Misplaced Pages

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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 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 Misplaced Pages: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! 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! 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! 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages was first created! – Nurmsook! 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 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I am involved in the diacritics discussion. Silverseren 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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! 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: ) 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. . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages is broken. People can act like jerks all they want and when someone tries to do something about it, no-one will support them. 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Beyond this meaningless edit warring over diatrics, Dolovis' accusers believe that he's in the wrong for creating a large number of articles that pass WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. If you believe they're in a sad state, expand them. I can't believe that an argument used against him is that he's been asked kindly to expand articles and didn't feel like it. dimaspivak (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions. See how that goes for a while before considering further action. Rd232 public 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, it would come out very positive indeed. Nformation 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  Dirk, a couple of weeks ago you deleted an Emile Bernard , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 . 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 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 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/search/?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 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support NFCC work, like BLP work, is essential to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 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 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 , 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages from further NFC and NPA violations from Pdfpdf until Pdfpdf convinces us that that block is not needed anymore. --Dirk Beetstra 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anyone cares about my views.... As noted above, the response to Δ violating a provision is to remove the provision? Not in any sensible environment. A separate discussion might be made as to whether it should be modified (50 in 10 minutes, or 80 in 20 minutes, rather than 40 in 10 minutes), but removing it is <redacted>. And there's no real claim he's been following the other provisions, just that we don't have proof he's violating them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's see him work within the sanctions for a while without getting into trouble. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments below. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per many above, and because part of the reason for throttling Δ's edits in this regard was because of, among other things, his error rate. I have little confidence that removing this restriction will result in anything but even more drama as his mistakes are likely to increase with his edit rate. That being said, if he goes over by one or two every once in a while, big deal. But overall, the point is to ensure Δ is paying more attention to his work, and given the continuing drama on that front, I don't see great value in lifting this sanction. Resolute 22:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The sanctions are pointless and just serve to get in the way of good work. Keep the civility sanctions if you wish, but the edit rate issue is just flat dumb. -- ۩ Mask 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Beta's editing rate was limited in hope that it might reduce his substantial error rate. As someone mentioned above, he still regularly flags images for deletion where the link between the fair-use rationale and the article became broken due to a page move or other routine operation. This generates work for others, making those edits part of the problem rather than part of the solution. He's just too inept to be trusted with power tools. With an editing rate limit, his collateral damage is limited. --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I had utterly no idea that these restrictions were in place for this user, but have seen him around quite a bit and have always assumed that he's used a bot or an automated tool for his edits (removing images with no rationales from pages mainly), but now that I know that he is restricted from doing substantive edits in a space of time and reading about his history, I think that the restrictions should remain. However I do respect his contributions and I believe that he is a very valuable editor, but one we can't be too lenient with. That Ole Cheesy Dude 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Propose Delta NFCC notification bot

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/search/?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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 and judging from a sample size of one that showed up on my watch list (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, edit warring, and being generally unhelpful and unfriendly over image rationales with obvious flaws that should have just been fixed. 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 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 . You accuse him of edit warring because of this, yet YOU are edit warring and in the process violating WP:NFCC policy. You claim it just should have been fixed by him, yet you couldn't be bothered to fix it yourself and instead chose to edit war until it became obvious the image wouldn't be allowed until you fixed it. Could we at least ask you to stop making baseless accusations? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to the only germane part of your comment, your question about Delta's possible use of automated tools. I used the wrong link but I've since corrected it. Look closely, and if you can't figure out why that raises eyebrows I'll give you a hint. I won't dignify the unfounded tit-for-tat accusations or distortion of my editing history with a full response. Delta has paused with the image removals you're trying to defend, but I see you've taken them up yourself and promoting an essay mirroring his position on how to do this. That's out of sync with the community's wishes, and if you're planning to step into Delta's shoes while disparaging those who raise concerns you may alienate the community too. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the request to stop, these mass edits are definitely being done in some sort of an automated fashion that necessarily produces errors, that is, more work for others... I only had a brief look and within a dozen clicks found this silliness: - IOW the edit by Betacommand spawned two other edits, because all we had to do was fix a trivial discrepancy in page titles (caused by disambiguation) that had zero practical meaning as far as copyright law was concerned. It's plain old inefficient. If these edits are to continue, they need to be tagged as bot edits, because it's apparent that a human didn't actually review them. This kind of behavior is pretty disruptive. --Joy (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

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

Proposed for community consideration:

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

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • For informational purposes: Block logs of Delta and Beta . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Nformation 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 ( Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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: , , , , plus many more. This is exactly how you fix the issue right there. Let me tell, I just opened up 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 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 Misplaced Pages anyway, and this is just another example of it. --Dirk Beetstra 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, and move on to other tasks. You (pl.) are setting a pathetic example. --Dirk Beetstra 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 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, Rd232. See my alternative 'ban' below. --Dirk Beetstra 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 Misplaced Pages by just deleting it. The whole point of collaborative community editing is that you fix the problems that occur, deletion of content is the last action that should be used on an article, not the first. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Blindly deleting images which have a malformed or damaged rationale is not contributing to the project. If the rationale was created in good faith, fellow editors can also show good faith by fixing the issue. memphisto 10:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. While we should work towards elimination of all non-free images, I think the amount of drama we get from Δ's work in the area (for years) is not worth it. —Kusma (t·c) 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am frankly astonished by this. We are voting to stop a user keeping articles within policy, and some of those voting for this sanction (one, especially) are habitual abusers of the NFCC policy. What next? Shall we let Grawp sockpuppets vote to topic-ban admins from blocking people? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Careful who you're tarring with that broad brush, there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Quite a narrow brush really; a minority, certainly, but a vocal one. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The insinuation is still that those of us who aren't opposed to the NFCC (even strong enforcement, if done properly: the canonical example is, as previously mentioned, Moonriddengirl's exemplary copyvio work) are being led along by people who want nonfree images to proliferate. Whether or not a vocal minority want Delta gone for the wrong reasons, it doesn't make the proposal invalid when it's supported by plenty of people who don't see things that way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
        • The problem is that there's no difference between your "Support" and a "Support" from someone who wants Beta off the project so they can continue to abuse our policies. The people in this thread who have ulterior motives for ridding the project of Beta know who they are. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • As the tarred and feathered most vocal opposer to Delta lately, can you point to where I abuse NFCC?--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually, I wasn't referring to you. Though your somewhat unpleasant crusade against Beta does you few favours. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I see who you mean now. So you basically admit that because I vocally supported a restriction on Delta you are targeting articles I edit for deletion? You've nominated several of the ones I edit for deletion just today. That's sorta an obvious attempt to intimidate me isn't it? Mathewignash (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Alternatively, you could stop creating non-notable articles and stop plastering NFCC-violating images all over other ones. It's just a thought. I last looked at these articles 6 months ago and you haven't even tried to fix any of them - in fact they've got worse. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As someone whose fairly active in the NFCC area, the amount of 'Blame the Messenger' that gets directed at Delta is frankly absurd, nearly laughably so if it weren't so unsettling. -- ۩ Mask 11:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And those of us who aren't using Delta as a proxy to attack NFCC? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with caveat: make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed. Notification, education, fixing, development of tools, etc. That gives the community a break from this drama, and some time to come up with better ways to address these problems, without those who favour strong enforcement of NFCC feeling that they're somehow permanently losing the argument. I think we could just do with a respite, and allowing Delta to be active on the topic but not in the ways that so often causes friction should be a good compromise, bearing in mind that he is not the sole standard-bearer of NFCC enforcement and there are certainly others who can and do remove images which really need removing. Rd232 public 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 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} 13:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• A templated warning message 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} 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 💕 and just accept that a significant number of our images always will be unlicensed copyright violations and/or in violation of our own policies. Night Ranger (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

  We don't need policy to say something is needed before we can go ahead and do it as a community. I've gone out and lead by example with a new NFCC approach. Policy didn't require that I do it, but I did it because that is what the community needs. There is no need to make a special restriction for Delta, he's disruptive plain and simple. We already have guidelines and policies against that. His behaviour causes disruption and it's longterm enough to either topic ban him or ban him from the encyclopedia. No other editors generate the noise Delta does, and if/until they do, they don't individually need talking about. However, if everyone goes and grabs some files and does as I did, we can get through the backlog and actually improve articles and build a community--Crossmr (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Just how hard do you want to be chucking that WP:BOOMERANG, Hammersoft?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Gee, this almost looks like a pointy edit, maybe we need another subsection. Since I went out and showed you how to edit NFCC without cuasing disruption and you've turned around and done this it almost smells like WP:BATTLEGROUND as well.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  It cant be 11th hour either if Ive been doing this for more than 6 months can it? and Both from January of this year. ΔT 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong oppose. Seriously WTF? If you think the policy is poorly worded and enforcement is inconsistent, topic-banning an editor who follows and adheres to the policy is not the appropriate solution. So now those who break the rule are actually telling us that they're right and wants to topic-ban those who are actually following the rules? OhanaUnited 19:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not about the policy; this is about Beta's behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Then identify the error's he's done. Else, your proposal is baseless. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• He's repeatedly caused disruption. I'm not very good at drawing but let me see if I can fire up paint and work something out.--Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tell me where I've been repeatedly violating NFCC policy? Is there an irrelevant argument card being handed out somewhere? This has nothing to do with the policy and his topic ban is not supported only by those who have had issues with NFCC, but you're the second person to try and make that bad faith assumption here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and a trout to GWH for suggesting it. Almost all of the usual suspects who have chimed in here in support of the topic ban are long-term adversaries of Δ, and most of them dislike the whole NFCC regime, which is not an excuse to bash Δ when he enforces the policy. How man of you who snivel about Δ's tagging actually fix problems you encounter when editing an article for the first time? If you don't do it, please go away and start fixing the problems which he has found. If they are so easy to fix, do it yourself. Δ is acting within policy, and identifying errors which have been introduced by other people not properly following our image use guidelines. Stop shooting the messenger and fix the real problem. Horologium (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oh look, more bad faith assumptions. I went out and lead by example and showed exactly how the NFCC problem could be handled in a community positive manner both in fixing NFCC images and removing some. I did it myself, I caused no disruption and Delta has shown over the years that he's incapable of doing so. The messenger is the real problem.--Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per most of the supports above. It is time this wikidrama be ended and delta find something more productive to do that won't cause so much disruption. By my count, the !votes are at 18-11 in support. Buffs (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, does valuable and necessary work. Would be nicer if he was nice about it. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  This is irrelevant as there is no points sheet on how good your work gets to be vs how much disruption you cause. Over the last 2 days I've gone out and demonstrated how to do NFCC without causing these issues. Something Delta hasn't been able to accomplish despite all the last chances in the world. Disruptive work is neither valuable nor necessary. The entire problem is that he isn't nice about it, he's been given more chances that a cat has lives to turn it out and has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban has serious problems; no evidence

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

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

Regarding the question of specific evidence - Wikidemon in the thread immediately above the proposed community ban identified edit warring, attacks, automated behavior violating the community restriction, and multiple errors, all of which had happened since the general thread here had started. I did not repeat / duplicate that information, but please consider it a baseline statement of active ongoing problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• And Δ has been thanked for his work too. That you got thanked doesn't make you more right. Repeatedly edit warred? Every time the issue's been raised at the 3RR noticeboard it's been rejected. I.e., you can't prove his violated any edit warring policy, so drop it. Accusations of running a bot or being bot-like? That's never stuck either, because it's not true. And believe me, I hear you. I'm sick todeath of hearing it from all of Δ's haters who jump on the band wagon every time there's the slightest peep that someone raised about his edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This has nothing to do with policy. Should I perhaps get a specially made T-Shirt that I can wear so we can head that off each and every time? Delta's on-going behaviour problems have essentially been a community wide RFC for years. You were here last time, the community is tired of his antics and you know that. Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing is primarily about article content, but when I read it, I sure do tick a lot of boxes off on Delta.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• comment Perhaps it is time to list "Proposal to ban Delta/Betacommand" at WP:PEREN ... or perhaps it's already there? Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Propose alternative 'ban'

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

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

• Support as nominator - note, this proposal now also includes others who perform the same methodology as Delta. Feel free to adapt the wording. --Dirk Beetstra 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 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 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't know how many zillions of times this idea has been refuted. It's at least a hundred. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose These are all solutions in search of a problem thats not there. -- ۩ Mask 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all bans. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support this is a better topic ban than the previous one. I know that hammersoft is capable of fixing too, and not just tagging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but as independent proposal, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with Delta's behavior, which is the cause of the other proposed ban. Thus, this is not in any way an "alternative". Good idea, though, since it jibes with the intention of Misplaced Pages to be a collegial and collaborative project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, there do seem to be far less NFCC related problems when Beta/Delta is not involved. NFCC editing is not the real issue here. In other words: What CBM said. —Kusma (t·c) 07:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's the uploader's responsibility to write a fair-use rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's the communities responsibility to work together, and that kind of stance really does not benefit the community.--Crossmr (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Template messages/File namespace for a template that pointed out a mismatch of the article title(s) in the rationale(s) and where it was actually being used. On the film-related side, two examples I saw were targeted because the article title was changed, though the topic was the same. A template like this would put the onus on others to correct the description and/or image placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I see that user:Black Kite, after posting about how he dislike for those who want to put restrictions on Delta has taken to rapid fire targeting article frequently edited people who supporting a restriction on Delta for removing images and nominating for deletion. I guess that will show us we are not allowed to voice out opinions on a proposal in the future! I consider myself targeted for intimidation. Great work Black Kite! Mathewignash (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it is good work, because it's enforcing Misplaced Pages policy. If you can point out where any of my NFCC removals are wrong, please do so. And I note that on the AFDs I've started that I've replied to, you haven't suggested keeping them, which suggests I was correct. The fact that I've had to make 4 AfDs and 30+ removals of images so far, and I've only looked at "A" and "B" in a sub-category of Transformers articles, makes it clear that there's a huge amount of cleanup to be done. Oh, and don't talk about intimidation, Mathew, I and many others have been trying to clean these articles up for over a year and you haven't helped at all. In fact, since I last looked, you've created even more. If you actually cared about these articles you'd merge the non-notable ones to lists and fix the NFCC problems. But you haven't. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I get it bud. Support Delta's way or get all your articles targeted for "cleanup". Mathewignash (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, you could show good faith by fixing all your hundreds of articles that fail WP:NFCC, WP:V, WP:N, or you could let someone else do it and then complain on here, I suppose. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I have been merging back pages from characters to teams/shows pages, sorry if it's not fast enough for you. I've also added literally hundreds of third party sources from books and magazines, re-writing opening paragraphs to be more compliant with wikipedia style, adding sections on character reception, etc. Of course with the film coming out this month, half my wikiedpia editing has just been removing vandalism and fan-nonsense to pages. Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
        • The merging isn't actually the problem, it's simple to AfD articles. It's the hundreds of articles with NFCC problems, and you haven't done a single thing about that since the last time I looked, six months ago. And I suggest this is better dealt with via talkpages, it isn't an ANI issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
          • My point about targeting articles for intimidation is VERY on-topic, you are the one who tried to make this thread about my past editing. Whether you have a problem with my editing or not, you saw someone oppose Delta, posted about how you disliked theit editing, then went out and started targeting articles he wrote for deletion nominations and image removals. If I had not posted, you wouldn't be doing what you are doing to the articles now. You targeted those opposing Delta for intimidation, that's pretty clear. You didn't write me a personal note about the progress of Transformers articles, you did shotgun deletions, just like Delta does. What sort of message does that leave editors? Oppose Delta, get your articles deleted, ahem... I mean "cleaned" as you put it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I didn't write you a personal note? Mathew, we've had this conversation dozens of times already ... Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
              • There probably is a correlation, Mathew, but not with the motives you're attributing to it. In my experience, the people who complain loudest about Δ's and others' NFCC enforcement are the people who feel "victimised" because large numbers of their images have been found to violate the NFCC. I agree that there should be more effort put into fixing issues rather than defaulting to a deletion tag, but at the end of the day, if all your image uploads were in compliance with the policy, they wouldn't be tagged for deletion even if the motive is as sinister as you're implying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
                • Black Kite didn't remove images because the images were not in compliance with policy, he removed them based on there being too many per page. He sees NFCC as strictly saying "one non-free image per page", and often times when a fictional character has vastly different forms, I have upload more than one image of them to demonstrate the difference. I believe that's perfectly acceptable under NFCC. Mathewignash (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
                  • If I had that strict rule, why did I leave two images in a number of those articles? Honestly, I don't mind being criticised, but please let it be for something I've actually done, as opposed that something that only exists in your imagination. Regardless of that, if the characters have more than one incarnation, then the article becomes a list, and non-free images are disallowed anyway (WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#3a). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mathew has been told over and over and over again how his hundreds of articles fail NFCC, and he hasn't done anything about it. All this thread reminded me was I should go back and look to see if they'd improved in the six months since I and others tried to fix the worst problems. They hadn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Not really the point Black K. The accusation is that you are suddenly rapid fire "cleaning" artciles of people just for supporting a limit on Delta. I agree that a lot of these old articles need cleanup, and I do that myself often. Mathewignash (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • So essentially you're accusing an editor of doing a good thing in bad faith? It's slightly odd to complain about that, and wrong to do so without evidence. Rd232 public 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Was Delta himself not limited from mass, robot-like image editing as part of his restrictions? Why? Because it was disruptive. This is exactly what Black Kite has done to the articles of those who voiced support for limiting Delta, and he said so in article posts. If Delta can't do it himself, I don't think it helps his case to have his friends do it for him. What sort of message does it give those who wish to voice their opinion on limiting Delta? Should they be worried they will be targeted too if they say they support a limit on him? Mathewignash (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, these would be pointy edits. Pointy edits are often within policy, but they're done in such a way as to disrupt the encyclopedia. Combined with BlackKites bad faith statements above it appears he's acting disruptively.--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Uh-uh. WP:POINTy edits are always disruptive. Removing images in complete compliance with our image policy is not disruptive. It doesn't matter who created them. I think you really need to step back for a moment and consider what you're saying, because at the moment that looks to me very much like "I support edits that contravene Misplaced Pages policy, because I know better". As many editors have found, that's never a good position to take. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
          • (EC) Removing images not in compliance with NFCC is not disruptive. It is how and why you do it that might be. If you're intentionally targeting the images/edits of someone who you've just had a disagreement with. Yes it is. So far above you've tried to label (some of) those who disagree with Delta's edits as simply those who want to abuse NFCC and you've claimed that no one who opposes him will go out and do anything but I've spent the last 2 days fixing NFCC without causing any disruption in a community focused way. Mathewignash apparently feels as though you've targeted him because of his support of this topic ban for Delta. Do you deny that you went from this discussion to Transformer's articles? Can you tell me the last time you worked on Transformer related articles? Going back to the beginning of the year, including a large break you took, the last time I notice a transformer related article was January 15th (might be sooner, but I was mostly just scanning). You have to admit it is a rather unusual coincidence and it's understandable why Mathewignash might feel that way or someone else could interpret your edits in that manner. No where did I say I support edits that contravene wikipedia policy.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Crossmr, Im getting sick of your personal attacks and harassment, it needs to stop. The reason Transformers was targeted (and has been targeted for quite a while, just ask Hammersoft and J Milburn who have been removing excessive NFC for years) is that They are a problem and have been so for quite a while, its just time we got around to them, We nuked the same thing with coins a while back. Its not POINTy to enforce policy, it just so happens that our cleanup sweeps are getting around to the pages that affect you. If this continues I will request a topic ban against you toward all NFC enforcers since you cannot seem to keep a civil tongue. ΔT 23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bigger issue? False claims of free licensing

While liberal usage of non free images is an issue against the foundations aims and ambitions, it is a minor issue in relation to the false claiming of commons copyright and public domain pictures inserted to our project. Much more damage is done to the owners value of such pictures, a non free picture is at least honestly posted under a copyright of such, the issue there is only hair splitting about wikipedia's personal guidelines, - they are basically only our guidelines and either side of the line - a rationale is not very clear or missing, so add one, the wheels are not dropping off about it - the picture is correctly templated under a non free copyright template, this is so far away from the damage to someones product and property being falsely advertised as a free use picture or file for lengthy periods of time. There are thousands and thousands of other peoples property illegally uploaded without permission to the project and then republished through us as free to use/commons compatible when there is no evidence of permission or ownership at all - this is much much more serious for the project than weak application of fair use rationales. Rather than having all this disruption just go strengthen the non free use guidelines - one pic per article and only in direct relation to specific content and make it totally clear to users. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. I don't know what to suggest, but for me, legally and morally the issue of false claims of free licensing (or public domain status), whether at Commons or locally, is a bigger issue than most violations of NFCC in relation to "fair use". At least with clearly-tagged non-free images there is not a false claim which can get reusers into trouble, or damage rights holders interests. (And "fair use" doesn't even require that a rationale is written down, only that one can be produced if challenged.) Rd232 public 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with your position, the problem is that NFCC enforcement is straightforward, either the image complies with policy or it doesn't. Determining if an image has false licensing tags is much harder and often times more speculative. The implication from the discussion is that people should refocus efforts away from NFCC enforcement to false licensing work, but isn't the work substantially different? Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"NFCC enforcement is straightforward" - thanks, I needed a laugh! :) ... Yes, false licensing detection is probably harder, certainly than detecting missing fair use rationale templates (which is in itself an inadequate proxy for whether there exists a reasonable "fair use" rationale). This suddenly reminds me of the "unsourced BLP" drama, where some people pointed out that the worst BLP problems were probably not in unsourced BLPs, but rather in BLPs which are poorly or even falsely sourced, but superficially OK. Nonetheless, vast amounts of effort have gone into getting rid of unsourced BLPs, simply because it's a problem that's much easier to identify and address. Rd232 public 19:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale repair

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

Wikilove

HI folks,

Just an FYI/heads-up so that you're ready. The tech team just informed me that they intend to fully deploy Wikilove (see this blog post for more information) to logged in users of the English Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)