Revision as of 09:58, 9 July 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

• WP:A/R/M

Motions regarding User:Δ (formerly User:Betacommand)

Motion: User:Δ topic banned

Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Clearly too much editor and administrative time is being consumed by disputes over Δ's non-free content criteria enforcement: by my count there are threads within the last 48 hours at AN, ANI, Δ's AN subpage, AN3 (2), Wikiquette alerts, AE, and DRN. –xeno 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Kirill  23:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I have read the comments below in the discussion section, and while I do understand where people are coming from (in that Δ is essentially trying to enforce one of WP's core policies), however, to put it blunt terms.. in doctor's terms.. their bedside manner sucks, and they have been asked to improve it, time and time again, and they either can not or will not. A couple statements below also bring up BLP violations and try to equivocate it to what Δ does. However, that is a logical fallacy. We have carved out an edit warring exemption to 3RR for violations of BLP policy. There is no such exemption for NFCC violations. I'm not going to say whether there should be or not. We're not dealing with "how it should be", but how it is. In short, Δ is "right", but in the wrong way, consistently. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Part of what is required for a collaborative project is the ability to collaborate. Δ does work that is, fundamentally, correct and useful but he consistently does it in a manner that is so egregiously combative that it causes more disruption than can possibly be justified. He has been asked, begged, cajoled and otherwise encouraged to alter his approached over years to no avail.

   Even if we granted that everything he does is perfectly in line with NFCC, the manner in which he does it causes so much acrimony and disruption that it cannot be allowed to continue. — Coren  01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion 2: User:Δ site banned

In breach of the provisional suspension of their community ban, Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) has engaged in conduct injurious to the encyclopedia and the indefinite community ban is hereby reinstated by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I'd rather it does not come to a full ban, and would prefer the NFCC motion. However, in my opinion, Δ's extreme interpretation of the NFCC policy and refusal to compromise is hurting the project more than it is helping. It antagonises and ultimately drives away users who are acting in good faith, but I do understand that Δ does a lot of good work with the project in other areas, and I commend him especially for his work with Δbot (talk · contribs). The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Second choice for now, though I am unconvinced it will not come to this regardless; Δ has an unfortunate history of aggressively pushing the limits of any restrictions placed on him, and I fear that even the straightforward topic ban above will not be adhered to. Kirill  23:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I'm rather surprised that, after disruption after disruption, there are arbitrators who actually oppose this motion. Note that these motions are separate issues, and if both pass, both will be implemented. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Δ is capable of doing good work other than NFCC enforcement without issue; for example, Δbot (talk · contribs) has been quietly chugging away with no complaints. –xeno 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I think he can and does do good work elsewhere, so all that is necessary (for now) is the removal from where he is disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3. I don't think this is justified at this time. Δ has a chip on his shoulder the size of an aircraft carrier regarding NFCC enforcement, but I see no evidence that his work elsewhere is nearly as problematic. — Coren  01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Copied from User talk:Δ

If requested, an arbitration clerk will provisionally unblock so Δ may participate directly

Its an obvious farce, run around the community, both of their motions have been proposed and failed to gain consensus. If arbcom actually had a backbone they would remove all current sanctions that are placed on me (except perhaps the CIVIL) and give me four months to get this issue fully under control. Wikidemon by his own words has a 28.57% error rate, I know for a fact that my error rate is less than a tenth of that (3%) with my NFCC#10c removals. If anyone wants to disprove that Ill get a full listing of every NFCC#10c removal that Ive made for them to review. If can find a higher error rate (and I mean actually errors where 10c was met and I still removed the file) Ill stop my 10c enforcement of my own will. However I know that my error rate is far less than that. But getting back to my main point in four months I can get 10c removals to a handful per day with plenty of notification, warnings, and a binding NFC review system for individual article/files that is as binding as FFD or any other XfD. This whole process could become a lot more streamlined and manageable and user friendly, however as it stands getting these implemented has a snow balls chance in hell due to all of the loopholes that I have to jump through. So my counter proposal is this, arbcom give me 4 months of free rain and let me implement everything that I want, stop the harassment and stalking against me, and lets get the whole issue addressed and under control (its been 4 years already, far too long). Otherwise ignore the community and ArbFuck™ me again. Ive proposed multiple solutions over a long period of time but due to the excessive hoops Ive had to jump through, unable to implement. ΔT 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Motion1

• I wonder, just how many times does it take to make something stick to a wall? It's certainly less than how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop. These endless proposals for this, that, or the other band are insane. Everyone is effectively saying "Δ, until your morale and attitude improves, the beatings will continue". The results here are utterly predictable. ANYone forced to put up with as much abuse as he has suffered would have "issues" with his behavior. Want a real proposal? How about a moratorium on the *()#@$@#! endless ban/topic-ban/beat-senseless proposals. Those arbcom members voting support of either sanction are ignorant of the underlying issues that are happening right now and the constant, unending harassment for the work Δ has been doing. You are railroading Δ, pure and simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A topic ban was proposed at WP:AN, and failed to reach consensus. A site ban was proposed at WP:ANI, and was snow-closed amid overwhelming opposition. For ArbCom to resurrect both proposals in an explicit attempt to override what the community has decided feels like a bit of a slap in the face, to be honest. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Thoroughly agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• I've get to see any policy state that a 65% majority is not enough to enact this ban. It failed only because no one was willing to enforce it yet. It didn't fail consensus based on any policy.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• It failed because it didn't have consensus. Hence the further disruption and forum-shopping that has ended up here; sadly ArbCom appear to be even more clueless than the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Define consensus. WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that on a major change (which this is) more than a simple majority is required. Can you define that? I would define it as a case where we had 18 or 20 vs 17. In this case we had 32 vs 17. That's more than a simple majority. It's a very obvious majority. There is no other policy definition.--Crossmr (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• ArbCom should also be aware that Δ has performed thousands upon thousands of edits over the last year in support of NFCC enforcement. This was done without creating very much fuss, without a whole bunch of hoopla about it. ArbCom should also be aware that over the last three months inclusive, six different reports were made to WP:EW in an attempt to get Δ blocked for NFCC enforcement. Only the most recent of those reports saw a block come down for it (and that, controversially). All the others were found to not be violations but one that ended up going stale. The people asking for his head have been wrong over and over and over again. But, instead, we take the cop out approach and topic ban him? Wow. Utterly wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Responding specifically to Xeno; just because there ARE threads in existence doesn't make Δ WRONG. Case point; the WQA thread found in Δ's favor. If I started threads at multiple locations about you, should we then assume you should be topic banned? You are compelled to look deeper than this. Do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I haven't said anywhere above that Δ was wrong. But as the committee suspended the community's indefinite ban of Betacommand (a ban that was placed in no small part due to never-ending disputes with regards to Δ's non-free content enforcement), we are obligated to be mindful of the effect our modifying the community sanction has on administrative and editor resources on the same subject. Echoing Coren, Even if we granted that everything he does is perfectly in line with NFCC, the manner in which he does it causes so much acrimony and disruption that it cannot be allowed to continue. By my reading of the topic ban, Δ will still be free to assist in identifying NFCC problems, just not enforcing them. –xeno 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The biggest act of ArbCom hypocrisy ever. If Delta was edit-warring to remove BLP violations, you'd all be running desperately to defend him. Despite the fact that NFCC is as much of a pillar as BLP (in fact possibly more so - look at that word "Free" in the top left hand corner of the page), you're all pandering to the peanut gallery. It's frankly sickening, and you really need to take a long good look at yourselves. You are enabling copyright violators. Pathetic. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Echoing Black Kite. This is an absurd farce. Look at our Five Pillars, our m:Mission, and then tell me you really believe the fault lies with Delta and not the asinine hounding, berating and abuse he takes simply for trying to help keep us true. I signed up for this project the same time many others did im sure, seeing Jimmy's interview posted on slashdot back in the day, about giving every person, every child, every school free knowledge. Freely shared, freely used, to better actual lives. To improve education, to improve access. We had morals, and these motions do nothing more then implicitly turn our backs on what we once reveled in. This is shame-worthy. -- ۩ Mask 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a 💕 of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." Jimmy in 2005, on the mailing list. Quite simply, at this point I think what we're seeing is a conflict between 'the community' and 'other people who are editing wikipedia'. Founding principals determine the scope of membership for organizations and nonprofits such as ours, and that should not be forgotten. I like to view it as Reform Judaism, accepting converts from all others to build our cause. -- ۩ Mask 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Precisely. Still, at least this Arbcom looks like it will go down in history as the one that declared "💕? No, can't be bothered with that, it's just a website like any other". Well done. When are you going to change WP:5P? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • How is strongarm tactics going to win over the community in general? We have issues with editor retention as is and the (adjective redacted) edit wars of recent weeks are ridiculous. Yes we need to address NFCC, but in some cases I've seen betacommand's interaction has been unconstructive to say the least. So if one is rude enough, the other party will suddenly be converted??? this was ridiculous, we are supposed to be editing collaboratively, not self-appointed wiki-cops doing the equivalent of ordering about content contributors like naughty children. I do concede that I am undecided about the bans though, if you supporters can think of anyother way forward I am all ears. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Cas, have you seen this? Δ links to this in his edit summaries. But if you look at some of the timestamps of when people revert his image removals, it's clear they don't even take the time to look at this document that tells them how to fix the problem, begs them not to edit-war, and gives them a list of editors who will help them. Does Δ have to copy and paste the whole thing to their talk pages to get them to understand? There are quite a few of us who are trying to mitigate the conflict between NFCC enforcers and people who get mad their images are removed, but those folks have to meet us halfway. 28bytes (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Cas, you are missing the point. If people turn up and violate BLP all over the place, we block them and frankly we don't really care how we communicate with them. However with NFCC there appears to be the case that a vocal minority of the community thinks this particular policy should be treated differently. Yes, Delta is not always the easiest editor to deal with, but his usual edit pattern tells people what they're doing wrongly. Seriously - removing his ability to deal with huge amounts of non-controversial NFCC enforcement rather than trying to find a way to fix the issue without the pitchforks and torches? Isn't discussion the way this 💕 website is run? But since AGF has run out here, so has mine; the Arbs who have !voted for a site ban have made themselves look idiots. Kudos at least to Xeno here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I have to second 28- there all too often seems to be an "oh, it's those non-free content freaks again" mentality. I know you were using it as the unpleasant extreme, but a lot of people seem to actually view the situation as "wiki-cops versus content contributors", in the same way there is sometimes a "civility police versus article writers" dichotomy. I don't think that mentality is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm in total agreement with Cas here. The problems we're having now are essentially exactly the same problems we were having 3 and 4 years ago with the same user - I don't honestly believe he's demonstrated a capacity to change, and his interaction with new users is in the main lamentable. Orderinchaos 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• @SirFozzie: There actually is an exemption for NFCC enforcement. Please take a look at WP:3RR#3RR exemptions. Granted, it only covers "unquestionable" violations, but most (admittedly, not all) of Δ's reverting past 3 has been indeed to remove unquestionable violations. 28bytes (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I did. In the vast majority of cases, yes, he's right to go the way he does. However, there's enough edge cases where what he is doing is Edit warring, not covered by this exemption, that I do not feel compelled to change what I've said. Now admittedly, with the sheer amount of work he does, there's going to be edge cases left right and center, however he does the bull in the china shop treatment in all cases without recognizing if it's the best tactic, and that is why there is so much noise about him. SirFozzie (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, with respect, I think ArbCom would serve the community much better if it were to tackle these edge cases rather than throwing away the obvious and uncontroversial good work he does along with it. Why not propose a motion to tackle these edge cases? Something like "no breaking 3RR, even if the policy says other editors can"? I mean, come on, right now the site ban is winning the day among ArbCom even though that exact proposal was soundly rejected by the community just today. ArbCom is essentially telling us it doesn't care what we think. You're all smart people, surely a more imaginative solution to the problems than "ban him" can be formulated? 28bytes (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • (edit conflict)x2 I'm also going to have to agree with 28bytes. No disrespect intended to AC, and I appreciate that they are attempting to reduce the drama; but, the image removals are fully within the NFCC policy, and the WMF has even posted their desire to move away from the fair use stuff. Delta get a lot of harsh talk thrown his way, and to be honest, I think he's shown a tremendous amount of restraint. I understand he's not a "warm & fuzzy" conversationalist, and I know he's made mistakes, and pushed boundaries. This just seems to be kind of harsh, and I have to wonder if it's feelings from the past which are influencing decisions in the present. — Ched :  ?  01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say feelings, but I think most all of us (arbs, parties and interested onlookers) are cognizant of the history of Delta in this area, and it guides us in our decisions by answering the question "Can/Will Delta improve behavior in those edge cases?". SirFozzie (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Arbs: it's probably too late at this point, but I would urge you to consider a less restrictive motion, as I had proposed in recent community discussions at ANI about a topic ban. I had suggested "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise. Delta is the posterboy for NFCC enforcement, but hardly the sole editor to carry that flag in a way others dislike; and it seems perverse for Arbcom to take him out of the game just as these constructive things (Misplaced Pages:AN#Request_exemption_of_restrictions) may be about to happen. So, at this point you might prefer to make it indefinite, but I'd urge you to focus the topic ban on the actual problem area, which is NFCC image removals. Rd232 public 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the topic ban being considered will prevent any edit enforcing the criteria. The two bots proposed at AN would 1) bring content in line with the criteria and 2) advise on talk pages of possible non-free content issues. Δ would also presumably be free to create lists of content he felt may require attention to assist other individuals who focus on NFCC issues. –xeno 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if the motion is intended to achieve what I suggested, that's good - but that's certainly not what I get from the motion's wording of banning "any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed". Personally I find the distinction between "enforcing" and "bringing in line with" unconvincing, and if one is intended in the way you say, that really should be clarified more officially (as part of the motion?). Rd232 public 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sir Fozzie may I ask a question? (ok, 2. :)). And I understand that this is purely hypothetical but: If Betacommand and Delta were not the same person. And we were dealing with just the edits of Delta, would you still be making (or supporting) this motion? And I admit that I haven't been here as long as most of you. I was just wondering. — Ched :  ?  01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As a hypothetical? I can't speak for the other arbs, but I would say that we wouldn't be considering a site ban and possibly not a topic ban. There's a reason why we throw a Recidivism findings in some cases (one formulation states: Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behavior. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.) Or in other words, if Delta didn't have the history they do, we'd be looking at the situation and wondering if a lesser sanction could get them to modify their behavior. Here, we don't have that question. SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Motion 2

• See my response to motion 1. Further, today a proposal was made to ban Δ from the site. It was overwhelmingly opposed, 19-3. It isn't what the community wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You appear to be under the illusion that ArbCom is here to enable the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Or the illusion that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS somehow 1) undoes the past community ban, or 2) is actually in the project's long-term best interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • That was a pretty clear consensus though, unlike the one on an NFCC ban on ANI. Yet ArbCom turn up and trample all over the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I cannot offer arguments beyond what everyone else has done time and time again. I'm not on ArbCom, I've never had much to do with ArbCom, and I doubt I will ever have much by way of dealings with ArbCom, but banning Delta would be a terrible thing to do, and I hope those who have voted in support will reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No one is considering banning him. He's already banned. What is on the table is un-suspending that ban. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• My views are posted above as well. — Ched :  ?  01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• To repeat here what I said below, reinstating a suspended community ban is not the same as an outright ban. I am sure that if Delta asks the committee (as a courtesy) for leave to appeal his community ban to the community, it will become clear whether or not there is a consensus to lift this reinstated community ban or not. This is different, of course, from lacking a consensus to ban someone. It is quite possible that if Motion 2 passes, the community will lift the community ban but will (sensibly) leave the (obviously passing) topic ban in place. Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Today, I was trying to find a venue to bring ArbCom's attention to the unending spat of ban/topic-ban proposals that have erupted over the last week, and the constant harassment that Δ has endured and couldn't find an appropriate place (complaint for another time). I had a false hope that ArbCom might have the wherewithal to recognize the serious situation for what it was; a massive conflict with a ton of flame added by a number of editors contributing to the dispute. I had hoped ArbCom would have been willing to step in and calm the waters. Instead, it appears ArbCom is willing to take the cop out, and refuse to address the serious problems created by all contributors to this dispute. Shame on you ArbCom, shame on you. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said elsewhere from the last weeks of additions: If you take out Delta from the "NFCC and Delta" problem, the issue will only return as "NFCC and (someone else)", whether that be Hammersoft, Black Kite, or a half-other dozen editors that keep NFC in line on WP, because there are editors that simply bother not to learn the policy or have come to resent it. I cannot fully clear Delta on his behavior on certain actions of late (as there's a confluence of numerous issues). But to simply to ban/block Delta without addressing the other side of the issue (whether this be the consensus for NFC, or those that employ a very loose interpretation of it, or a number of other factors) is a temporary reprieve. I will say this: there may be several pending ideas to improve NFC, and it may be a wise idea to try to bring in ArbCom to at minimum assign a moderator to assure the consensus process is not derailed by personal issues. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If another editor decides to step into Beta's shoes with clumsy disputed mass edits followed by scolding, insults, threats, and edit warring, over what Chase Me describes as "extreme interpretation of the NFCC policy and refusal to compromise", then they will ultimately have to stop as well. The phrase "editors that simply bother not to learn the policy" is indicative of the problem, an utter and complete refusal to acknowledge that some editors legitimately and reasonably believe NFCC policy and the NFC guideline urge an image be kept or its rationale fixed in a given case, or ask as the guideline instructs that some things are consensus matters to be resolved through discussion. Edit warring and incivility are the antithesis of constructive work on the encyclopedia, and the former is permitted as an exception to WP:3RR only in the extreme case where something "unquestionably" violates the policy. Telling others that their question doesn't count because you know you are right is no substitute for discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The place for discussion is at the policy page, not knowingly breaking the policy and then saying you don't agree with it. That should be obvious. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And ergo, a ban/block on NFC is not the right solution if the issue is "edit warring and incivility" (and again, to be clear, I support Arbcom re-establishing this facet of the community restrictions). But again, the other facet is NFC itself (not Delta); I've pointed out many many times before that if there is a problem with how NFC is interpreted differently by different people, then there's should be proposals aplenty at WT:NFC to amend and revise the policy to either reaffirm what it says or bring it in line with what consensus suggests, but that's not happening relative to the amount of discussion there is about Delta's specific actions. No one wants to seem to touch the core problem, which is the dissent to which NFC is handled. There is an RFC attempting to generate ideas to improve it, and I will offer that Delta offered two automatic bots that would aid in fixing and tagging broken NFC images, so it is not like there's no attempts at all - just not what I'd think there would be. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It could also be argued that the correct way to go about getting one's editing sanctions lifted is to stay within them and to keep one's nose clean, rather than to repeatedly violate them while continuing to get into lame, petty spats like 3RR violations. I don't doubt for a minute that Delta was goaded into a good few of these (MMN taking him to ANI for a civility problem really takes the cake), but very few people seriously think this is a stitch-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has always been and continues to be Delta's behaviour. There is absolutely nothing in NFCC that dictates or mandates his behaviour. Nothing. Not a single word. I touched the core problem. I went out and enforced NFCC in a community focused manner without causing disruption, hurt feelings or generating any dissent. Neither one of us had our edits mandated by NFCC policy and there was an entirely different result. Delta's edits are his own choice and his own behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You did it well away from the edges where consensus may or may not be there for the types of actions Delta was doing; therefore, there's no reasonable expectation that you'd get hit with what Delta has. Delta operates at the fringes where he and several others (including myself at times) think he is right in application (not necessarily approach) and several others think he's wrong. Those that think he's in the wrong when the policy is not clear need be ready to revise and clarify the policy to bring that part of the policy closer to their view. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Or vice-versa. Policy is almost never black and white where reasonable editors disagree, for if it were their disagreement would not be reasonable. Disagreements have to be handled through reasoned discussion, not force of aggressive content changes. The encyclopedia has largely complied at this point with the Foundation's requirement for non-free use rationales and we are in a stage of maintenance and refinement (if a huge problem remained the Foundation or ArbCom could step in at any time, and they have not). Thus, any editor wanting to enact a large scale change across many article in how we handle images needs to establish that consensus, policy, or the Foundation is on their side. Saying "you're wrong" many times in succession doesn't make it so. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the removal of files without a rationale, then that consensus has existed for years. The policy requires that any usage has a rationale, and so any usage without a rationale can be removed. That's not controversial. Some people don't like it, and some people dislike/misunderstand the NFCC, but that does not mean that it's not the policy, and that does not mean that the policy does not have consensus. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - you're quite mistaken on that. There are two different issues here. I was speaking to the first, where there is a legitimate difference of opinion on how the policy and guidelines apply to specific images and whether they are justifiable in articles. Wherever you draw that line there are going to be matters of interpretation and some images that fall on the line, so editors have to work together in a spirit of cooperation to work through the hard choices on a case-by-case matter. "I'm enforcing NFCC so you're wrong" is not a legitimate way to deal with that. The second issue, regarding missing or flawed tags, is a different discussion. Everyone agrees that images should have use rationales. "Any usage can be removed" is a long way from "You can't disagree with any scheme I come up with that removes images and if you you're a disgrace to the project". - Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite mistaken on what? I really have no idea what you're talking about; so far as I can see, none of what you said has much to do with what I said... J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken if you believe there's a consensus for the manner in which Delta was removing images without rationales. He was racing through years-old image uses alphabetical order, possibly using automated tools, making a lot of mistakes, with zero effort to examine or fix obvious things before removing them, and leaving no good record of which images he had removed. As an example, before he was stopped he was removing every single free use from articles that had been moved, merged, split, or disambiguated, as well as obviously free images that had been given the wrong copyright tag. I can think of a whole bunch of ways to clean up noncompliant image uses, and his way is near the bottom. If he's going to do a few thousand of those he needs to work with other editors to do it right. Not every edit in service of policy is a good idea. A policy that says "no dogs on the lawn" does not justify taking out a bazooka and shooting grenades at everything on the lawn that might be a dog. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but it does justify removing anything labelled as a dog from said lawn, with an explanation that no dogs are allowed. That would be what Delta was doing. A bazooka would be automatic deletion, or blacklisting, or blockings, or some other ridiculous extreme. You mention removing images (I assume you mean non-free images) "from articles that had been moved, merged, split, or disambiguated, as well as obviously free images that had been given the wrong copyright tag". It is not Delta's fault that these were incorrectly labelled- removal is one way of dealing with the issue which, sometimes, will be a very real issue. You mention your longing for consensus "for the manner in which Delta was removing images without rationales", but that's a somewhat ridiculous demand. Do I need consensus to fix a spelling error using AWB? Tabbed browsing? What if I'm running through a category to look for articles to cleanup? If there were a large number of mistakes (that is, policy-compliant media being removed) you may have a case, but what you're demanding now is silly. J Milburn (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree and I'm not being silly. Perhaps you're not cognizant of the history, in which Delta and some followers were in process of removing somewhere north of 200,000 images from the encyclopedia. Guess how many of those are still here? More than half, no thanks to the bots. It's not delta's "fault" the first time he mistakenly removes a compliant image because of a technical problem that fooled his bot or his cut-and-paste fingers. But we can ask him not to remove five hundred compliant images at a time... again and again, year after year, despite pleas to think or discuss before he acts. It is also his responsibility if the mistake is pointed out and he says, like you, that he can't be blamed if his error happened because of another person's error and it's not his problem to sort out the details. Removal is one way of dealing with the issue, sure. But in some cases it is not the best way. If people are objecting to the removal when there is a better way, yet an editor persists without any attempt to work with anyone? Part of working together on the project is to, well, work together on the project. In your AWB spelling error example, you do not need consensus to fix a few articles here and there with spelling errors. On the other hand if you go through 100,000 pages in alphabetical order without notifying anyone or pausing to listen, and you change 13,000 instances of "yo" to "yon" as your autocorrect feature urges you, you just made a big goof. There were a lot of policy compliant media being removed. There were also many that could easily have been fixed because they were simple, blindingly obvious cases like logos and cover art, yet the way Beta was proceeding did not leave a log or usable organization that others could use to go back and fix them. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we can't make things work by letting Delta and Crossmr collaborate on the issue of removing "illegal images". Delta could do what he is doing now, except that he should stick to 1RR when removing images. When reverted twice, he simply posts a notification on a page monitored by Crossmr. Then Crosmmr focusses on these cases where good personal interaction skills are more important.

So, the bulk of the removals are then handled by Delta, his approach is necessary to do that, but where the potential problems could arise, which is a small fraction of the total number of cases, Crossmr steps in. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am normally one of ArbCom's biggest supporters, but you're wrong here. If there was a community desire for this, it would have been done already. Today a site ban proposal for Delta was overwhelmingly shot down. A recent topic ban proposal got up there, but still failed. Overriding the community like this is perceptively why there is so much distrust for ArbCom, perceptively why people call you GovCom, and as much as I think a great deal of WR is nothing more than pathetic spewings from haters of Misplaced Pages, you're validating a whole lot of what they say about you. You've lost my respect. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  Several above have indicated that the recent community-initiated topic ban proposal "failed"; this is inaccurate as the proposal is actually still ongoing. –xeno 06:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is it's far too big of a job for just 2 people to handle, but perhaps 10 people could handle it. We don't even really know how big the NFCC problem is. No one can tell us how many new NFCC issues are generated each day (which really shouldn't be that hard to figure out, generate a list today at midnight, generate a list tomorrow at midnight and remove the image/article combos that appear on both lists, do that a few times and average it out). The problem starts with the way Delta does it. While he's improved his generic edit summary, it starts with his first edit and his first edit is simply a binary parse: Does it match? No. Remove it. Template, generic summary, move on. The way forward with NFCC is to improve the image of the project. The first question should be: Does this image look like it remotely belongs. It really does not take that long to read a possible description, check the source link if one is provided, look at the file name itself, and even look at the image and make a quick "Hmm.. there is a reasonable chance this should be here". If it's utterly ambiguous then it might require you contact the uploader/adder. In this case I'd recommend automatically adding the name of the file to a bot for removal from the article in 24-48 hours. Ask the user what the use is, and if they don't get back to you in a reasonable time it'll be automatically removed from the article. But there is no deadline. The foundation's directive doesn't say we have to remove them all today, this minute. We just need to work towards the goal of making them all complaint or removing the ones that can't be made compliant. While they say the remover doesn't have to do that, they don't say that the remover can't do that. And that's the important part. It needs to be a community driven effort to improve the image of NFCC and make it a non-negative part of daily wikipedia life that projects actually want to participate in and work with.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I had been mostly ignoring the massive threads about this, but it was clear that nothing was going to get resolved and it had become (again) something that the community was unable to deal with. Still, I hadn't expected this. Were the motions initiated here without warning, or was there some prelude to this? Hopefully Delta will get the chance to say something here at some point, and hopefully the rest of us will fall silent long enough for him to have the chance to say something. Oh, I see he is blocked for 24 hours. His response seems to be here. Still, I would hope that the motions stay open long enough for him to say something. I think the topic ban reinstatement is reasonable, but that any siteban should come with an explicit provision to allow an immediate appeal (to the community) of the community ban that is being reinstated. i.e. ArbCom are well within their rights to withdraw the suspension of the community ban (something I think they took a lot of flack for at the time), but the community need to show a clear consensus to lift that community ban, rather than a consensus to not reinstate it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Could arbs or a clerk clarify which arbs are recused and/or inactive and what the majority needed is for each motion?

My few cents...

Last night, I was in the middle of a specific NFCC content dispute with Delta, in which first Wikidemon, then I, then (on another page, but the same problem) user 4twenty42o misinterpreted Delta in exactly the same manner (and we were all in the wrong, to be honest; Delta had called the situation properly initially).

I spent considerable time attempting to civilly discuss with Delta the importance of not repeating templated warnings or actions that were misunderstood or misinterpreted the first time. I was engaged for over five hours before going to bed; others continued the discussion afterwards.

For administrators, taking administrative action, we have the following policys:

(WP:ADMINACCT) "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

(WP:NOTPERFECT) "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct."

While Delta isn't an administrator at this time, I think this is and should be a rule all of those enforcing policy and administrative action should take to heart and live by.

We've all been through this before. This is a 4-year-old problem. My efforts last night were honest and extensive and as civil as I could be to point out the communications problem I do not feel that Delta accepted that there was a problem that he was contributing to, much less responsible or accountable for. His near-final response, after extensive discussions of how not just one, not two, but three long-long time editors had independently misinterpreted his templated warning in the same way, was "I don't know how much more clear I can be than xxxx(the templated warning)".

This is not about NFCC enforcement; if Delta's thing was NPA, or edit warring, or new page patrolling the results would be the same. There is a deficit in comprehension of how other people are understanding and responding to communications. We've had community findings on this, multiple arbcom findings, something approaching 100 blocks over 4 years (one every 2 weeks on the average).

NFCC is not a popular area, as there is great dispute over what the policy should be, what it is, and how it should be enforced. It requires special care by those engaging in enforcing it to avoid unnecessary disputes, and to resolve disputes that arise in as calm a manner as possible. Delta is not the right person to be doing this. We've known this for years. Even most of those who support his continued participation in the area have admitted so at one point or another.

More than 2/3 of the community who bothered to express an opinion on the subject !voted to topic ban him over the last few days. That's not our normal community consensus threshold for bans or blocks; but it is a clear and evident expression of exhaustion of commuity patience (and, the degree to which the community is now polarized).

It is entirely right that Arbcom review the situation. I don't know how anyone can say that this is not ripe for Arbcom action. The entire point of Arbcom is to be the intervenor of last community resort when the rest of the community is at odds. I can't even directly count the number of threads on noticeboards this has engendered in the last couple of weeks, and a 2/3 majority on a topic ban, and several hung restrictions reversal !votes, ...

As late as last night I was still acting on the assumption that hope was not lost, and that rational discussion could perhaps get Delta to change the problem behaviors.

This morning when I woke up and reviewed the overnight developments, I resolved to file the topic ban as an arbcom request. Work intervened and Roger Davies began this on his own initiative, rendering that intention moot. But this is entirely appropriate for Arbcom to take up, act, and resolve.

We've had four years for Delta to reform enough to not attract this negative response over and over again. Despite weeks of active criticism on noticeboards and community proposals, last night Delta demonstrated that he still does not get it. Under the circumstances, four years is enough.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Nothing about either motion reprimands the work that's been done, only the non-collegial manner in which it has been undertaken. The first job of any Misplaced Pages editor is to get along with other good-faith Misplaced Pages editors--that is what has been breached here. It's sad that there are plenty of NFCC partisans who see a sanction of Delta as a repudiation of NFCC work--nothing is further from the truth. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the effective results will be the same, the motivation matters little. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite: From what you're saying, you endorse "Well, you can be a jerk, as long as you're mostly right"? SirFozzie (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You will see that I supported a civility restriction in the ANI thread. Anything further is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, a "civility restriction" is doing nothing about the issue except guaranteeing more and more long drawn out arguments (and as the 2009 decision shows, Delta is ALREADY under a civility restriction). Again, this is not a particularly new or innovative problem with Delta. It's been so bad in the past that the community said flat out that they did not want Delta working on WP, because of these very same issues with NFCC (amongst other things). The Committee lifted the community ban in hopes that Delta could improve his behavior. There's been a backslide, instead. So, the feeling of the committee, and many editors is "Ok, we've tried everything, but we're just not going to get a change in behavior in this area". SirFozzie (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, if his edits are usually fine but his civility is not, why are we targeting the editing rather than the actual cause - i.e. the communication - of people turning up at ANI? I'm sorry, however you justify it, the events here still stink of a lynchmob who couldn't get their wish through community discussion so decided to circumvent it by forum-shopping it along to an ArbCom who have a record of sanctioning Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)