or at least semi-compromised - compare the semi-incoherent response above with the user's much more sensible/understandable user page... GiantSnowman 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I found the two had at least a certain consistency. But maybe I'm jumping to some conclusions.

Jj98, your reply above doesn't seem to answer the concerns that Taelus has raised. Creating pages or categories just to ask for them to be deleted seconds later, is disruptive. Repeatedly asking for the same page to be deleted, for no good reason, is disruptive. Making random pointless changes and then changing them back, on a regular basis, is disruptive. Perhaps you could agree not to keep doing that. OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but my account not yet compromised, and I am not hacked. Sorry, I just been busy, mostly doing some animation related stuff, including WP:ANIMATION which I am member myself. I don't want end up getting disruptive. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jj98 has been asked in the past to slow down with the creating/nominating for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cartoon Network (2nd nomination). He has also been advised to use the sandbox for testing rather than rapidly undoing/redoing his own edits on talk pages. Assuming there is no compromise here, I am still concerned about the creation of Fucktoon Network and the inserting of "Cartoon Network sucks" into talk pages and the like. After all, his immediate reverting of such edits/tagging for deletion shows he is fully aware they are disruptive/vandalism... yet he does them anyway. --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• The erratic deletion behavior and failure to respond to discussion attempts is ongoing. I noticed after closing two of his AFDs in a row as "redirect" (here and here); both were recurring cartoon characters in notable TV series for which character lists existed, yet there was no sign that he had even attempted to deal with these through normal editing and discussion. See also his recent inexplicable FFD nominations, and other generic AFD noms here ("Clearly, this website is not notable and fails WP:WEB"; still open, with unanimous keep !votes so far); here and here (both still open, all votes either keep or merge); here (closed as keep); here ("Only 2 sources, I can't find any more sources related to the article"; withdrawn within a day after one speedy keep !vote); here ("Clearly, this article does not meet the notability"; closed as keep). That last AFD was the second he had started for the same article; the first AFD he started back in January and then withdrew within about ten minutes.

  I left some constructive criticism regarding some of his AFD noms here, pointing out that he should follow WP:BEFORE, that deletion noms should be more than WP:VAGUEWAVEs, and that he had nominated a number of articles that were at most merge/redirect targets without considering alternatives to deletion. He responded to that rather substantial comment with merely "Yes, I see that, I remember that next time"; when I asked him to elaborate, he instead archived it the same day rather than respond. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have been troubled by this entire wave of nominations myself. He started with targets that should have a delete discussion like List of Cartoon Network programing blocks which had a very abrupt reasoning of "Clearly, this website is not notable and fails WP:WEB", but then sabotaged my reasoned reasoning for a delete by asking for an inexplicable speedy G7 in response after taking it to AfD even though it was only the first day of the discussion (and which chilled it; it's been relisted twice and hasn't gone anywhere since my reasoning, with the quick-trigger G7 rightfully declined, and I'm resigned to it being kept under a no-con decision). I also suspect compromising as early AfD's were well-reasoned and he seemed to be an average editor, but now rationales have become blunt, short, and inexplicable (re: the Scrappy Doo, Cartoon Cartoon noms). I really don't know what to think on this one, but I know there have been rumblings that he is trying to do something to the CN articles within those discussions and some of the presented AfD's. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I found an instance (just yesterday) where this editor appears to be dismissive in the edit summary referring to the messages that are being left on their talk page. @Jj98, it's not that Wikipedians are trying to "bother" you, but simply trying to help you.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, the only problem is that I've been my edits doing poorly, because I thank been I've been trying to disrupt Wikipedia? What I've done wrong, creating a large amount of AFDs, MFDs, or TFDs? Well, I could have nominated Courage the Cowardly Dog and Dexter's Laboratory for deletion at AFD which could have been disruptive and I could have got blocked. Well, the only problem is its myself. Well, I been tagging some animation related articles with the WikiProject Animation banner including some animated films and episodes. Back in February Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) asked me about the Animation WikiProject while tagging The Simpsons articles, including MSGJ (talk · contribs) (who maintains all WikiProject banners), who also asked me about the WikiProject banners, including WikiProject Animation banner which I had 250 edits (however, I had 300 edits before the WikiProject Animation banner was protected by MSGJ (talk · contribs) due to the high visibility template back in March which transculed over 14,430 pages). Yes, I also admitted that I have nominated large number of deletions, including large number of inactive WikiProjects for deletion myself, including Kleinzach (talk · contribs), Kumioko (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) which also nominated some inactive WikiProjects for deletion which went inactive through 2005 to 2011, including Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) warned me about the MfDs in the past and to tag them as inactive and not delete any WikiProjects says on the MfD instructions. What I am look like, maybe a sockpuppet a of John254 (talk · contribs) like Mhiji (talk · contribs) which had been disruptive? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my comments. I've only gotten upset at you nominating inactive projects which were not obviously false starts. If any discussion or work has been done at a project, and at least a couple or three people were participating, it should be be marked as inactive and left alone. You (and Kleinzach) refuse to accept that and continue to nominate everything you can find for deletion. You're being disruptive, and completely ignoring the guidelines at the top of the MfD page. Based on the comments here, it seems this is not the only area where you are being disruptive. I recommend taking a step back and evaluating what you are doing, because you are clearly headed down a path which will lead to a bad place. We want productive contributions (even productive deletions), but what you are doing is not productive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned socks? You are not responding to the main point here which is you are creating pages and then almost immediately nominating them for deletion. Once they are deleted you are recreating them, sometimes several times. We all want to understand why you are doing this, what is the reasoning behind it. Carrying on like you are is disruptive. Take the revision history for Talk:Cartoon Network as an example, you added and removed {{not a forum}} at least 10 times in 3 months for no apparent reason. Why? That is one of the key issues here. In terms of XFD nominations, it is ok to nominate pages for deletion, as long as you provide evidence to support a clear and reasoned rationale: saying "doesn't meet WEB" isn't a clear and reasoned rationale, nor does it offer any evidence. Could you respond to these concerns please? Woody (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

JJ98 do you not think its a good idea to wait until your ANI thread about your nominations for deletions is done before you proceed with more nominations? Moxy (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Moxy, since I have been nominating some deletions, including articles and project, including my first AfD nomination was Field Intelligent Stuff which redirected to Bangladesh Army. Back in January, I've tired to nominate List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters for deletion back in February and withdrawn it myself. Also, I've tried to nominate Book:Naruto manga chapters and Book:Tokyo Mew Mew for deletion at WP:MFD and withdrawn it again. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note, I've also tired to nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics Competitions and Aqua Teen Hunger Force work group for deletion and also withdrawn it. Also note, when after I withdrawn WikiProject Cartoon Network for deletion and TenPoundHammer asked me "Why did you withdraw this MFD?", and reopened it for deletion and TenPoundHammer vote delete, along with Kumioko who to vote week delete. Then, I nominated Portal:Cartoon Network myself for deletion, and TenPoundHammer vote delete and said "Why even bother say "keep but add to it" then? Are you hoping the Portal Fairy will make it grow overnight?!", and I speedy deleted myself and recreated it again, before WikiProject Cartoon Network was kept as historical and I converted into a work group of WP:ANIMATION. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note, I remember the deletion guidelines next time before nominating for deletion. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone else smell something suspicious here? According to his user page he's a 21 and born in California, yet his understanding of english and his grammar is atrocious. --Blackmane (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was born in California, and I am American thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I sense nothing suspicious. Maybe a mild case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy; his social and communication skills are imperfect, and he learns a little slowly. But does that not describe many of us? He means well, is not particularly disruptive at worst, and is productive. He would, however, do well to ease off deleting things until he has debated and negotiated in a few more XfD discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

His replies are mostly incoherent; the bits that aren't incoherent are irrelevant. I find it hard to imagine that his editing is any good. Now, further up the page you people have come with a scheme to recruit and retain quality editors by putting pictures of kittens on their talk pages. Simultaneously you open the door to all-and-sundry, which is fair enough; but when confronted with this kind of thing you keep the door open, put flowers on it, urge the editor to sit down, have a cup of tea, help himself to your daughter etc. Over and over again. And over again. Why on Earth would a quality editor respect that kind of environment? Joined-up thinking, people. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock with personal attacks and BLP violations

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely and talk page access revoked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A "new" user, FindersSyhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has made repeated personal attacks at Talk:Hebron and has repeatedly added BLP violations to Carlos Latuff. As I do not want to waste the time determining what the prior user account is (my first guesses are JarlaxleArtemis or Runtshit) and filing an SPI, I am bringing the matter here. The user is likely related to the accounts Anonehf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jorogin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). nableezy - 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Jarlaxle's MO, speaking from experience. He specifically targets those users who've dealt with him in the past on their own talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor, I am sure, is it Runtshit. This account displays none of Runtshit's characteristic tics. RolandR (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-serious death threat from FindersSyhn

I don't take this too seriously, but it's serious enough to report here. FindersSyhn posted on my talk page "If I could, I'd kill every single one of you pieces of shit." The diff is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInks.LWC&action=historysubmit&diff=436764924&oldid=436474120. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs" - GiantSnowman 00:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff :) GiantSnowman 00:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have indefblocked for the (now repeated) threats to kill people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...and talk page access is now revoked, as they did it yet again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

After conferring with a couple of CUs on this, this looks like Grawp again, folks. –MuZemike 03:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How many years will this continue? Why does the WMF allow determined vandals to operate with impunity for years and years? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing about it? There's a certain level of determination at which stopping the vandalism would do far more damage to the project than allowing it...Grawp rose to that level a long time ago. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there really anything that CAN be done about it? Would an ISP respond to a request from the Foundation? If so, would it have any real effect? Internet access is becoming well-nigh ubiquitous, and blocking one point of access will only redirect a user to another. Frustrating as it is, the only real recourse I can see is WP:RBI, as often as necessary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaints to his ISP in the past have been unsuccessful. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there must be some sort of legal recourse. Yes, this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean people can use it as a vehicle for harassment and hate speech. If there is truly nothing the foundation can do to protect their most famous entity, causing damage to it and driving off it's volunteers, then there is something wrong with this project. If someone was standing on the sidewalk in front of a volunteer organization and threatening to kill the volunteers as they walked in, using hate speech, then the police would be called in about 5 minutes. Yet, because this is the "internet", it's somehow different? I say it is no different and the foundation should do something to protect itself and its interests. Night Ranger (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Returned

The account is back, "editing" as Gytuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). More admins watching Hebron would be useful. nableezy - 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Racist e-mails

"Hey, Arab vermin. You are subhuman Arab scum. Get the hell out out America and go back to your shithole country, idiot." and "Anabta was an Israelite city before you Muslim savages invaded it." are some of the racist e-mails that I have received from the banned Captain Thoster I am guessing that these accounts are related. In the meantime, can the e-mail function be disabled for Captain Thoster? -asad (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Email removed. I trust that you did not respond, since they will then have your personal email and WP cannot stop them sending mail to that address (although you can block them from being received thru your mail provider). The same goes to anyone receiving hate/harassing mail via the WP system; never reply, just report it to get the facility removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And no, I didn't reply. -asad (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have received 85(!) exceptionally nasty emails from this account, all of them ending with the statement "I know where you live and what you look like. I will make sure your death is prolonged and exquisitely painful." I'm not overly concerned, as this is an obvious lie. But I wonder whether some sort of filter could be introduced, to prevent such flagrant (and presumably illegal) abuse of the email facility. RolandR (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am getting the same sort of bigoted crap. Could someone please disable the e-mail function by default for all the users associated with this nonsense. The latest user is User:My password is poopvomit. -asad (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

email blocked for this new account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And I have just received a further 29 from this account. RolandR (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have no problem getting these e-mails, it is pretty much a throwaway account and wiki mail gets put into it's own folder. It might be better just to keep my e-mail enabled so we can know all the accounts the person intends to use and disable the e-mail one by one. -asad (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy/process

I'm not sure if this is the write place to report this but i need a second opinion of actions taken by user User:LibStar by putting up deletion of these articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006. Its not the first time this user has taken actions against kickboxing articles by simply saying "nothing in gnews". I'm part of Martial arts and Kickboxing project and have been in wiki for 5 years and have about 10,000+ edits solely on those subjects. Our sport is not a major sport and doesn't get as much coverage in mass media like soccer, basketball etc. We have a few hard working editors form all over the world creating well sourced material up to the point that in more than two years of work Wikipedia has become a major source of information all combined in one of all kickboxing related information on athletes from Thailand to France as well as various events not widely covered in English mass media. For the respect of my fellow editors and the hard work they've put in our project, my question is - Is it ok by wikipedia standards to one editor without any knowledge of the subject to say these are "minor events" and because of "nothing in gnews" list all for deletion without notifying any Projects related to the subject as well as people involved with creating the pages in question? Any help much appreciated.Thx.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In a word: Yes.

Using slightly more words: I do see how this nomination could be read as harsh or unwarrented, particularly if you're closely affiliated with the subject matter. But to answer your question... First off, "Projects" do not in any way WP:OWN the articles that they believe they cover, and there's no requirement to notify them. Secondly, while the verbage was a bit light-on, "nothing in gnews" is not far from "does not conform to the Wikipedia verification staqndards. Finally, while this looks like a good place to ask th question, there's no adminstrative action required thus not really suited for Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'd suggest that next time you pick a senior editor you trust and ask them personally.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Irony alert: [[::User:LibStar|LibStar]] (talk · contribs) had not been notified of this discussion, I have now done so - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any senior editors. but thanks Mr. Brenneman. I don't get the concept of this guy Libstar massively deleting pages whatever he feels like. Its just discouraging on editors who actually work on material that in one day it'll all be in deletion by Libstar coz he can't get any hits on gnews.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A) there's really no such thing as "senior editors". B) User:LibStar, nor any other user, can actually delete articles. First, only someone who has been given administrator privileges can actually delete anything. Second, no one would get away with simply running around and deleting stuff unilaterally. You know where the Articles for deletion page is at obviously, so we expect you and anyone else with an interest in that article to go to that page and explain the reasons why it shouldn't be deleted. After about 7 days passes an administrator will come along and read everything, and then make a decision about the article. Don't get discouraged.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If Libstar doesn’t leave a message to the person whose page it is then there is every possibility that the person whose page it is won’t get the chance to voice their opinion and it could get deleted as a result – contacting may not be an official rule but c’mon it’s downright disrespectful and rude and this is obviously not an isolated incidence as other people are having similar issues to myself. I can’t see how someone can go around nominating things for deletion in this manner and get away with it time after time. I would be far happier if the person involved had contacted me first. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2011

Loose language on my part, I meant senior as in "older in years" or "of earlier appointment or admission." As much time as I spend begging for people to not give adminstrators special status, I'd hate for that misunderstanding to, err, stand. Thanks for pointing that out, O. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't delete articles, I merely nominate them, then they need WP:CONSENSUS to delete. because a lot of WP:EFFORT went into it is not a reason for keeping. I don't see how this needs admin intervention. regards LibStar (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If a small subset of wikipedians get together to concentrate on one subject, and then set their own notability benchmark which is in some cases much lower than the GNG (for instance: sports subjects deemed notable due to competition at a certain level even though there are no independent sources at all, or no coverage other than an entry on a list), then that's bound to cause some friction. If an entire field suffers from a shortage of substantial independent coverage, then maybe the solution is to have fewer placeholder stubs in that field, rather than lowering wikipedia's standards. bobrayner (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those situations call for the employment of a large mallet with "WP:CONLIMITED" stencilled onto the side. Genre-specific notability guidelines are solely there to clarify the level at which notability through the GNG can be presumed in genre-specific terms. They are absolutely not modifiers of the GNG. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Wikipedia has become a major source of information" amounts to saying that the subjects lack substantial coverage elsewhere, which indicates that the subjects lack notability. That is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a place for the devotees of a subject with little coverage to get such coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not amount to say that. What i ment was here in wiki the information is all linked together, the events, records, bios etc. I'm not here to get coverage, the emphasis has been combining the information from variety of sources. Muaythai/K -1/kickboxing is widely covered in japanese, thai, french, russian media but not as much in english compare to MMA. You are not gonna find a source from New York Times. Reliable sources are provided form major martial arts related websites but according to some members here these are still no good because they are not third party and I'm not sure whats the rules are adding a source from different language media.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

not with respect to these particular items, which will be dealt with by their own merits depending on whether good sources are found, I strongly dispute Chris's claim that the GNG is the only standard of notability, and the special rules just presumptions of it. The very GNG guideline says it is the normal standard we use, & we may adopt whatever other standards the general consensus wishes to do in any particular area or type of article, and we may exceed the GNG requirements or have other requirements altogether. But in any case Chris and I & everyone here are certainly going to be in agreement about the basic policy requirement for WP:V, for demonstrating the information through reliable sources,as appropriate to the type of information needed-—and, with particularly strict WP:V requirements for biographies of living people. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the frustration that arises in many of these AFD debates. Editors in favour of a contentious article pick and choose the least onerous bar to jump over. So a bakery with a dozen employees may be fleshed up with pie shop trade directory entries, notices of opening hours, references to a failed takeover by another PieMaker, obituaries that mention the deceased bought one of Joe's Pies each weekend for the last 20 years, and references to the architecture of neighbourhood. John lilburne (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important to make a distinction between is and ought. No doubt the precise relationship & applicability of different notability standards is noted on the policy page (I'd argue it's not unambiguous enough), but in practice an AfD of of some piemaker who passes the GNG but fails WP:NPIEMAKER, or vice versa, can easily attract loud disagreement between two groups who both feel that The Rules Are On Their Side. Even when available sources may be as minimal as a name being mentioned once in a database / directory / press release. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And my feeling is, and always has been, that treating the GNG as the ultimate arbiter resolves this perfectly. If you have a pie shop which fails WP:NPIEMAKER (perhaps it only makes 4999 pies a week and not 5000) then it still gets an article if people can find good enough sources: conversely, while WP:NPIEMAKER can presume notability at a given level of pie production, an AfD on it should result in deletion after seven days if our hard-working editors are unable to actually find any reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above tangent, you folks may find this page an enlightening and salient read on the subject. --Jayron32 15:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note with regard to the "without notifying any Projects related to the subject" aspect in the initial post: if project members have the subject articles on their watchlists, they will be able to see when deletion tags have been added per WP:AFD, WP:PROD, etc. – Athaenara ✉ 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  There's also Wikipedia:Article Alerts.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite. The whole point of WikiProjects is that they're msupposed to be watching the pages under their purview, not that other people have to go begging permission to work on them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of a talk page while blocked?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Kite writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignoring all the personal stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern. I was contacted, as some of you were previously, by PhanuelB and asked to post his statement in his own defense, as he has no access to speak for himself. As much of the above is about him I think the request is reasonable. His statement follows.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves. JamesBWatson accused me of writing something that wasn’t sourced. I claim it was sourced and was assembling a list of RS to refute his clams. And the first two items I assembled were already in the existing footnote in the text! I was minding my own business preparing a defense when others came in and shutdown my efforts. The very guy who I am in dispute with is campaigning to make sure I do not have an opportunity to challenge him. In addition, there was no consensus there. The head count on the two sides was roughly equal.

Many false allegations were made against me, OR,SYN,NPA,AGF,BLP. I endeavored to pin somebody down and show an example. This is the only example anyone ever came up with and I mean it sourced 100%. JamesBWatson was about to be held accountable for false allegations he had made so he had to shut down the discussion before it could start.

Harassment? Let’s see somebody standup and say they were harassed by me. Let’s see the emails – all of them so there’s no issues of context. There’s nothing wrong with emailing people. Harassment is a serious charge and it didn’t happen. PhanuelB

END STATEMENT - tjholme Tjholme (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Eddie1kanobi

Resolved

 – Good blocks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Following complaints of disrupting editing on Triple Entente on the part of an anon IP User:212.13.86.194, I have blocked the IP, which has previously been reported as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, User:Eddie1kanobi, for block evasion. Also added another IP, User:79.125.225.32 to Eddie's sock drawer. Blocked that IP too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for topic ban for User:Tony1 from all FA-related pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, per Wehwalt's request below. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I am requesting that Tony1 be restricted from all FA related pages under WP:BATTLE. To summarize, as revenge for my objecting to his edits for the TFA blurb for July 1, John A. Macdonald, he went directly from the discussion to the FAC for one of my articles and opposed, having just used insulting language towards me. Using animus as a reason for opposing is a danger to consensus, and I ask that he be topic banned until he's willing to be more civil about things.

As editors may be aware, User:Tony1 recently requested a RFC on how late the TFA blurb should be available for all users to edit, as it is protected at some point before main page day. I opposed the RFC courteously and certainly innocuously, as I expressed that I was open to changing my position. To spare a lengthy series of diffs, I'll just post that the thread is here and anyone who cares to can check my talk page history to make sure I didn't change anything. As can be seen, I was nothing if not civil.

This morning, I found that Tony1 had made major changes to the TFA for July 1, an article for which I received FA credit, though certainly I don't own it and don't own the blurb. However, I felt that the edits did not improve the blurb and in fact omitted important information from the lede. Over the course of two edits, made within four minutes of each other, I reverted some of what Tony had done and accepted a point he had made, here. He almost immediately reverted. I informed him here I was starting a discussion on the talk page of Raul456, the Featured Article Director, that discussion thread is [55] and I think it speaks for itself; he suggests I take lessons in writing English. That's fine, I don't take offense easily. Tony made his insulting comment at 1304, and had he left it that, I would have ignored the matter. At 1417, he left a lengthy oppose at the FAC for my article Indian Head eagle (and I say my article not out of ownership, but as a shorthand way of noting I nommed it at FAC, though I did write all of the content, but for minor corrections by other editors), and that diff is here. I noted the fact on Raul's talk page (see thread supplied above) and Tony responded, among other things, that "which neatly parallel your objections to non-admins' participation in the blurb copy-editing process", in other words, my oppose at the RFC.

Consensus is a difficult thing, we want it to be based on people judging the matter at hand, without allowing their personal biases, prejudices, and hatreds to interfere. Sometimes that's not possible. However, to oppose in that manner, while you are engaged in a dispute in which you have, well, made pretty strong statements about the other person and their abilities to write English, well, given that an oppose is virtually a veto, it's just not on. I should add that Tony has not commented on any of my FACs in about a year (to my recollection, anyway, I will if necessary go through all my FACs and get an exact figure, but that is my best recollection. It beggars belief that Tony1 just happened to do so. It's a clear violation of WP:BATTLE to my mind. We can't run this place on consensus if people are opposing based on hate.

I have looked at my edits. I see nothing even provocative, let alone rude. I am not immune from getting angry, and I've been known to get into arguments. But that wasn't so in this case. I encouraged discussion and I tried to assuage him. I did not get personal. I did not even revert a second time, since it is my personal policy to limit myself to 1RR against autoconfirmed, and 2RR against IPs. However, to the extent that my articles add something to the project, it's obviously not encouraging me to write more based on knowing that an oppose not based on merit, but in malice, awaits at FAC. I try to assume good faith only, but what Tony has said in his edits, and the timing of same, makes that assumption untenable.

I have notified Tony with the conventional template, and have also left a link at WT:FAC. If he is not willing to revert his objectionable actions, I ask that he be topic banned from all FA-related pages, and all article and talk pages of articles for which I have received FA credit, or which I am developing (the FA articles are here; the articles under development are here. Alternatively, an interaction ban of similar effect would be fine. I would have no problem with it being lifted on Tony's word that he'll behave.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap, I was hoping the two of you could work things out before anything like this ended up happening. All of you guys involved in this (which I've been seeing from afar) are (very) experiences editors... can't y'all just break things off for a bit, cool off, and then get together and work out your issues?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, if he withdraws the oppose. I've asked the TFA delegate, Dabomb87, to pull the article and not run it main page, which will terminate that dispute. I'll disengage, but so must he.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban. It is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. At a minimum, would ask you to wait until a few FAs get failed unfairly or the like. Yeah...he made a pointy oppose. And yeah...he got too exercised about you disagreeing with him or being an admin or whatever. Still. Nuclear bomb and mouse. Plus, it would really be better to have Tony MORE in FAs. Plus Sandy is a cool cat and can disaggregate a personality-driven oppose (and not that it should matter, probably likes you better). If we are going to (and based on talk with 'bacon sounds like we will) allow people like 56skidoo troppo fellow to chip in, then I would not kick Tony out. Plus, his comments were actually good prose upgrades. (Not that this is the key thing...I think we should spend WAY more time on comprehensiveness, allocation of article by section, and STRUCTURE, as these hit the reader much more than whether you misuse an and versus but or the like.) I know it is hard, W-man, and you do soooo freeking much. And you are clearly one of the smartest and most gentlemanly characters here. But would ask you to turn the other cheek, one more time, and pull the ANI.

Both of you cats are incredible verbalists, have done great things for the Wiki, and are friendly to newbies. This whole thing is a shame. It is funny, how the Internet runs on fumes of drama and conflict, and dominanance games. Hope you guys can both disengage from each other, find things to enjoy on the site and to contribute to.TCO (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The validity of his points is not the issue, though few actually are, most, as in the TFA issue (now pulled), are issues of preference. He'd say it that way if he were writing the article. Well, he is not, and I made valid choices in the text. Wait for a few FAs to fail? So that takes us four or five months down the line. And it isn't just that. I just lost the opportunity to have some of my words on the seventh most popular website in the world, about a historic man on his country's national holiday. I just pulled my nomination of Landis for August 3. I'm inhibited from nominating articles to have the blurbs hacked by Tony. I am uncertain that your course of action would be productive. Certainly, I'd probably lose interest and spend my time leaving trollish comments on the Yahoo! boards.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I had been looking at a few of the threads and pages related to this, and was going to agree with Ohms law and TCO that you two should try and work things out, but it looks like that may not be possible. I do think that asking for a topic ban from FA and withdrawing that article from TFA and withdrawing another nomination, is an over-reaction. If you raise your concerns about Tony's editing of TFA blurbs, they will gain traction eventually if Tony doesn't limit himself to copyediting and continues to over-reach himself (I say this while agreeing that he made several valid points over the TFA blurb in question, while going too far on other matters for that blurb). I am more concerned, however, with the wording with which Tony1 entered a review at the FAC you have currently running. Tony1 could have entered a civil review with constructive comments and a regretful oppose, with no mention of the previous disputes you have been having. However, he didn't do this. He explicitly said this:

"Oppose'—1a, MoS, referencing. And this is the editor who has publicly pushed to make it impossible for anyone but admins to copy-edit FA blurbs that appear on the main page. So here's a wp:pointy review to scrutinise the work of this admin. He has also just complained to Raul that it's somehow wrong to improve the language and formatting of a blurb because this will make it more different from the opening of the corresponding FA. He would object, thus, to any attempt to improve the text of this lead insofar as it appeared as a blurb on the main page. I'm not an admin, so maybe I don't have the status to suggest improvements here.

This steps over several lines, as it: (i) explicitly admits to a violation of WP:POINT; (ii) unnecessarily personalizes the issue by raising things unrelated to the FAC; (iii) displays a chip on his shoulder about admins vs non-admins (a long-running dispute that needn't have been raised there but is corrosive every time it is unnecessarily raised); (iv) paints himself as a downtrodden non-admin. This seems to be an overspill from the other comments that Tony has made elsewhere (see WT:DYK). I don't think a topic ban from FA or a non-interaction restriction is needed (or would even gain consensus), but I do think some action of some kind is needed. For now, I will ask Tony on his talk page to remove his preamble (which I quoted above) that has personalized the FAC (and is off-topic there), thus only leaving the actual reviewing comments (which may or may not be valid). Possibly a regular at FAC will step in and do this anyway, but I want to give Tony the chance to withdraw those comments himself. Whether more than this is needed depends on what others say here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, Carcharoth, I have a bit of a problem with letting the oppose stand, just trimmed of its most hateful words. This is using Wikipedia as a battleground in its purest form. What are you saying? Maybe I should have joined some cliques while I had the chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entire statement should be left alone, and not redacted or sanitized in any way. The oppose only serves to reflect badly on Tony, and it certainly shouldn't hold up the final FA promotion in any way. I can't imagine anyone reading the vitriol Tony wrote and thinking of it as a valid oppose; so it does the FA nomination itself no harm. What it does do is stand as a clear testament to Tony's interpersonal communication skills. If he felt that saying what he said was appropriate, why should we not leave it to remind everyone of the kind of person Tony is. --Jayron32 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) On reflection I realised (while leaving the note at Tony's talk page) that you (Wehwalt) are right (and Jayron as well in regards to not sanitizing it). So (before I saw what Jayron wrote) I also asked him (Tony) to withdraw the review/oppose (as there are others just as capable of doing copyediting reviews who will have seen what he said). While we wait for a response from him, or from others, will you consider my comment that you (Wehwalt) may be over-reacting slightly here with your various withdrawals? Your argument will have more force if it is not accompanied by those unilateral withdrawals on your part that do nothing but raise the tension. Why not wait and see what others and Tony have to say? Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

{[ec}} Oh, asking Tony to remove it himself is quite appropriate. People make mistakes, and if Tony realizes he made a mistake, he should be allowed and encouraged to correct and atone for it. However, insofar as he is willing to stand by what he wrote, who are we to deny him that pleasure, especially since, as I noted, it does no harm to anyone EXCEPT Tony. If its important for him for that statement to be associated with him, he should reap the rewards of such a stand. If he realizes he made a clear mistake in leaving it, and feals remorse over doing so, we should allow him to remove the statement with dignity as well. It should be up to Tony how he wants the Wikipedia community to regard him. --Jayron32 03:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If, and only if, the blurb was restored to the version approved by Raul, I have no objection to the July 1 article running. The other nomination is for August 3, that needn't concern us right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second... Let me admit right up front that I'm (extremely) sympathetic to Tony's position. Look guys, editing main page blurbs is limited to admins (well... sorta), which right now effectively means that you have to be part of that club in order to touch anything on the main page. That reality may be necessary, but we should all be willing to admit that it's a crap piece of reality that we have to deal with. Since Tony has decided to speak up about it, from my perspective he's been character assassinated just for broaching the topic! As a side effect of that he's lashing out on a FAC... and we're considering "some action of some kind"? I agree that it really doesn't do the FA any harm... which is part of the reason that "some action of some kind" seems a bit crazy, to me. Characterizing this as some sort of character flaw, a fundamental failure on Tony's interpersonal communication skills, well that's just downright mean-spirited. I cry foul. :(
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

His position on the whole "protect the blurb" issue is unimportant at this point. I have no opinion on that matter, and will not for any time in the forseeable future. I do have an opinion on voluntarily and willfully pushing the "save page" button when shit like what is quoted above is sitting in the edit Window. As I stated, I have no idea how Tony feels now about his statements. If he knows he screwed up, he should feel free to remove his own comments and be allowed to retain his dignity. People who can admit their mistakes and be willing to learn from them are the best kinds of people in the world; we all screw up, it is what we do after screwing up that reveals what our character really is. If he feels that what he did is still, currently, a justifiable action under any circumstances, well, that says a lot about him too. --Jayron32 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He struck his comments (rather than removing them). I've left another note on his talk page and that is all I can do for now as I have to go do something else. Hopefully things will calm down at some point (for the record, I also agree with Tony that it should be easier for non-admins to edit main page blurbs in advance of them appearing there). Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• The consensus above seems to be that you are both overreacting and being childish with these tits-for-tat, and I would agree. The manifestations of this animosity are damaging to both your standings. You should stop bashing each other on ANI and FAC as if this was some Punch and Judy show. It seems that there is some mincing of the issues, but this all boils down to personal style; none of the issues seems fundamental to the substance. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I agree.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't contribute here at ANI, but I do lurk from time to time, and this complaint caught my eye. I've proposed a bit of a solution to at least part of what precipitated this blowup over at WT:MP. LHM 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Without reading too closely, I can say that i have first hand knowledge of Wehwalt's overexaggerated dramatics in terms of editorial conflict. I also know that Tony1 can be moody and tends to review at times based on his mood rather than content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Wehwalt = fairly typical author. Tony1 = fairly typical editor. This isn't too difficult to understand, really. It's certainly not unusual, or completely unexpected (even though it's never happened between these two specifically, that I'm aware of). Frankly, this is almost too cliche to be taken at face value.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I've actually found Wehwalt to be one of the more level-headed editors here, TTT. Requesting something like this is rather uncommon for him, AFAIK. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Surprise oppose At one time Tony always opposed my articles (since he was usually the only opposer, none failed), and any request for help was treated with contemptuous sarcasm. However, he is a serious good faith contributor, and I get the impression, perhaps wrongly, that he is less difficult than he used to be. I have lots of respect for Wehwalt, and understand his frustration, but I'm reluctant to go down this road yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I will confess to feeling let down. I have done nothing to provoke this, yet some blame me for bringing this complaint here, calling it tit for tat. Does anyone care to offer a solution other than tit for tat? --Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your disappointment in the Oppose and the behavior, but this was not the appropriate venue for addressing this matter. I have never supported banning anyone from FAC, I'm quite capable of weighing the validity of an Oppose without external dramatics or intervention, I have observed Tony1's tendency of late to overreach and am aware of the issue, and I suggest that there is nothing whatsoever to be decided here by ANI. The appropriate DR venue for the matter of Tony's behavior would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well, let's leave it at that then. If anyone is interested in starting such a thing, and needs a second person to certify, let me know. Honestly, (looks up column of text), I'm not holding my breath. Would someone like to close this? I need to bandage the other cheek.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the relative scheme of things, Tony1 has done other things at FAC that concern me more than this instance, although again I do understand it's upsetting to you. Should the behavior continue, you may find your co-certifier of an RFC closer than you think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll recover eventually. What choice do I have?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the decision that John A. Macdonald won't be on the main page for July 1 (Canada Day)? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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

User: HRH2

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone could take a look at the above new user, who has posted threatening and abusive messages on my talk page [56], [57], [58], [59], as well as edit warring at King's College London (and making it very clear that they have a conflict of interest in respect of the subject of that article). Thank you. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one week; there's really no excuse for this sort of thing. The IP who left similar remarks is probably caught under that block, but should still be watched. --Danger (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This gets very close to WP:NLT is a week long enough ? Mtking (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have extended it to INDEFINITE and advised the editor accordingly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK Block

Latest Mikemikev sock got blocked a few hours ago, 200.198.42.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now continuing the conversation started by the sock with out missing a beat. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

another 86.176.7.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The IPs are geolocating to different continents. Either Mikemikev has a handle on an open proxy somewhere or it's two separate users. Either way, though, obviously disruptive IP is obvious. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The first one carries on the same conversations without missing a beat. IIRC Mikemikev had his usual local ip harblocked so a proxy would be expected. The second already has a block log associated with Mikemikev. I think we caught one a while back from Indonesia associated with him too. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is the most effective route, then? Whac-a-Mole™ or just semi the involved articles for a while? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is semi'd but we dont block them i suspect they may simply move to our next Racial theorist or theory The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mikemikev has been enjoying a non-dormant period; it's only worth identifying the named accounts (Nam84 on WP:AN3 and WP:SPI in this case). The second IP mentioned here was already positively identified a while back because of comments on Shell Kinney's talk page related to Mikemikev's racist postings on Stormfront (website), already mentioned today on WP:FTN. That IP was temporarily blocked by Shell at the time. Mikemikev edits from London, presumably contravening the conditions for using accounts registered with Imperial College, London and University College, London when he edits from there. He has also used proxies, etc, from China and Brasil. There was a three month block on a range of vodafone IPs which has lapsed by now. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but those two colleges sound like institutions that would rather not have their computer equipment put to the use mike has chosen for them. Is there any future in contacting them and asking them to revoke his access? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

200.198.42.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is  Confirmed as a Proxy Server in Brazil The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry / OR / POV edits on Algeria related articles (Part III)

Hello! :D

I think that, instead of describing what is happening, links to the two precedent episodes are more meaningful : Part I Part II.

Here we are : Today, the Part III begins : [60][61]

This is incredible...

Omar-Toons (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Omar, it's probably time to start an SPI. I've blocked the IP for a week and User:KAMTCHO for a bit longer. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unjustified name calling and threats to block

At my talk page [62] under the current heading "Census Issues, Parr II" (item 89) a user has called me a racist and threatened to block me if I continue to edit. This user [63] (the link is to his userpage) is an administrator who seems to be using his position as such to threaten and force compliance with his will. I do not really care that much about the specific way in which the demographic data from the US census is reported. However his high-handed use of his position as an administrator and calling someone who wants to reflect the fact that non-Hispanic white is the figure most close to how people in general talk about race, and so report that figure and ignore the figure of all whites when that larger figure is half Hispanic a "racist" and threten to block them if they continue to edit just makes any discussion on the matter impossible. This is not an issue about content, it is an issue of threatening people for editing at all and such. I feel this is the best example of bullying I have seen on wikipedia ever. Such high-handed unilateral threatening of people should not happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified Carlossuarez. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, you just beat me to it. I'm concerned at the least about the language left on JPL's user talk page, from an admin no less, and I'd be interested to see an explanation. -- Atama頭 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Me too. I don't have much to say on the ins and outs of the debate, but those are strong words. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This editor has repeated introduced racist cuts of census data and I have warned him that if he continues to do so, he'll get blocked. He, for whatever reasons, believes that Hispanics and Latinos cannot be White or African-American according the census data. Our consistent approach, like the census, is to report race separately from ethnicity. John Pack Lambert insists otherwise, that Hispanics and Latinos can be everything but White or African-American so he puts in data, to serve his purpose, of non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic African-Americans, and then various other races, apparently Hispanic included. He also points out in several edits his purposes "updated to reflect the more close to how people actually think of thins non-Hispanic white figure" where by he removes Hispanics and Latinos to make Whites more close to how people (like him?) think of white or otherwise qualifies the data by pointing out (only where it suits him) that Whites includes "Iranians and other middle easterners". There is a link to how White (U.S. Census) is defined, why the unsourced added language? The pattern is unmistakeable, his editing is tendentious, contrary to the Wikipedia norm, and in furtherance of his agenda. It should stop. This was a topic I broached here with another editor, which alas got almost no attention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • I've already commented on JPL's talk page. Having delved extensively into the 2010 Census data, I think both JPL and CarlosS have valid arguments. The Census data do allow for some surprisingly detailed statistics on ethnicity to be reported, and JPL has been pulling out some valid statistics on groups like "White," "Non-Hispanic white," and "Non-Hispanic Asian." However, JPL is adding his own original interpretation in edits like this diff, where he described the non-Hispanic white population as "including Iranians and other middle easterners." That's not something the Census reports, and it does not belong in the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• So it's possible that JPL is wrong. But it's one thing to attack the validity of a person's edits, and another to attack the person directly and call them a racist. JPL may be guilty of original research, but attacking a race? I'm having trouble accepting these racism allegations as anything but a personal attack. Is there any more evidence of his "agenda"? Racism is a pretty strong word to throw around. -- Atama頭 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• What rationale is there to remove Latinos and Hispanics from the Whites and African Americans ONLY?? Nowhere does the census in its reports eliminate people by Latino and Hispanic ONLY by these races; either its all in or all out. Show me otherwise. With comments like how people think of white (absent Latinos and Hispanics), is that for real? Is that how Wikipedia thinks? how the people reading this thinks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In another of his edits, he presents data carved differently than anywhere else in reporting census data Where people who reported partial Asian ancestry are broken out from the 2 or more races for what purpose? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Census allows us to report our race, and then whether or not we're of Latino or Hispanic ethnicity - that's the census. This editor thinks that Hispanic is a race, not an ethnicity; without succumbing to Godwin's law, needless to say that others have had differing views on race, but we report what the census reports not how we may think. And as this editor says himself "Thinking that Hispanics are not white is not racist." (his emphasis). Naturally, I disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Carlos, can you imagine the possibility that he might be wrong about this, while not being a racist? Can you imagine how offensive it would be to be called a racist if you are not one? If you can, then you should apologize. If you can't, then you really shouldn't consider taking any admin actions with this user anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult to find someplace appropriate (I would have thought there'd be a Wikipedia:Wikiproject U.S. Census, but I guess not) to discuss this calmly, without assuming you know each others motives, and getting outside input if you need it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • An uninvolved admin should block him if he continues to degrade Wikipedia with his edits reflecting his thinking unless it's Wikipedia's coordinated belief and NPOV that Latinos and Hispanics cannot be White or African Americans as the Census Bureau defines these terms, and then someone ought to delete Black Hispanic and Latino Americans, because there's no such thing apparently. Imagine how humiliating it would be to have your ethnicity pulled out and classified as not White, African American, Asian, or whatever enough for inclusion. Those views found currency in the past, are clear POV, with a bias that is clearly reflected in the editing from this guy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll support the suggestion that JPL's edits aren't helpful, and any editor who continues to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR despite warnings can and should be blocked. I don't question your concern with JPL's contributions or warning him that continuing the behavior can lead to a block. My problem is only with the racism allegations. You said before, "What rationale is there to remove Latinos and Hispanics from the Whites and African Americans ONLY??" You shouldn't conclude that any rationale must automatically be racism. Let me ask you, is a person racist because they are mistaken? If a person believes that a white person can't be Hispanic, he is a racist? Do JPL's actions or comments in any way suggest that he dislikes Hispanics or any other ethnicity, or considers one race to be superior to another, or made derogatory remarks about race or ethnicity? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. I would have to agree with JPL that thinking that you don't have to be a racist to have the (mistaken) belief that there are no white Hispanics, and strongly, very strongly disagree with you. Your insistence that a person's disagreement must constitute racism unnecessarily creates a hostile editing environment, and you should retract your allegations. -- Atama頭 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • My allegation: that the view that a White person (as defined by the census) cannot be Latino or Hispanic is racist stands - it's no different than substituting "Jew", "Italian", "Russian", or any other religion or ethnicity for "Latino or Hispanic". I'm surprised that you agree with that position. Apparently, the millions of Hispanics and Latinos who checked the box that they are White or African-American were wrong and that you and JPL are right? His view has no basis; in fact, practice, or other than his POV. The Census Bureau, whose data he links to and their definitions which he links to all say that White people can be Latino or Hispanic. His edits appear to further his belief that despite the position of the Census Bureau, to which he cites as the source for his edits, Whites and African Americans cannot be Hispanic/Latino. Let him or you defend that position and why that view is not racist in denying Latinos and Hispanics a race figure from the Census, and why his straying from the Census Bureau and its definitions while linking and citing them is proper editing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the lead from our article on racism Racism: "Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, justify the different treatment of those people, both socially and legally. Moreover, racism is the practice of the different treatment of certain a group or groups, which is then justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science." Did this user in any way allude to hispanics being inferior or different than white people because of their race? According to this ANI report I see nothing of the sort. Saying that his attitude is racist shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what that word means. It seems this user doesn't really get race vs. ethnicity, but that doesn't make him racist. N^oformation ^Talk 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, as an admin you should know better than to threaten blocks like that. If he had actually vandalized the page you could have left a vandal template...4 times and he's blocked. But he wasn't vandalizing; this is a content dispute and you threatened a block because you didn't agree with him. He may be wrong, but he clearly isn't racist nor a vandal. N^oformation ^Talk 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a content dispute; its removing POV from editing and replacing inaccuracies with sourced accurate data. Anyone who continues to edit tendentiously and adds inappropriate material is liable to be blocked. He should know that, he's been blocked before here. And as for "racism", wiktionary's 1st definition is thus: "The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes." [64] He has admitted that he thinks that Latinos and Hispanics cannot be White, nor can Whites be Hispanic or Latino. So in his view, one attribute of White is non-Latino and non-Hispanic; he's entitled to that opinion, but not to edit Wikipedia to promote that view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here, but it appears that Wiktionary's first definition is inaccurate. I checked 7 dictionaries that I have access to and the closest wording to what appears in Wiktionary was from dictionary.com, which states "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

Identification of distinct or intrinsic attributes of different human 'races' is not racism, in the same way that acknowledging 'boys have penises, girls have vaginas' is not sexism. A key element of the definition is the presence of prejudice, that these distinctions determine capability and achievement. To refer back to the sexism example, 'boys have penises' isn't sexist, but 'boys are the better sex because they have penises' is. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What if one of the penises has "Hammer of the Gods" tattooed on it? As for the matter at hand, sorry Carlos, but while I understand that this is an important issue that easily calls up lots of emotion, I do think you came on a little strong. What I'd like to see is a wider input in this discussion on another forum than this one by knowledgeable editors--without ascribing motive. A discussion on what is and isn't racism (or racist) will not help solve this problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Vancouver
• Manhattan
• Toronto
• and many more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision#Ohconfucius

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

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

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

User:Mattchewbaca

Hey everyone. I have come to this thread today because I am having trouble with User:Mattchewbaca. I reviewed Howling Bells (album), which was nominated for good article status by this user. After an initial review of the article, I failed the article because there were many stand-out issues. After this, Mattchewbaca started reviewing both of the articles I have up for good article nomination which are Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). He also reassessed my first and only good article that was approved for good article status in 2010 (Halfway Gone). On all of these reviews, it seemed liked this user was trying to get revenge on me by finding false issues with the articles I have up for good article status.

Because of this, I decided to give this user a chance to fix the mistakes in his good article nomination. I also apologized for any problems that occurred. After this, he wrote a rather offensive and sort of blackmailing reply to the comment I left on his talk page at: User_talk:Mattchewbaca#Good_article_mix-up. He also wrote another offensive and vulgar post on my wall today at User_talk:Rp0211#Hey, kid. I am here to report this user for saying offensive and vulgar remarks to me numerous times.

I am also here because I do not know what to do with the status of my good articles. He is reviewing both of them right now, and from his reply, has said he is not going to pass them as sort of a revenge tactic. I honestly do not know what to do in this situation. After all the work I put in the articles I have worked on, I want to have honest reviews for the pages. Any help in this situation would be appreciated. Thanks. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I gotta say, that's as bad as anything I've seen here. I chose to leave the editor a final warning instead of blocking them; I must be in a good mood. I haven't looked at the GA review yet; if the user's way of interacting is typical of their general editing behavior, we may just quash it. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a topic ban from GA review as well. GAR is meant to be neutral and the reviewer is meant to be so. Someone with that type of incredibly immature attitude shouldn't be reviewing other people's work; if it doesn't meet GA, let someone without a chip on their shoulder say so. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow, I didn't think my comments would top the list of bad things people have said on Wikipedia, that's not very good. I was trying to make a little funny at least. If I could put my two cents in, Rp0211 had a thread started about his GA reviewing behavior here. His initial quick-fail of my article was here. He also had another quick-fail article this week here. This kid never gave me a chance to respond and change anything on my GA nominated article. Take a look at his review of it and you can clearly see that he lied about half of the stuff he came up with. I worked very hard on this article and to have him not give it a chance, is crap. He thinks his article is more deserving of GA than mine? I'm sorry I got excited at his expense, but look at the evidence. Clearly, to me, what he did was an injustice to my hard work on the article. Yes, what I wrote is indeed what most people would call harsh, so Rp0211, I am sorry if what I said may have offended you in any way. I am older than you and I clearly crossed the line of good taste. Just know that speaking out for what is right is something that nobody should be afraid to do. Mattchewbaca (meow) 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you actually see the error of your ways, even here. You are referring to another user repeatedly as "kid" and "the kid" in a clearly dismissive way. You are saying right here that he "lied" about things, without giving any evidence to support that inflammatory, personal accusation. You are accusing him of not giving the article a chance and calling that "crap" - again without support. Yes, you made an apology, but it is so half-hearted as to be almost a non-apology. Finally, you close it all by dismissing objection to your behavior because it is "something that nobody should be afraid to do."

Bottom line: YOU should be afraid to behave that way in this community, because that's not how things work around here, and you've been explicitly warned about it. I am just one notch crankier than Drmies, who posted on your talk page already. Comment on content, not people, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia. I assure you the project will continue - with or without your contributions.  Frank  |  talk  00:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just 7 minutes after posting your justification of your incredibly uncivil behavior here, you post more condescension on the editor's talk page here: [65]. "Look kid, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I thought what I was saying was more funny than anything. I guess it must be different on the receiving end of it. That still doesn't take away from the fact that you gave me a screwed-up review, where half of your suggestions were unjustified, and also didn't give me a chance to respond'. Again, I'm sorry that I offended you. " Attempting to blackmail an editor, as you did here [66] is unacceptable behavior, and should result in sanctions until you can demonstrate you understand how and why it is unacceptable, and pledge to not do so again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the above. There' even a page about it at Non-apology apology N^oformation ^Talk 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Like other editors, I am bemused by the surreal dismissiveness of User:Mattchewbaca. This is way over the line. Mattchewbaca, would you like to issue a complete and unequivocal apology to Rp0211, accompanied by withdrawing from reviewing his GA nominations, or should we move on to dealing with this in some other way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• So far over the line I've blocked Mattchewbaca for 24 hours. I've pulled the GA Reassement for Halfway Gone too, obviously done as retaliation and did not follow the process. Anyone who believes a GA review needs to be done besides Mattchewbaca can refile. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey everyone. Thank you all for helping me in this situation. I have an update from the actions of this user. Mattchewbaca failed both of the articles I had up for good article nomination before he got blocked for 24 hours. The articles were Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). I addressed the issues he brought up with both articles and then he failed the article, presenting issues under "Review Summary" of other issues that he did not present to me at the time of the initial reviews. I believe these articles are ready for the good article nomination process. Should I put both articles under a second GA review or should it be put as a GA 1 because of the actions of Mattchewbaca? Thanks. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that Mattchewbaca "failed" the GA of both of these articles [67] [68] after he was warned by Drmies [69] [70] (and note - rather than retract his comments as suggested, he failed the GARs), in apparent retaliation for the filing of this AN/I report. I recommend these reviews be voided. Further I Propose a GAR topic ban for Mattchewbaca due to his retaliatory GAR fails. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This "kid" stuff, what can I say. Dreadstar, I do not disagree with a block. I had a quick look at the article they had nominated for GA, and it wasn't bad--still, one wonders about editors with 600+ edits doing such reviews. That peer-review process (which I'm about to celebrate in Boston at the WP in higher ed conference) is potentially much more satisfying, productive, and workable than similar processes in academia, but only if editors and reviewers manage to dish out and take criticism in collegial ways. If this editor can keep their foot out of their mouth long enough to come back, then a GA topic ban is (in my opinion) mandatory unless they can refrain from condescending "kid" language and can refrain from retaliatory action if they don't get their way. Thank you to all involved here and Mattchewbaka, please learn to accept criticism from your wiki-elders. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unapproved bot

• Peryeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, there appears to be an unapproved bot adding links to drugboxes at a phenomenal rate (~7 edits per minute, and it is already over 500 edits in less than an hour). It did not reply to my query, so I am taking this here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He posted this to Project Pharmacology: "That's me. The UNII is a code for defining substances. It's used by the FDA, NIH, Martindale, USP, and soon the EPA, primarily for defining food/drug/health related substances. We added a lot of the UNIIs as a first pass a while ago. I'm adding all the new ones that are linked to INN approved terms, but weren't originally caught. Note that the UNII is a part of the Drug and Chem box. Peryeat (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)" Looks like he's acting in good faith but it still could be a bot, though 7 edits per minute is doable if you're just doing the same thing over and over again. N^oformation ^Talk 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is ranging up to ten edits per minute, and I can barely ever make that even using an antivandal tool when ClueBot NG is down and I am the only antivandal person online. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, isn't Delta restricted to 45 edits a minute and still there's a thread about him breaking that limit? 10 is seriously pushing it, but 45, just wow, impressive. N^oformation ^Talk 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I might have misunderstood his edit restriction, so scratch that. Up above he was accused of 115 edits in 10 minutes, so I was way off. Still impressive though. N^oformation ^Talk 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as the data is right, I'd say let it run. It is a simple task that would easily get bot approval anyway. Just leave a note to the user to be sure to use an edit summary, perhaps go a bit slower, and consider whether bot approval might be helpful. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, if you open up multiple tabs in your browser and switch between them often, it's not that difficult to make a lot of edits quickly. I've made a lot of really menial edits quickly that way (not sure exactly how quickly but 10 a minute wouldn't be hard at all). It doesn't require any special software or anything, you just need to be doing something simple (like copy-paste), know what you're doing before you do it, and use multiple tabs or windows so that you're not waiting for a page to load between each edit. -- Atama頭 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's how I do relists at AFD. I spend 15 minutes or so lining up all the relistable AFDs in Firefox tabs and start pushing "submit" buttons at 0:00GMT. I'm surprised some people don't think I'm a "bot". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another FYI. As I understand the bot policy, that makes no difference. If you're using an automated process to make edits so fast that it appears that a bot is doing them, as far as the policy is concerned, you're running a bot. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're so paranoid about the running of "unapproved bots" by merely looking at edit rates, why doesn't someone propose a hardware limit on the number of edits a user can do in 1 minute of time, if that is possible? –MuZemike 06:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea -- that would prevent rollbackers from quickly cleaning up messes that might not have been caught for a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a case of IAR...if the edits are uncontroversial, and aren't being done quickly enough to cause system issues, who really cares if he's using a bot? Bobby Tables (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Hullo;

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

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

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

Trollish sock on banned user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The target: User:Iaaasi (edit history)
• The troll: Aigarban (talk · contribs)

Would any kind patrolling Admin please take a look at the above? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Socked and BLOCKED indefinitely by Admin Floquenbeam. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Slow edit warring at Yadav has turned into a legal threat

Resolved

Some slow edit warring at Yadav has now turned into a legal threat by Sumitkachroo. Needs a block, I think. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, we edit conflicted on this one, I saw the legal threat and have blocked him for that. —SpacemanSpiff 08:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this appears to be linked to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Veiled_legal_threat_from_an_IP_at_Yadav also, and it doesn't look like the named editors are different (as well as the IPs), the edits appear to be the same to the casual eye. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This[71] is clearly a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, at least one regular and (IMO) sensible editor has felt it necessary to cease contributing to Indian articles here in the last few days as a direct result of this spate of legal threats on such articles. I have the details if anyone should need them for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)