Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224

Modify the edittop gadget

Hi. At the moment, the edittop gadget adds the edit link at the end of the top header. I would like to propose this to be changed to look like the edittop gadget in Meta, which adds the [edit] link after the site's tagline. The reason is right now when you want to select the title of an article, the edit link text is also selected occasionally (try triple-clicking on the title of an article while having the gadget enabled). This change will not affect the functionality of the gadget in any other way and although this is a slight enhancement, there's no reason not to do it. huji—TALK 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This request should go on WP:Village pump (technical) But you could change it for yourself with your own version of the javascript gadget in common.js. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think changing it's location will alter the selection problem. In any case, having different locations for the top edit link and the other edit links is not desirable; not until the other links move to the left as well. — Edokter (talk) — 21:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I find that feature useful, it reminds me that I will be editing the lede only and not the whole article. There is a gadget to move other edit links to the left - Preferences > Gadgets, then under "Useful interface gadgets" tick the bottom box marked "Moves edit links next to the section headers". This moves all edit links apart from the lede to appear immediately at the end of a section's title, instead of at the far right of the line. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden and the other discussions listed on that page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden. Thank you also to Crazytales (talk · contribs), Thryduulf (talk · contribs), and Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) for closing the other debates on the page. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome :) —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on HarveyCarter

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

I'm technically closing this about 15 minutes early, as community ban discussions are supposed to last 48 hours, but the consensus here is clearly in favour of an indefinite community ban. Should he wish to, HarveyCarter may appeal by contacting any editor in good standing and asking them to start a discussion at AN, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Until and unless any appeal is successful, HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is to be considered a banned user, to whom all the relevant policies apply. As such, any edits identified as being made by one of his sockpuppets are subject to reversion and editors reverting such edits are exempt from the 3RR when doing so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

---

• HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Proposing indefinite block for dynamic IP hopping editor

HarveyCarter is a prolific sockpuppeteer, with over 200 tagged suspected and confirmed sockpuppets, with many more IPs that are not generally tagged due to his high turnover of dynamic IPs. While nobody is unlikely to be unblocking him any time soon, his activity in the Israel/Palestine area makes it difficult to deal with him. The area is subject to a one revert per day restriction, and while reverting edits by sockpuppets of banned editors is exempt from the restriction reverting edits by sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked editors are not. Therefore I believe a formal ban should be imposed on HarveyCarter. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support I thought he was banned already. He without doubt should be. DrKiernan (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is strange that it is possible to wikilawyer that blocking socks of blocked editors count toward XRR while those of banned accounts do not, but if that is the case then banning a blocked long term abuser of alternate accounts is appropriate. After a couple more instances (or is there any historical examples?) we could then amend whichever policy has this loophole, per the consensus indicated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  It is in Wikipedia:Edit warring, which came up in this discussion regarding a previous sockpuppet. Obviously you would hope common sense would dictate that there is no real difference between a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor and a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but I try and avoid being put in situations like that in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is already a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Sockpuppets, to which I have added my proposal to include socks of indef blocked accounts, in case anyone wishes to comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support a lifetime ban on this puppetmaster.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I also thought he was banned already. Can't be done too soon. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Better late than never. RashersTierney (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the best course of action. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

A little help

How can I reopen the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? B-Machine (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) This isn't really the place for this, but you can either follow these instructions or if you'd like I could help you open one (ask on my talk page). Don't just reopen the old one however. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone else gets sucked into this, I should point out that a centralised discussion on this issue has already taken place at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal and was recently closed as "no consensus" after an nearly equal split between editors (six for, five against (note that the final "support" actually puts forward a proposal that is the opposite of the one under discussion, so it can't be counted)). B-Machine appears to be unhappy with this result but that is not a good reason to re-open a discussion that was closed only ten days ago. Endless re-litigation of failed proposals is not helpful. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

...yeah, I got sucked into a few renaming ones on the plain old Cote D'Ivoire article too... back to back to back to back to back ones. Bah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess, people wanting to rename it "Ivory Coast"? Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted^]] Prioryman's revert^]] of Bob House 884's opening^]] a new merger/move discussion on the behalf of B-Machine, as Prioryman was involved in the last merge discussion. If nothing surfaces in a week, I will close the new discussion. – AJL^talk 02:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said on Bob's talk page, I'll accept this reopening but B-Machine cannot expect to reopen it yet again if it doesn't go the way he wants. That would be unreasonable and disruptive. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

B-Machine also opened a thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa on 16 May. Since the previous merge discussion was initially fragmented & confused (and this fragmentation is being cited as a reason to open a new discussion in the hope that it will yield the right consensus), I'd recommend that any further comments are directed here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said above, it's wrong to say that the previous discussion was fragmented and confused. A discussion before that one did suffer fragmentation and confusion but I went to some trouble to start a fresh, centralised one. That's why I'm annoyed that false claims are being made about that discussion to justify re-opening it only 10 days after it was closed. Prioryman (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

Not a picture File:Altoona2.jpg--Musamies (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember what I said at User_talk:Musamies#WP:CSD? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearian's closure of James Middleton Afd

Resolved

 – Clearly a disruptive thread, disruptively re-opened by an editor who should be blocked for disruption should they reopen the thread. Take it to RFC/U or Arbcom if you think you're correct (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a disruptive way of closing this thread, just like the previous one.[1]. It was also an interesting idea to block the OP after all this involvement. Hans Adler 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can I get some feedback on this exchange about this admin's recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton. I am minded to take it to DRV, but I'd like further input as to whether people here really think that this admin is entitled to decline offering any actual details as to how he closed this Afd the way he did, ending the discussion after one reply with a simple "no". The only substantive info I received was that the Daily Mail is a "semi-reliable" source, whatever that might mean in terms of BLPs, and which is if you look at recent debates on Jimbo's talk page, pretty far from the current consensus. While DRV does exist to challenge closures, it's not there for admins to send people to automatically if they simply do not have the time or the inclination to justify closures at all. And I can guess just how such a filing would go - DRV is not AFD 2, DRV is not IDONTLIKETHERESULT, etc etc. If I did actually get some specific answers to the questions I raised, it's actually possible it wouldn't even need to go to DRV. But I find his conduct to be completely against the basic requirement for admins to communicate their logic as it relates to the specific decision, rather than simply repeating vauge assertions that he summarized the debate and linked to the (rather obvious) policies and guidelines at issue in the closure. Fair enough if he said 'this point outweighed that one', or 'user x made a particularly good point', or 'this argument wasn't relevant', then I'd have specific points to raise in the DRV if I disagreed, which is a hard enough venue as it is even when you do have tangible evidence of incorrect interpretation or flawed process, but I don't see how he's even come close to that by simply giving me a list of users he respects and suggesting that we could just wait a week or two and renominate (as if, you wouldn't be able to move for NOTAGAIN & NTEMP objections). While I have sympathy for his claims that he has more pressing matters to deal with in real life, this does not mean he can arrive at contentious Afds like this one, and do half the job. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An opinion: a) the AfD shows Borderline notability; the article could possibly be fixed and improved, rather than deleted - despite some sources being less than reliable. I do suggest just waiting a month or so, re-evaluate if this is a notable enough topic (especially when wedding news has calmed down a bit); if not, AfD anew. Meanwhile, by all means remove poorly sourced info, and/or discuss on the talk page. b) I think the admin has already gone to considerable effort to try and explain their judgement call (even if you don't understand, or accept, their logic); and has also agreed to an voluntary two-week break from clsures at AfD (sic). I think the point has been made, and can't see anything productive from pursuing it (personal opinion) hence I'd not bother with DRV; WP:STICK and move along; accept it's borderline but tipped the 'wrong' way (in your opinion). If you cannot drop the stick, then DRV. At least the admin seems aware of the concern, and open to discussion, which is a Good Thing™  Chzz  ►  03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

STICK? Including my Afd vote, this will be just my 4th post on the matter. Do you really think that's excessive for issues over the BLP policy and basic admin conduct? The admin is not open to discussion (2nd reply was "no"), and I cannot fathom at all how you think he has gone to "considerable effort" to explain this decision. He has linked to (clearly outdated) discussions on RSN (and rather than for example the specific wording of the RS policy), and didn't even bother to summarize them (many if not all don't even support his claim that they show the Daily Mail is semi-reliable, or even what he thinks that means for BLP usage). He has given me a list of users he trusts (why?). He has told me he linked to the policies of concern in the closure (for what purpose? my request for clarification was predicated on it, and doing that is not something admins should be looking for credit for, it should be considered basic good practice in any closure, the issue is his lack of willingness to outline how the Afd debate showed with a clear consensus that these policies/guidelines had been met). And he told me there's better sources out there (why? is this just a request that I just take it on trust? bearing in mind the supervote concern, he is unwilling to identify what evidence in the Afd supports this belief, suggesting to me at least it doesn't exist at all. If he had summarised the debate properly, he would have no trouble giving this sort of info barely a few hours later - it would have been quicker for him to recall that, than write about some of the other rather irrelevant stuff that he did). And I certainly don't see what relevance this two week break has on anything. And why is it down to me to now try and clean this article up? Have you seen the grief people are getting for trying to get the other articles up to a basic standard? And by basic I don't mean quality, I mean not libelous or damaging. Not to mention the long term problems saddled onto the site with people trying to add all sorts of crap into them on the basis, backed up by closures like these, that these articles merely exist not to be biographies reflecting the in depth coverage that is apparently just being assumed to exist, but to be holders for all 'coverage' out there, whatever it says and whoever published it (and they are tempted to add it because without it, the article looks completely empty, as the proper coverage isn't out there). Given that this is the real long term impact of closures like this on the site, and that there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd, I don't think my requests for clarification to the admin who calls it as "keep" (not no consensus or even merge, but keep) are remotely unreasonable or STICK like, or can just be ignored on the (completely false) assumption it would be remotely possible to delete the article in 2 months should no other in depth significant coverage come to light, or if nobody gets around to fixing what is already there. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"...there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd..." I think Bearian acknowledged this. In the close he states "While the arguments to merge are colorably good, there is no strong argument to delete outright," and "I'm going to go with a keep, but this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton." So basically he is saying that there is no consensus to delete outright (and I agree that there is no valid argument to at least turn this into a redirect, if not merge) and that keeping allows further discussion on whether to merge. Rlendog (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, when an Afd is closed as keep, that is a declaration that the article is notable now, and forever more, unless there is a change in overall policy or consensus as to the whole concept of notability. That is per NTEMP and all the Afd closing instructions that I've ever seen. Where this has ever been deviated from as a general principle, those have been extreme exceptions, which this article would likely never fall into, unless of course the decision to keep it with large amounts of unreliable sourcing comes back to bite us on the ass. See Talk:Pippa Middleton#"Personal life" should be removed for an example of what can be concealed beneath the surface of these articles, when the Afd closer has never really had to show whether they really took a good look at the strength or clue of the various claims made about the sourcing that is either already in the article or is supposedly 'out there'. See WP:OTTO too for what might lie in wait if he isn't obliged to explain things like what "semi-reliable" means to him as far as the BLP policy goes and how it informed his closure, if the article never gets 'fixed' (i.e. stubbed in this case tbh). No, if the closer believes there was no consensus to delete or merge or keep, then unsurprisingly, the mandated closure is no consensus, which is still a default keep, but does not preclude further discussion without there needing to be any great change in policy. And while he may have sort of said he's OK with a merge discussion starting, if you close as "keep", then that's all that matters in the ensuing pile-on vote count - see Talk:Pippa Middleton again for a case in point (and to follow that bizarre example, Bearian would then be the one closing the merge proposal too!?!). "I'm going to go with a keep" is the only thing that would be recalled from the closure. That's why it is a fantasy for people to claim that closing as "keep" & suggesting an Afd in a few weeks, or a merge discussion on the talk page, is anything but pointless, both from a practical stand point and from a policy perspective. It's simply wrong. And if he meant it to be a keep, he should be able to explain why in real terms and with real reference to the actual debate. Anything else is also just wrong. You are admins, you weren't elected because you were super-beings, you were elected because you were trusted to make the right calls (wait) ... and you had the required temperament, ability and policy knowledge to be able to explain them to doubters in the way I've described. And you aren't super voters, period. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the admin's conduct? They explained their reasoning, and based on the argument it's valid. Because they explained it well, why badger them? You don't think the person's notable, or that notability has not been established, WP:SOFIXIT, or AfD it again in a few months. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've laid out in detail what's wrong with his conduct, and how he hasn't explained his reasoning at all. Explaining isn't simple restatement and it isn't any of the other things he did either. And see above for my take on the ideas that it's my or any of the other delete voters responsibility to make this article appear notable if he thinks it maybe isn't but kept it anyway or thinks it is but cannot say how or why; and also on the issue of whether a further Afd has any chance of success or even legitimacy in current policy or practice. These are all conduct issues as regards the role and responsibility of an Afd closer. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say no consensus was the correct closure for that AFD. As Mick says closing it as keep gives weight to its existence forevermore and a DRV to move it from keep to no consensus seems like an excessive waste of time, so unless the admin is willing to re-close we are stuck with it as keep. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure there will be some BLP or pokemon pages somewhere which had AfDs closed as "Keep" in the dim dark past and deleted in subsequent AfDs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it may get merged at some point when the issue is forgotten in a few months - I was laughing about the DYK it was on the front page with the hilarious factoid - . that James Middleton, the brother of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, baked 21 cakes for HELLO! magazine's 21st birthday? - Thats not even worthy of inclusion in the article never mind a DYK on the front page. The keep close was the death knell for discussion to merge - there were around fifteen clear votes for merge. No worries the wheels aren't dropping off but administrators need to take more time in closing and throw out any - I like it keep comment unsupported in policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I see that's up on the Main Page right now. I wonder how long it will take an admin to notice that the hook is cited to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". Jesus wept. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for f***s sake, what next? Why are we putting brainless tabloid trivia like that into DYK? Is someone trying to make a point, or merely exhibiting gross stupidity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the person who filed the DYK is also the person who created the article and argued in the Afd the the subject was "getting coverage for his business activities years ago" and had "notability in spades". He also happens to be one of the closing admin's 'trusted users'. He selected a Daily Mail source for a front page DYK hook, and the closing admin has stated he thinks the paper is "semi-reliable", whatever that means. Maybe that ultimately was the source of this failure. Who knows. Who cares. Not many by the looks of it. As you see, I remain unable to figure out much more about what went into this closure at this stage, or find anyone who thinks its remotely odd that I can't. Bearian has just pinged me on my talk, so maybe he's more willing to explain his logic now that he's seen it's immediate consequences. We'll see. MickMacNee (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean User:Colonel Warden. (Grin) Well, he's even more of an inclusionist than I am. I just said (a) I respect the Col. as an editor, and (b) that the consensus appeared to be that the article he created be kept. I never wrote that I like Middleton, nor that I agree to keep it. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please read WP:NOTBATTLE. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:ADMIN and WP:AFD. Also, get a WP:CLUE, and realise that I'm not interested in hearing a restatement of what you thought the consensus was, I already know that, I want to hear some sort of evidence that you know what you're doing when you close an Afd, that you know what you're talking about when you refer to policies and guidelines like BLP, RS, and BIO, and I would like some indication that you even read the debate for you to have been able to come to the conclusion you did. As you are required to do if you want to call yourself an admin. I'm not battling here, the only one battening down the hatches and playing a game of escape and evasion is you. The only one giving out the impression that they will do anything and everything except give straight answers to straight questions, is you. A recognition of your culpability in placing a massive BLP violation on the front page for 6 hours might also help. MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• A lot was said but when one boils it down, it split 30 Keep, 15 Merge and 22 Delete. There was therefore no consensus to delete. Bearian provided a reasoning in his close which was more than many closers do and has responded politely to further inquiries. Even MickMacNee seems to recognise that the close would stand up at DRV. Is there a point to this? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you remember that consensus isn't supposed to derive from a vote. I didn't vote once in that thread, but I simply raised points and asked people to answer. To me, all too often the people who simply toss in "Keep - per Editor1" or "Delete - per Editor2" are really doing next to nothing. The point of AfD is to identify areas that need substantial improvement or make the article invalid somehow. If those areas are valid and not addressed, then why should such an article be allowed to stay? And if they are addressed, why should an article be removed? THAT is what really matters, not a vote. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, taking a look at many of those Keep and Delete votes just now, a lot of the discussion was improperly focused on notability (which he has in spades) and not on inherited notability, which was the proper concern (and the one identified in the deletion request initially). Since most of the commenters went right off track from the get-go, a neutral observer could conclude that most the debate was largely noise. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, another way to look at the discussion (if you like that vote perspective) is 30 - Keep in place, 37 - Content does not belong in this place. There are lots of ways to look at it, and simply declaring consensus in this case might have been premature, also I notice that Bearian made no mention of the 3 day lock on the article, so who knows if that was considered when choosing a day to close. Incidentally, I don't mind the outcome either way, but we need to be focused on good arguments, not emotional ones. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Where did I way it wouldn't stand up to DRV? And why are you remotely pretending that this should have been a vote count? To hide the fact you made claims in the Afd that don't stand up, that needed an admin like this to be counted (infact, shit, we don't even know if he even counted your opinion or gave it any weight, such is his complete evasion here). MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the closure of this section by BWilkins, who's already stated a position and clearly thinks I shouldn't be asking questions of an "an admin who actually does work" (yes, and the issue is the quality of it). Leave it as is. If nobody else comments, and Bearian refuses to do or say anything else, then I'll see where that leaves me. Never mind Rfc/U, I think the unanswered concerns here are an arbcom issue frankly, there's some very basic principles that need to be reinforced here, or confirmed as no longer having any meaning. And DRV? Sure, maybe that will end in a result that can turn back time and erase the BLP violation from the Main Page. I can't say I'm enthusiastic for that, not least as I'm not a fucking retard, and know exactly what would happen if I turned up at DRV with what everyody will claim is just a dislike fo the outcome. I cannot dislike something I haven't even heard an explanation of yet frankly. What the hell would I even be able to say, other than he refuses to explain the decision at all? Someone please show me where he has explained the decision at all on which I can make a judgement as to the correctness of his closure. I'm not kidding when I say the only thing I've learned in these exhanges with him is that he considers the Daily Mail semi-reliable, yet how that related to the Afd I cannot even say. I don't know if he classed it as part of the SIGCOV, I still know fuck all about his logic process frankly, I could just as easily go to DRV and allege he's a personal friend of James Middleton for all the good such vague suspicions will do. Perhaps Bearian knows this and is banking on it. It's been alleged that he's an inclusionist by others, and he's not leaving me with anything to think that he isn't, with his continued refusals. Sure, I could write a whole detailed rationale stating my suspicions of what's occured here, but why should I have to do that when I can pretty much guarantee the first vote be from someone who will condemn me for coming to DRv with nothign but ABF, and thus won't even bother to read it, or if they do, will ignore it and endorse the closure on some complete irrelevance like the vote count or the "massive coverage". Fuck...that...shit. I'm seeking clueful input on an admins conduct and this is the admin's board. Just as Bearian has a right not to be suspected of being an inclusionist who will simply 'intepret' policies like BLP and SIGCOV to that end, he's also obliged to give others factual information about his thought process in specific situations and in judging real discussion threads discussing real cases, so that others can judge his calls of consensus fairly and objectively. I'm fucking disgusted frankly that these legitimate concerns founded on some very core principles like BLP are dismissed as "whining" by BWilkins. Not to mention the Bearian himself has said he thinks there's a 1 in 3 chance this whole complaint was a "joke". Unbelievable. When issues like basic editors considering the likes of the Daily Mail as a source at all, let alone evidence of coverage, are being said by Jimbo to be beliefs worthy of immmediate removal of rights, then this is not going to fly as "resolution". I'm not eating this sort of shit from someone who's done the exact same thing Bearian did and has a clear admiration of him, and presumes that having a bit means you don't have any obligation to explain your decisions as regards the specific issues and policies, and asserting that simple restatement is enough. It's not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much see this as an issue by which you, MickMacNee, are apparently unable to be satisfied by the fact that an AfD was closed with a result which you did not agree with and with a rationale that you think is insufficient. While that is your perogative, it is a concern that you are seemingly incapable of understanding that most of the community - those minded to comment, anyway - do not share your concerns. While you are a well regarded contributor to the project you are not the community, or even a spokesperson for part of it - you are just one account; you have made your point, and it is not one that most feel should result in either an overturning of the decision at AfD nor result in an examination of the closing admins ability to continue to use the flags. Time to let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that's what's going on here then I feel sorry for you. I hope everyone who comes across admins like you and Bearian who feel this way, finds nothing but happiness and joy at being told that they clearly simply 'dislike' whatever it is they are disputing, and take the assertion that the are presumably just too thick to be given even the most basic of respect of an actual explanation that they clearly wouldn't understand, or otherwise are too insignificant as just one man to even deserve, in the heartfelt and collaborative manner it is surely delivered in. You can be happy with the outcome of his actions all you like, but please don't pretend to me you have the slightest idea how he came to the decision. If you think you do, you're fooling yourself. Try it - how about you draft a detailed breakdown of how you would justify the closure in policy, based on the the arguments & evidence that were actually made, and other admins can do the same. If all your drafts even remotely match on the same basic themes, enough to be called a clear keep, and if you can manage to get one out of Bearian, they match his too, then you can lord it over me all you like. Until then, just don't patronise me please. There's admins here who could have just as easily closed that as having no strong arguments to keep, that nobody offered any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. You will presumably think that's nonsense, a completely unjustifiable position, but the issue is your belief that just calling it nonsense or simply a 'dislike' is enough to prove your case, and your belief that others couldn't possibly see the reverse. It's not as bad as claiming a divine right, but it's getting there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"You ever take that test yourself, Mr Deckard?" You miss my point - most everyone else has no issues with the close rationale. You do. That is fine. What is not fine is that you feel everyone should have the same issues with it as you do, and you will not stop pestering this board until you get a rationale that satisfies you (the exception) or everyone else agrees with your viewpoint on the one given. Nothing to do with your perceived deficiencies in the AfD close or the rationale given, but with your conduct and attitude. You are unprepared to accept consensus, which is far more contrary to the project ethos than any "questionable" action by some admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ps. Why on Earth would I want to "lord it over you"? I am quite insulted to be compared to a bunch of indentured sheep stealers...

You're misrepresenting me completely tbh. I've found an example of what I consider to be a good close on a very related article, and given it below. Perhaps you should start by telling me how I as a mere single user should not reasonably expect that same standard of close in this instance, before you start telling me I have a bad attitude or am just some bizarre exception. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have found a close which you agree with, thus you term it "good". The one by Bearian you disagree with, which you likely would call "bad" - although other people think it good. I suspect that if some of those people who call Bearian's close good also agree with the example below that you would not be able to comprehend why. Until you are familiar with the concept that two different people may review the same or similar issues and come honestly to different conclusions, and neither are wrong to do so, then it is pointless continuing this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm realy getting tired of your attempts to paint me as some thick twat who cannot tell the difference between a closure I agree with and a closure I think is handled correctly. If these concepts really are one and the same to you, it's your issue, not mine. Your the one theoretically trusted to be able to close an Afd a way you don't personally like, if it was the correct outcome according to a clueful reading of the debate against policy. You're also trusted to be able to explain how it was a clueful reading if someone challenges it against their honest opinion that it wasn't. You seem to think the former can never happen, and the latter is just an irrelevance. On Wikipedia, it's not true that both can be right. Proper objective analysis will either prove one right or the other. There are few if any situtions where these sorts of disagreements can actually result in a true constitutional crisis causing 50/50 correct answer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse closure of this string. There's simply nothing here that I can see that warrants its continued presence, despite the detailed postings.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Could someone please remind Mick not to use f-words? That is annoying. Adornix (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another closure, for comparison

This closure of the related family Afd is an example of what I consider is an admin properly explaining his closure with respect to the actual arguments made in the debate, and how they stood in policy.

There is enough context specific detail in that closure for people to know exactly what he did and did not consider relevant, and how he deliberated over the rest. He has a clearly stated position on each major thread and theme of the debate as regards their policy compliance or weight, without resorting to pointlessly vague generalities. It's not perfect (it never hurts to name and shame the people simply throwing out JN/JNN arguments for example, but there's equally no doubt he didn't give them any consideration whatsoever), but it's good nonetheless.

He's also quite rightly dismissed the argument made by Colonel Warden that there was some 'black sheep' clause in BLP that could be invoked here (a complete irony given he was the person who selected the DYK hook above). That reassures me that he's fully familiar with that particular policy, and has not taken anybody's argument as read.

People who might want to disagree with that closure can clearly do so on specific grounds, and if still not satisfied, they will have a concrete stance with which to open a DRV, giving them at least a chance of an actual review occuring, rather than a tedious re-run of the Afd. Even if the admin completely refused to expand on his rationale on request, which I sincerely doubt given he clearly gave it a lot of thought, the fact that the close is so detailed straight out of the box means the DRV would not simply be a complete farce with people lazily claiming the filer clearly simply 'didn't like' the close.

I have asked nothing of Bearian than to do the same for his closure, which by comparison is so vauge it could almost be transplanted to many other Afd's on BLPs who get 'coverage'. So, what's the hold up here? Why am I being fobbed off as if I'm a lunatic, and my requests were completely out of the ordinary, not something any sane admin would ever do, or even believe was good practice. Is this admin just being too accommodating or over-eager, or is he actually following the guidance you are all issued with once you've been deemed to be cluefull & trustworthy enough to have the responsibility of closing Afds. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

MickMacNee blocked

Unfortunately the WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, and WP:SPIDERMAN through this entire process, especially this last post on his talkpage has led to a 2 week block. The length of time is due to past entries in the block log. Comments are welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks? That seems excessive, given that the last block that wasn't overturned was 24 hours and that was nearly a year ago. Besides the duaration, I don't think the block is warranted. It's not preventing any imminent disruption and while he was obviously frustrated in that post, I don't see anything rising to the elvel of a personal attack and at least part of it was a valid point. Suggest unblocking or at the very least a reduction of the duration to be more proportionate to the "offence" and the most recent block that wasn't reversed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bad" block, HJ? More like awful block. Two weeks is ridiculous for that. The block in principle, yes, good block. The actual carrying out of it? Awful. Reduce to 24 hours, as is the standard NPA block, please. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thirded; 24 hours seems appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Object. Sure, easy to support this because it is Mick and he's saying "fuck" a lot and he won't let the issue go - and that becomes annoying. But it takes at least two people to carry on an argument, and it only carries on if people feel the need to respond. The post of Bearian's he was responding to was outragious. An admin he was complaining about (albeit without much reason imho) told him not to reopen a thread on that same admin (COI) and then shouted at him because "non admins can't do that". Berian needs to grow a thicker skin and stop playing God. Of course a non-admin can open an ANI thread. This is premature and unnecessary block--Scott Mac 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with Scott. A two week block for disagreeing with an admin is ridiculous, and just reinforces the us-and-them stereotype we're doing our damnedest to get rid of. – iridescent 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who rarely agrees with him on anything, I think the block was over the top. Reduce to 24 hours. RxS (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bearian showed very poor judgement in an AfD and then became very defensive about it, apparently trying to stay as vague as possible on all points that could lead to overturning it at DRV. It's absolutely clear why MickMacNee was concerned and wouldn't let this go. Now this edit by Bearian shows that he believes that his formal admin state gives him certain extra rights that in reality are tied to cluefulness and good sense (which he appears to lack, judging from this incident). It's also an explicit invitation for MickMacNee to insult him, apart from the obvious baiting inherent in the attitude. Then, after the predictable reaction – on MMN's own talk page, where we are generally quite lenient – an involved admin reacted with a draconian block. Bwilkins needs to undo this pronto with an apology. Hans Adler 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, after reading that diff I've posted a message to Bearian about it and asked him to retract that ridiculous claim. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduced

I've reduced to 24 hours. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that two weeks is ridiculously long. I've left the 24-hour block in place for the "civility" element; while I personally disagree with applying the civility policy when a user is expressing stress, rather than clearly setting out to be offensive, I nonetheless can see that most people feel that this kind of block is valid. Note that this amendment is in a personal and not an Arbcom capacity. – iridescent 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and no issues with the reduction: it's easier to reduce than to increase. I was merely going on the concept of escalating blocks, and acted accordingly. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I think MMN has really pushed it in terms of WP:CIVIL (especially in light of his RFC/U) I concur with the reduced block. Personally would have gone for 48 hours though--Cailil ^talk 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am glad the block has been reduced, as I feel that these types of sanctions are simply signposts of the communities disagreement with MickMacNee's conduct rather than a meaningful way of moderating same. Whatever period of sanction, I would suggest that the same behaviours would restart at their expiry. I suspect that it will require an ArbCom case to properly put in place measures to resolve these issues, and it will be MickMacNee's own actions that will provide that opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Refusing to drop the stick and saying "fuck" a lot is about all tha Mick is guilty of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• In part I disagree in turn, since I believe the failure to drop the stick is a symptom of the underlying malady of MickMacNee being incapable of accepting a viewpoint contrary to his own. Of itself that may not be an issue, even though it flies in the face of WP:Consensus, but it is when it becomes disruptive - as it did above. Much like any purported failure by Bearian in the closing of the AfD, it is not an issue if there is no pattern or perceived habit - but there is a perhaps unfortunate perception that MickMacNee is party to frequent issues brought to the Admin boards. As for the swearing, though, I don't give a shit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

...as the kids today would say: "fuckin-A, dude!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the kids in the 80's, today they might say "bangin'" or "kickass". -- Avanu (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think he's incapable of accepting views that aren't his own. I defend him a lot in these boards because for some reason or another I 'get' Mick. I can't even put my finger on what about it it is, but I have a feeling I think in much the same fashion he does. It helps to know that while it seems personal its really not. He doesn't drag up the past unless others are, or if he really does believe theres a systemic issue. And if you speak cluefully about how his behavior in whatever circumstance is actually detrimental (beyond just 'i dont like it') he is more then capable of acknowledging it. See the most recent section on my talkpage for an example him taking advice and backing away. Mick just... doesn't suffer what he sees as bullshit. It's not so much a 'fuck you' but a 'I dont have time or energy for this shit'. Or at least thats what I see. -- ۩ Mask 10:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the initial block should have been of indefinite rather than definite duration, to be lifted only after the community is positively convinced that such disruption will not reoccur. (I increasingly tend to think that this should be the case for all blocks, as thinking in terms of "appropriate" block lengths encourages a punitive rather than preventative approach to blocks.) The comment at issue is not problematic because it contains the word "fuck", it is problematic because it is a series of massive and inexcusable personal attacks. The presence of a person who talks to others like that in the professional environments that I'm familiar with would not be tolerated longer than a few minutes, and neither should it be here. The block reduction by Iridescent was unnecessary at best and encouraging of further disruption at worst, as it reduces the incentive for MickMacNee to convince us that he understands the problem and will not repeat such conduct. (Sidenote: I notice after looking at the block log that I once blocked MickMacNee indefinitely for similar disruption, and Scott MacDonald unblocked him against consensus because MickMacNee had "given assurances". We now see what these assurances, and Scott MacDonald's judgment, were worth.)  Sandstein  21:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm reading all this after a break of a few weeks, and my perspective is somewhat different. What I see is a dispute where MickMacNee was (and is) largely right about the underlying principles, but where others started to arrive once they saw it involved MickMacNee. While reading through this thread, I noticed that both you and LessHeard vanU appeared to take the opportunity to attempt to change the discussion from one about this specific incident into one about MickMacNee's broader conduct. Which doesn't seem quite right. For the record, I agree with Iridescent's reduction of the block length. This seems a classic case of people looking at the contributor (MickMacNee), rather than the actions in question and the surrounding context. Probably best to focus on the articles in question here (the content), rather than the editors. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree; Sandstein, take the hint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Flexibility

Wouldn't it have just been simpler to address the concerns that the editor raised by simply having another admin reopen the AfD and then reclose it with some further rationale? I see a lot of willingness to say "well, i agree, but what can you do?" It seems much simpler to just do it over, but correctly, than to argue about it so much. It was kind of clear from the AfD thread that there wasn't real consensus, so policy says to leave it running or relist it until the consensus becomes clear. It just seems a bit unflexible to acknowledge something that is a legitimate concern just because something is a "done deal". Personally, I took no strong position in the AfD, because I was interested in seeing if people would provide encyclopedic rationale if encouraged to do so. The admin closer did not acknowledge the concerns raised by the AfD nominator at all, but went off track, like many in the discussion to general notability, which was never in question. So instead of us being flexible, we get hard-headed and an editor loses patience. Not a pretty outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD isn't about consensus building (or voting). It's about laying out a case for or against deletion and then allowing an administrator to review the case and make a determination based upon its merits. Thus, all the Me Too "votes" are pretty much worthless and the keep/delete notes with their unique rationale's are what matter. This helps mitigate the effects of canvassing, puppets, and the like. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. OK, so in this case, did the admin review the rationale? It doesn't appear he did. Like I said, a LOT of the editors got sidetracked with the General Notability Guideline, when that wasn't the question. -- Avanu (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, before I get accused of actually caring whether this article lives or dies, my point is simply that it might save drama if even a minor issue is raised, that it just be done over, and done closer to guidelines. Not my dog in this fight, I'm fine either way, just suggesting alternatives. -- Avanu (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment and people wonder why some folks have this "admin vs. editor" mentality? Pro-tip: Check your ego at the door, and just edit in a way to improve the damn pedia. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Ched. But the problem is there are too many people who can't agree on what an improvement is. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Complex merge

Okay, so we've got a situation here:

1. I afd'd Major Moves for lack of notability.
2. After two relists, consensus seems to suggest merge/redirect to Indiana Toll Road.
3. However, I would also like to move Major Moves (album) to Major Moves once the merge is done, because it will now be the only thing with that exact title.

Is there a way that the merge can be performed and free up the Major Moves name at the same time? Histmerge of some kind? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• ETA: I think I might've found something that'll work. Move Major Moves to another title, then merge/redirect to Indiana Toll Road. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I can histmerge it with Indiana Toll Road no problems, and that frees up the Major Moves title. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind (mid-process). Moved it to Talk:Indiana Toll Road/major moves - you can then merge and attribute content to that page the normal way :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Done Talk:Indiana Toll Road has a tmbox at the top, explaining the unusual merge and linking to the subpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I added {{Copied}}s to supplement the custom box. This subpage method is rarely used, but not entirely novel: WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

History merge needed

History merge needed from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises to Talk:Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises. Thank you. – AJL^talk 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just copy-pasted with an edit summary for attribution. Usually AfC talk pages aren't deleted, so that should be good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the comments are ~~~~ signed right on the page, it's less important to follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia rigorously. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

US Senators

Someone named "CreatureKawa" done a series of vandalisms in about the one quarter of the articles about current and former US Senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.11.88 (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. I spot checked a random sampling of his edits, and I see an innocuous change to an article link, an innocuous change in a template, and a change to a different type of infobox. I don't see anything I would call vandalism in any of those, this appears to be someone who is trying to fix things, and people acting in good faith should not be called vandals. If you have some specfic changes you found that I did not, perhaps you could list those here? --Jayron32 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions backlog

There are some requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled which have been waiting for 5+ days; if someone has a moment could they take a look? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Help for a stubborn user.

This user (Lalit.mehar) keeps reposting the same article (Super kloud film) for multiple times (More than 5, I think.). I think he should be either blocked or banned. JohnHWiki talk - 10:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ARV as an obvious promo account. Should be blocked momentarily. → ROUX ₪ 10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FAKEARTICLE issue

Resolved

 – I got the email and replied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have stumbled across a fairly unambiguously problematic userpage. I am hesitant both to name the user and comment on their talkpage, as they seem to have issues. What is the best avenue for dealing with this? → ROUX ₪ 10:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Nominating it for deletion would be the best avenue, although commenting on their talkpage would definitely be a better starting-point. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I guess you missed the part about the user appearing to have issues. I was delicately trying to say that such brute-force tactics are probably not a good idea. Anyone else? → ROUX ₪ 10:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC) No, I didn't miss that part. In fact, I clearly referred to that sentence of your comment in my reply, so I'm not sure why you supposed this. But first of all, deletion doesn't require the person's co-operation, and if they continue to re-create the page it could be protected. But more to the point, if you're unwilling to talk to them and unwilling to nominate it for deletion, there's nothing else you can do other than cope. You're asking the ridiculous. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) You didn't refer to it at all, actually, especially since one of your suggestions was one I had clearly stated was undesirable. I am not asking the ridiculous; I asked how, under a specific set of circumstances, one should address a specific problem. Thankfully there are people here more helpful than you were in this instance. → ROUX ₪ 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC) What kind of "issues"? Civility, personal issues off-wiki, competence? Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Roux, just email an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks, that is a useful suggestion. You have been emailed. → ROUX ₪ 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Personally, I'd leave a gentle message on their usertalk, to open a dialogue. Roux, I find it hard to imagine how bad things could be that this would be over the top. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer

Requests for the 'Reviewer' permission are still flowing in to this page. A prominent notice at the top says that WP:Pending changes protection is being withdrawn from all articles, per the closure of a recent RfC as of 20 May 2011. I went through and declined a bunch of Reviewer permission requests, but they are still coming in. While it would cause no problem to continue issuing these, since people do request it, it seems kind of redundant, since it will no longer have any effect. Can anyone suggest what to do? Deleting the /Reviewer page would be one option, but this does not seem to be the past practice for obsoleted pages in Wikipedia space. Another would be to leave it there, but remove all the incoming links from WP:Requests for permissions, and undo the transclusion. Someone has already marked the Reviewer page 'Historical'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done. Possibly the page could have a more prominent notice, and be locked admins-only as well. That way, the history is preserved and the page is there for when/if the pending changes business comes back. (Some of the other Wikipedias have similar restrictions, I think. I met one on de or sv the other day, and had a struggle with a captcha on pt.) Of course, everyone who applies could be vetted and issued with non-existent powers in the expectation of a return. Easier, in my opinion, to close shop (but not to redevelop the premises...). Peridon (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've archived the remaining requests and removed the link for making new requests. Incoming links should probably also be deleted.  Sandstein  20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting hostile attacks an threats by an editor

Some editor named Elkevbo is not following wikipedia policy on a page, University of Buffalo, The State University of New York, by deleting material rather than requesting citations for it first. He's now getting to revert edits, and posting ominous threats in my talk page. I wish there was some way this could stop, and that the editor could begin following wikipedia policy.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new Dispute Resolution process

On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.

Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from admins or from people experienced in policy development, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.

The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's DR? Surely not Deletion Review? Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR - Dispute Resolution. Rd232 ^talk 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an eminently serious proposal that appears to me to have been thought through with extraordinary care. We certainly need something to help deal with the massive problem it addresses. I'd strongly encourage others to review it carefully, i.e. with the attention it merits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback is essential to systems.  This proposal increases feedback.  Suggest that it could start as a totally volunteer basis (like People's Court where all have agreed to be bound by the decision).  That way you wouldn't have to get a lot of community consensus to proceed.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of powers?

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

No abuse of powers, Kuru, jpgordon and Boing! said Zebedee all acted in an exemplary fashion, with Vintageceilingfans an obvious disruptive sock, and the complaining editor User:Shakinglord mistaken about the course of events. Shakinglord retracted his accusations and comments. Dreadstar ☥ 02:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I was looking at the recent changes a few days ago and I caught sight of the blocking of User:Vintageceilingfans. Kuru apparently blocked the user after witnessing sevral vandalism issues, one being very disruptive, on celing fan, the others being minor annoyances and trolling. I saw that they immediatly blocked Vintageceilingfans by accusing him of being a sockpuppet. VCF then tried to unblock, saying: "I just joined wikipedia and I now understand It is possible to be blocked so I'll never do that again." to which User:Boing! said Zebedee replied: "Blatant disruptive sock". With this, I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, and Zebedee also did not give VCF. VCF then tried to request an unblock again, saying: "What do you mean I'm a sock? I'm a person." User:jpgordon replied: "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts", which I believe to be a lie. Another admin blocked VCF's talking rights, saying: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: enough. I believe this is a possible misuse of powers and should be review by an administrator. Also, in the sockpuppet investigation page, Boing! said Zebedee said: Vintageceilingfans attacked me with a fake unblock signature, which is untrue, his contributions shows VCF did not attack BSZ, which should be noted. Shakinglord (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa...the "lie" accusation is way out of order, particularly (a) as you have provided no evidence and (b) you've had this explained to you before. You've not provided any evidence of anything: your post just appears to be a series of WP:NPA violations. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Vintageceilingfans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sock of Rlnthndr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is blocked as a sock of Ghhgjjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I see nothing in the editing history of these three accounts that links them. I see that Vintageceilingfans may have been editing in an area where there is a WP:COI, but nothing more. I'm minded to allow Vintageceilingfans access to their talk page, as I see no evident that this edits has abused the faclility. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See the sockpuppet investigation for Checkuser evidence. This seems crystal clear to me (unless you want to accuse Muzemike of lying). Yoenit (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you a Checkuser? If not, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting, since the sockpuppet investigation was  Confirmed bu MuZemike. Far more interesting, I think, would be the connection (if any) between Shakinglord and the sockfarm. It's now been explained to Shakinglord at least twice that Vintageceilingfans is a confirmed sockpuppet; their continual failure to accept this point is either a matter of self-interest, sticking their fingers in their ears, or inability to comprehend what they are being told, take your pick. → ROUX ₪ 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

mea culpa - I didn't check the deleted contribs. The template created by Vintageceilingfans is the same as that created by BLOCK XCTOME ON YOUTUBE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Therefore I accept that this is a sock. I'm not a checkuser, but that shouldn't prevent me from contributing on Admin-related matters when they are raised. I'm willing and able to admit when I am wrong. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• The fake and tendentious unblock review notice that Vintageceilingfans forged as if it came from me is here. Trying to frame me for something I did not do is something I take as an attack. And shouldn't I have been notified of this report, btw, Shakinglord? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also informed Kuru and jpgordon of this report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any merit to this report, User:Vintageceilingfans is an obvious disruptive sock confirmed by checkuser; User:Boing! said Zebedee is most certainly innocent of this, that's an obviously fraudulent signature perpetrated by the disruptive sock. Good block and good actions by both Boing! said Zebedee and jpgordon. Dreadstar ☥ 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you, Boing said zebedee, I agree, Vintagecelingfans was a disruptive sock, ity just worried me, because it looked as if you blocked Vintagecelingfans without an excuse. Now I see that that is false. Im am apologize if you were offended, I just cannot see what you administrators use to "fight" vandalsm and "block" users. Please remeber that other people are not trying to offend you, I was merely pointing something out. I am not attacking you, nor will I ever. Shakinglord (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand how someone came to a decision or what they meant somewhere, have you ever considered politely and civilly asking them first, rather than making accusations of lying and abusing power? Have you ever noticed that people have things called "Talk pages"? They're for talking on (that's what the name means, see?). Try asking there first in future, before leaping straight to making scurrilous accusations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is disengenuous at best. You were told all of this information before, and ignored it. Why? → ROUX ₪ 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Does anyone think this needs any action? (I can't do anything myself, as I'm clearly involved) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the information, and understanding that the user was a sockpuppet, and, in spite of Boing! said Zebedee's very rude and juvenile insults, I hereby withdraw my accusations. Shakinglord (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to ensure you are correct with your facts before jumping straight to accusing people of "lying". You will find that particular approach tends to quickly erode good will, and they will not be as kind when helping you. I would recommend closing this section out; it seems to have reached a conclusion. Kuru (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Gonna look after the sandpit for an hour...

Greetings admins,

I will look after the sandpit for an hour for you, saving you all time to conentrate on other things. Hope this helps :)

86.180.147.98 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You know we have a bot for this? ;-) Also, it's the sandbox not the "pit". ;P —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

MAybe but I will give it a personal touch and look out for wrong 'uns :)86.180.147.98 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea of the sandbox is for people to experiment and yes vandalise a bit if they want to, removing edit attempts seconds after they're made is not necessary or helpful--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Actually, the content should stay in the sandbox unless it is attacking another, revealing one's age, etc. Could you maybe leave the content up longer? Thanks. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I will add an ASCII penis to it instead- have a great weekend :) 86.180.147.98 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. See the hidden text everyone! —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC closure request

Resolved

• Talk:Political activities of the Koch family#RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders"

Could an uninvolved admin please summarize the views at this RfC? It ended a few days ago.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archives. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've closed it. (Also, I changed Cunard's sig timestamp to what shows in the history for his edit, so archiving can proceed normally.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC Closure Request

Could an uninvolved Admin take a look at the RFC Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? it's expired twice now although further comments were made after the first expiry. The points made need a neutral summation and proper close. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archives. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I smell or something?

Resolved

 – The user's request was handled. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On WP:RFP/R, all the requests were/that were around me have been done! Except mine. Mine has been there for like, 4 or 5 days? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think it was a good idea to cite experience on the "nonsensical encyclopedia that anyone can mess up" in support? DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do see that problem - but we should focus on my contribs here more! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PUF backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, please could someone close some of the listings at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 5? They've been hanging around for more than a fortnight... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 08:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone better close this discussion, because TT is now trying to force the issue by slapping a speedy tag on the image, citing "discussion outcome", which I have now reverted three times advising him to wait for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the discussion has resulted in a 'delete' verdict (two 'delete' !votes and no other comments at all) and it is now very, very overdue for closure. Copyright is a serious issue; I don't know why nobody's bothered to close it, but edit-warring valid deletion tags off the file-page is simply disruptive, Edokter. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No matter how 'sure' the outcome is, non-admins are not to disturb processes that require admin clusore, not in least in the way as you did. You did right asking for admin attention, but forcing the issue by repeatedly slapping a speedy tag on the image is not the way to push the issue forward; files under discussion are not elligable for speedy deletion, period. It is considered gaming. So just be patient next time. — Edokter (talk) — 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, since what you said to me a couple of days ago, I don't value your advice in the slightest, nor do I trust your judgement, Edokter. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to value advice on the person rather then on it's content, then you are proving my point. — Edokter (talk) — 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

[Personal attack redacted]

A "plummer"? Christopher Plummer? Edoktor is a director/producer? Who knew? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to state, for the record, that my "personal attack" above was not intended to compare Edokter to OBL. I apologise if that was how it was interpreted, but it was in fact supposed to be a simple analogy demonstrating that people usually evaluate advice based on its source. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion.

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to create edit notice

Please add {{British English editnotice}} to George Orwell. I'm trying to bring the article to GA status and I'd like to ensure that anyone who adds to it keeps the English variety consistent. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops It should be located at Template:Editnotices/Page/George_Orwell. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ added. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, T. Canens, for closing and summarizing the debate. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't delete a file

File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg is correctly tagged for deletion as a replaceable nonfree image. When I tried to delete it, I clicked the "delete this file after confirming it is not in use" line, and it took me to the standard deletion screen. However, when I clicked "delete", it did nothing, and eventually the browser crashed. Could someone please delete this image and Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 19 May 2011, which has no other contents? Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal from blacklist

I am requesting that the blacklist on this page be lifted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaskafamily/Walter_Masterson. I did not write the original deleted piece nor was aware of it.I have only done a cursory introduction of Mr. masterson but do not wish to include items I personally have not referenced myself. THis article is referenced and you already list Mr. Masterson on a previous article L.I.E., IMDB , yahoo, Rotten Tomato etc. I did not include information like the fact Mr. Masterson will be appearing in a new HBO presentation nor the information about the movie HYST in which he also appeared. I intend to edit as references become availible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaskafamily (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerks for WP:CP

I have proposed creating clerks for WP:CP; see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:CP clerks and please weigh in if you have input or ideas. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons

By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.

The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Edit requests

Wikipedia:Edit requests is a new info page I've drafted to cover edit requests (arising from this RfD discussion). Any comments / suggestions for improvement? Rd232 ^talk 04:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Avinash Patra

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

This ban proposal gained unanimous support after being listed for more than 48 hours, waiting for more people to support doesn't seem necessary. I'm including Avinash Patra in our list of banned users. -- Atama頭 17:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose a community site ban on this persistent self-promoter who since January has posted articles about himself under 18 different variations of his name (Dr.Avinash Patra, Sr.Dr.Avinash Patra, Mr.Avinash Patra, Author.Avinash Patra, Sr.Abinash Patra I etc. etc.), using 25 socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avinashkrishnadasa. You can get the flavour from his Facebook page and the original AfD. Today alone he has generated four new socks, and posted three articles about his (self-published on-line) books; a formal ban will make clear that any more of these can be deleted at sight. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support I thought he'd be back, but not so soon. Another flavour is that it's not only here - I found him claiming to have an invitation to The Wedding on some Indian site that I can't remember. Totally non-notable, and fairly obviously thinks we're stupid. I missed those ones today - wasn't around at the right time. Mind you, if people really are buying 7 page books (download it and print it yourself) for £220, I think I might change to religious writing. At lest I can spel... Peridon (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Enough was enough a long time ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This was archived without any dissent; I have reopened it to ask that someone formally close the discussion and, if agreed, enact a ban. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Proposing block of Wicklypickle

This user (Wicklypickle) keeps reposting the article (I think.) and removing speedy tags of Andy harglesis. I think he/she should be blocked in Wikipedia. JohnHWiki talk - 08:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, they are. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close a talk page proposal, at "Proposal to stub this article". Though the result of the consensus appears to be unanimous, it would be appreciated for an uninvolved admin to close it, so a neutral assessment of the overall consensus expressed may be given. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Update: It appears that this has since been closed, by editor ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), (see diff). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Need admin help, issue with the account

Hi, it's been a while I was not coming to Wikipedia, today I came and noticed the languages section on the left side of my user page. It seems someone has created a userpage in another language with my name username. That is definitely not me. But it is my user name there. I didn't know what to do. Thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a user page - it is a template page on another wiki. That link is being added by the cycling userbox you have on the page (because the linked page is the ar-wiki equivilant userbox). I will tweak the userbox code so it doesn't do that link any more ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Making a compare from a history list - "on a new browser tab or browser page" option would be useful

• When I have called for a long edit history list display, it takes up my time and Wikipedia's server's time to make the table, if it is long. When I then call for a compare of edits, the compare display overwrites the history display, and when afterwards I click the browser's left-arrow to go back to the history display, I must wait while Wikipedia's server remakes the history display. It would be useful if I could call the compare display to come on a new browser tab or on a new browser page. (I use Firefox.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• This is something that could probably be done with a bit of JavaScript, but you'd be much better off asking here. —DoRD (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional Account?

Could someone please review the contributions of Special:Contributions/Rohan11eleven. The User appears to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes only on behalf of the Singapore tourist board. I've referred him to Wikipedia is not a Soap box but I really think someone else needs to give a view on what is advertising and promotion. Thanks Vrenator (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them as an advertising-only account. Please note that spammers should be reported at WP:AIV or WP:ANI rather than here. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Need OTRS help

I deleted File:Therion confidential.jpg as a copyvio (it was marked as freely licensed, but it was obviously an album cover), but Joshua Issac has asked me to restore it because of OTRS ticket 1800191. I've declined, since I don't have OTRS access and thus can't read the permission email (the file description page never had anything about OTRS), so could someone with OTRS access review the ticket and restore the file if the ticket is sufficient? None of the people on the list at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team have edited much in recent days, and I don't know whether OTRS people from Meta or from other projects are able to work with our tickets. Sorry if this is the wrong place (after all, we don't have an OTRS noticeboard), so if you know of a better place, please move it there and please let me know for future reference. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The ticket only applies to File:Harisc_4.jpg MorganKevinJ^(talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs)

Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs) attack me here. He wrote "بیر آز فیکر ، بیر آز آناماق چوخ یاخشی شیی دیر" that means, I don't have any think and I do not sense. It's again WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A warning has been given. If there are any further instances, please note them at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:GoRight ban appeal

Announcement

The Committee would appreciate any community input. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin requested for page move

 Done An admin is requested to effectuate the page move as defined by the consensus here. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

71.184.209.186

Check this, this guy vandalised and wrote a 'message' on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.33.200 (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The remark was out of Februari. I have rolled it back to the original warning on his page. Case solved to my idea! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

user:HXL49

HXL49 (talk · contribs) is waging a campaign to remove my comments from talk discussions. He removed my comments at WT:RM and my !votes at Talk:Taihu Lake. How am I ever going to get anyone to respond to my concerns if they're always deleted? He removed my tag at Navel lint, calling it "drive by tagging", when I left an explaination on the talk page, clearly not conducive to discussions. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of either editor, deleting other editors talkpage messages without a very good reason is a no-no. I've restored one thread that was deleted. I'm also concerned by phrases such as "keep your hillbilly/"Speak A-muh-rican" attitudes to yourself; otherwise I will have no choice but to silence you." Exxolon (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ffd backlog getting a bit lengthy

Anyone want to mop up a bit over here ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tests of new account creation processes

Hello,

During tomorrow, we will start a new series of tests of the account creation process. These tests are a little more complex than the previous ones. Take a look at this page if you are curious about what is going on. Or read the update I gave on the proposal Village pump a while ago.

One aspect that will affect the vandal fighters is that many of the new users will get a blue link on their user pages, since their first edit is on their user page. But...

a) their user pages should include some information about themselves (and not only links to Wikipedia's policies) in this version, which we hope will make it easier for you to get to know the new user, and for the user to find something useful to do here on Wikipedia.

b) we have created a new category that vandal fighters can use to check the new users: Category:New Wikipedians 2011-05 (and of course later on in 2011-06. etc). If you search for "Rosie Underhill" across Wikipedia, you can see which new users have only saved the standard text. The standard top part of the user pages looks like this. (And we will test various versions of that, too, just in case you're wondering.)

The goal is to get more people to start editing after they create their accounts. To make sure we make the best process we can, we are going to test it live on English Wikipedia, but this test will not involve every new account. Only about a third of the new accounts will see this new version. The rest will see the version we have now. In a few days' time, we will launch yet another version, in parallel with the then two others, and compare them all.

We are trying to make sure that everything works and that there are no language problems/typos. Should something not be up to the high standard we are hoping for, feel free to correct it, but please remember that this test is only for a short while and that things may go back or change, depending on how the results turn out.

Hopefully, this will mean a greater influx of new users, who also know more about how Wikipedia works. Please make them feel welcome.

As usual, if you have any questions, post them here or on my talk page. I will now go to sleep (it's 2.15 am here), but I will on the other hand not do anything about the tests either until tomorrow :-)

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way for those doing userspace NPP to quickly distinguish pages created through this route, say by a specific edit summary? Also, will you be monitoring the fraction of deletable garbage that will inevitably result from this exercise? MER-C 02:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, should we tag the userpages of blatant username violations created through this method for deletion? If so, what tags should we be using? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

@MER-C: I have forwarded your question about edit summaries to someone who knows more about those things than I do, because I think it's a good idea. At the moment I don't know if it's feasible. I suspect that if we see enough of a increase in the number of people who actually start to edit, then we will get more support from the tech department, and in that case, this idea is on my wishlist. About the monitoring part: yes, I will try to go through as many new users pages as I can, to try and find patterns there that we can learn from - mistakes many make, things people miss, good ideas people have, and so on. And that's not all, every day, we will get stats on how many visit the signup page, how many create accounts and how many start to edit, from each of the version, so I will be looking through that information as well. Data analyst Ryan Faulkner from WMF will help out.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: No matter what account creation process you use, some people will always try to create accounts that break the username policy. These experiments will likely have little or no effect on this, so my suggestion is that you continue work through normal channels to deal with those cases. If there should be a dramatic increase in "bad" names, we'll invite everyone to think about cool ways to deal with it.

Does that answer your questions?//Hannibal (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that it is possible to add an automatic edit summary for new users who create their user pages. Is there some special message that you want there?//Hannibal (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no preference over the exact wording, but the edit summary should explain to what's going on, with some relevant links to (say) outreach:Account Creation Improvement Project and/or an equivalent on this Wikipedia. MER-C 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How about: "New user page thru Outreach:ACIP"? or "Recently created account"?//Hannibal (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

With a link, the first of those would be perfect. New user page thru [[:outreach:Account Creation Improvement Project|Outreach:ACIP]] should fit. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done//Hannibal (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My question was asking what we should do if users with inappropriate usernames create this default userpage. It doesn't really seem to meet any of the deletion criteria, but we also don't need usernames like User:Muffdiver69 (for instance) to be bluelinked and show up in the search bar; if they've created their default userpage, that's what'll happen. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems that any user with an inappropriate username such as the one you mention, no matter if he or she creates the perfect user page, should be blocked according to the policy on vandalism (second case in list of types of vandalism), or at least asked to change his or her user name. So, go on reporting it here.//Hannibal (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Over and out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering one thing, Hannibal, is this testing completely random or will there be a way to make sure users without javascript enabled won't go through (what I presume) to be the new js-utilizing testing? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the testing should be randomized as much as possible. I don't know about people without JavaScript enabled though. I guess they could be rerouted to the old one.//Hannibal (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we get two closes, possibly a third

Hey all, there have been some proposals related to Santorum that have recently reached a point of absurd repetition of opinions and forum shopping. Could someone at least close the two proposals at Template talk:Sexual slang and Template_talk:Political_neologisms and possibly the one at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal (or if not close that one, at least weigh in as some outside opinions)? There is an excess of contributor time going into these discussions, Sadads (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As you've contributed to this debate, is this post really appropriate? And what's the rush? If editors wish to debate how this material is handled and appropriate links for templates, why not let the debate runs its course? Fences&Windows 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point both of the first two are looking like WP:SNOW, with numerous new opinions simply pointing to the opinions above with no healthy back and forth. The third could use a little more good conversation, but is turning towards WP:SNOW, Sadads (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

Resolved

 – RfC closed and future timestamp below updated to true date so archiving can proceed normally. --RL0919 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the request at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles#This RfC has officially "expired" -- could somebody please close it, would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles? Cunard (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot runs on a 30-day timer, simply it's impossible for a bot to figure out whether a discussion is resolved. Most editors 'forget' to remove the RFC tag when the resolve the question, and if we don't automatically remove tags at some point, then they'll stay 'open' for years. Most RFCs are actually resolved within a much shorter time, so 30 days is usually enough. However, if any RFC discussion is still active after 30 days, then you simply change the timestamp in the RFC to let the bot know that we're still talking about it. There is no magic 30-day timer on discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The page's history shows very little activity over the past week. Because over 30 days have passed, and because the discussion has become inactive, the RfC can be closed. A summary of the RfC will allow editors to know the level of support for the proposal. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC needs summary. It's a doozy...

Could an administrator who is previously uninvolved consider reading, summarizing, and closing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. Its a doozy, and one with potentially wide-reaching implications for Wikipedia, so it should probably fall to an experienced admin, especially one who is used to closing and summarizing long RFCs. This discussion has been open since April 3rd, so its going on 8 weeks or so, and has had endorsements or contributions from some 300+ editors. In the past 10 days, only 7 different people have added any endorsements or comments to it, so its probably reached the end of its natural life. If a daring soul could take the time to take this one on, that would be great. --Jayron32 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) to take a look at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was not aware that you asked him. If he's doing it, that's great, since he's about the best person one could hope for in terms of experience and reputation at the project. Thanks for updating me on that. --Jayron32 06:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad will not be able to close it. Would another admin look at the RfC and gauge the consensus? Cunard (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked over portions of it and I should be able to close it, but it will take take several days to read though all the material -- in addition to the RFC page itself, there is a large talk page and there are multiple sub-pages. With other obligations, Friday night would be a reasonable estimate. If no one else is volunteering to do it sooner, I will tag it with {{Closing}} and note my estimate on the talk page, which will hopefully end this sort of pessimistic speculation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this difficult closure. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

reluctance to close AFDs

I've noticed a growing trend, not with any particular admin but more in general of reluctance to close AFDs. Either by letting a discussion go on beyond 7 days or adding a relisting note and letting it go even further. I recently posted a request on a nearly month old AFD for some action which has been relisted twice. Relisting makes a lot of sense when there is little participation but this particular AFD had !votes from 6 editors. Does the process admins follow need some attention, are admins in general pushing to get concensus, or is this just an avoidance of decision making and/or conflict? It's a difficult, usually thankless job to cull through all the !votes and comments and make a decision, but avoiding it usually doesn't make it any easier. When all else fails, sometimes the result needs to be "no concensus". No links or anything specific because I dont want to throw anyone under the bus, just give whatever admins take the time to read this some food for thought. --RadioFan (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It might help a little if we agreed to treat AFDs relisted without any comments at all as successful PRODs (after all, they've gone a week without any opposition to deletion, whilst it wouldn't be right to close as a successful AFD, preventing recreation per WP:CSD#G4). So delete article as a PROD, close the AFD as a "successful PROD, no prejudice to recreation". Perhaps this just doesn't happen very often; the thought is prompted by this one just now. Rd232 ^talk 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

but sometimes the second or even the third week of discussion does produce a definitive solution. I think other people may be like me: I examine the ones of interest to me on the first round, but if nobody with greater concern or knowledge comments, I'll take a look at the others also. and if it's the third week, I'll go further afield yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, though, what happens with AFDs that really never get any comments? I don't work with AFD much, and I never close discussions because I don't understand the coding properly (the only time that I tried to close one, it closed the entire day's worth of discussions!), but treating uncontested AFDs as prods makes sense to me. We already follow a similar process with other types of deletion discussions, such as files. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed, and as far as I know, consensus has never been established to treat low-attendance AfDs as uncontested prods: see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed before... yes, and I opposed it! LOL. Rd232 ^talk 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The most recent discussion seems to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. T. Canens (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the straw poll, its was interesting reading I know that admins that leave AFDs with little or no participation probably see this as being helpful and encouraging participation but leaving the article in limbo can be pretty disruptive. The article has a big scarlet letter on the top of it for as long as the AFD goes on which is going to make many editors reluctant to put any time or effort into improving the article to resolve any concerns brought up in the AFD or continued commenting in the AFD itself. "If it's just going to be deleted, what's the point" some comment. The relist tag is a bit boarding a flight pulling away from the gate and having the captain come over the PA with an announcement that the "we're going to have to sit on the runway for a bit". The only information provided is that there is a delay for an unknown amount of time because of an unknown problem which can be resolved in an unknown way. Limiting admins to a certain number of re-lists or policy around low-participation AFDs doesn't seem like something that will ever get agreement. Perhaps better feedback will help. Current deletion policy suggests that an explanation be added to the AFD by the admin only after the 3rd or more re-listing. Many editors have written off the article at this point. The current process which only suggests that a comment be added by the relisting admin could be better. Put it out there as a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process and would love to see some thoughts on it there.--RadioFan (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On Commons, deletion requests remain open for many months accruing enough opinions to close, and even then sometimes receive only one or two, due to the smaller community. Ideally I'd not like to see En develop a backlog like that, but sometimes patience really is the only way. Dcoetzee 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Fuzhou bombings

• 2011 Fuzhou bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MECHEMENG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Respecteveryone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was sent here from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. what I stated there was "I have reverted deletions made by one editor at 2011 Fuzhou bombings multiple times now and have talked to him on the talk page. The section in question is one about the censorship of the event directly following the bombings. It is sourced and, in my opinion, directly linked to the subject. The other editor has very different feelings. I would appreciate another set of eyes over there to see if the section does belong or not. Thank you in advance." since i posted that not 15 minutes ago another editor has appeared and has deleted the section then put the whole article up for deletion. I don't know what to do. any help or suggestions would be great. --Found5dollar (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Things are getting progressively worse at this article with deletions, demands for things on the talk page, and deletions of things I have posted on personal talk pages. I am at a complete loss. I have no idea what i am supposed to do in this instance. --Found5dollar (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This user is clearly being disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two of them. Both are relatively new as well... --candle•wicke 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also evidence in the talk page history of a recent accusation of a smear campaign. The user has since deleted this. --candle•wicke 07:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI#concerted web campaign versus UCSD professor. I'm tempted to indef that one as a disruptive SPA. T. Canens (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Separate from the whole web campaign stuff above (haven't looked into it), give me a shout if he starts reverting again and I'll block. At the moment, he hasn't edited in four hours, so I won't now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Requests for arbitration" subpages being indexed by Google

Resolved

 – NukeBot is running, and WMF is on it

Hi.

The subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration are apparently being indexed by Google, ignoring the robots.txt directives. This is evident in this search, for example.

My guess is that it is related to URL encoding, but if someone could investigate and address this, I'd appreciate it. Updating the robots.txt entries is one option. Another option might be explicitly adding the __NOINDEX__ magic word to the series of pages (or some common template among them).

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A further note: it looks like it isn't just "Requests for arbitration" subpages. At least a few "Articles for deletion" subpages are listed in my Google search results, for example. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate WMF people notified and asked to pin this down as urgent. Also pointed them to this thread in case any developments noticed by the community are noted here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added as a stopgap to Template:ArbCom navigation, which will help with the primary pages at least. It's not perfect, but it'll help. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm running my (old, not-really-approved-for-this) AWB Bot on the 1800 or so "Requests for arbitration" subpages. NW (Talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Update - caught up with someone at WMF by phone. Apparently some RFAR subpages aren't within the robots.txt exclusions, perhaps due to previous renames - those need rechecking. But others, including AFD, are correctly excluded and looks ok (he says), they indeed should be non-spidered and he can agree that at least some aren't. He says that a first brief check suggests a possible Google problem. It's after 5pm at WMF so many people aren't around, so it's tentative. None the less he's going to have a go at finding a contact who can take this further and if able, check it out at Google. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts here. Much appreciated. :-)

I haven't investigated this too thoroughly, but I'm very strongly inclined to believe that this is related to the trailing slash being encoded in some cases. "/" is "%2F" when encoded; robots.txt is prefix-based. For some entries on the current list, they're listed as "Wikipedia:Foo_bar/"; others are listed as "Wikipedia%3ABing_baz". "Wikipedia%3ABing_baz%2Fbop" (the encoded equivalent of "Wikipedia:Bing_baz/bop") would be excluded as it has an exact prefix match. "Wikipedia%3AFoo_bar%2Fscribble" would not be excluded as the prefix is not an exact match.

In the Google results I've come across, all of them seem to share the common characteristic of using "%2F" instead of "/" in the search results URL. (If anyone can find alternate examples in the form of "/wiki/Foo/" that are indexed, but shouldn't be, please list them.)

If it is an encoding issue, the simplest solution is to modify the robots.txt entries to not include a trailing slash. This will remove the root pages ("Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration") from indexes, but would come with the benefit of removing both trailing "%2F" and "/" from indexes. Alternately, more combinations could be listed, but given that there are already alternate listings due to the encoding of ":" ("%3A"), this would be the more complex option. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So, the crawler hates all sane people and requires that we list both encoded strings and non-encoded strings; so, for one rule like Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/, we need the following 4 rules:

Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia3AArbitration/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia3AArbitration%2F
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration%2F

Note that the searches that are showing results contain the %2F. Joy. So, I didn't actually solve the problem. In fact, the rule I added was already in Robots.txt, just further down the page. I've added a bug for MediaWiki to handle this automatically.--Ryan lane (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this bug is likely not going to be fixed immediately, it is likely a good idea to add these combinations manually.--Ryan lane (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A note on bugzilla points out this link states how to add a canonical link to the header to identify duplicates. Unclear if this will mean all duplicates are non-spidered, but may be useful for anyone interested in the issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:ErwinFilipovic

I'm at something of a loss here. I'd blocked tis user earlier as a spam-only account; an established user asked that I reconsider, which I did. I think he's making a good-faith effort to write about his company (which appears to be quite large and suitable for inclusion at a quick glance) but User:Orangemike alerted me to a comment he'd made about sharing the account with his secretary. I don't wat to be a one-man "good cop/bad cop," so I'm asking for some feedback. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that he looks like an SPA with COI ... he's currently doing a userspace draft of an article about his company that has already been deleted twice from articlespace. A friendly offer of help, reminder of COI/PROMO and the "one user, one account - one account, one user" concept would probably help (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Front Mod

Somebody created this article just now. Previous versions of this have been AFD'd before, and I think this needs action against page recreation if there's still no sufficient RS. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for G4 speedy, it's a start. – ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Zapped, but I don't think it's time to salt just yet... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New Tool

I finally got around to writing a tool that Ive been thinking about for years. If you add:

mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', 'http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/img_status.py?title=' + encodeURIComponent(mw.config.get('wgPageName')), 'Check files')

to Special:Mypage/common.js you will get a new tab for checking the status of all files on a given page example. It flags images used without rationales in red :) . Enjoy ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD u1 request

Resolved

 – Got it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone delete User:Jorgenev/scripts/hideautomation.js under CSD U1. I would use the CSD tag of course, but it does not transclude onto js pages. jorgenev 18:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record while it doesn't transclude, it does still add the page to the csd category--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Announcing our new community liaison

I’m delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has engaged Maggie Dennis (User:Moonriddengirl on the English Wikipedia and elsewhere) to serve as our first Community Liaison. The Community Liaison role is envisioned to be a rotating assignment, filled by a new Wikimedian each year, half year or quarter. One of Maggie’s responsibilities is to begin to lay out a process for how this rotating posting would work.

Maggie has been a contributor to the projects since 2007 and is an administrator on the English Wikipedia and an OTRS volunteer. She has over 100,000 edits, including edits to 40 of the language versions of our projects. Her broad experience and knowledge made her a natural fit for this role.

This role is a response to requests from community members who have sometimes felt they didn’t know who to ask about something or weren’t sure the right person to go through to bring up a suggestion or issue. Her initial thrust will be to create systems so that every contributor to the projects has a way to reach the Foundation if they wish and to make sure that the Foundation effectively connects the right resources with people who contact us. If you aren’t sure who to call, Maggie will help you. Obviously, most community members will never need this communications channel - they’re happy editing, doing the things that make the projects great - but we want to make it as easy as possible for people to communicate with the Foundation.

The job of the liaison will have two major parts. First are standard duties that every liaison will perform which may include maintaining a FAQ about what each department does, making sure that inquiries from email or mailing lists are brought to the attention of appropriate staff members, etc. However, we also want liaisons to be free to pursue unique projects suited to their particular skill sets. Maggie will develop such projects in the coming weeks.

Maggie will be on the projects as User:Mdennis (WMF) and can be reached at mdenniswikimedia.org. Her initial appointment runs for six months. I look forward to working with Maggie in this new role!

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent choice. Maggie/Moonriddengirl is an outstanding editor and admin. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Maggie will be fantastic. Congratulations to her, and congratulations to the WMF staff for making such an excellent pick :) NW (Talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear: MRG is a wonderful and very capable editor and administrator, and an excellent communicator. Good luck MRG. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

5 users like this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC) T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

YAY! MRG, you are the greatest! I just learned of your promotion and believe me, I already have a task for you.  :) All my best, PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here, here. Moonriddengirl is an excellent contributor. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Once I get up and running, I look forward to talking to you guys about some of these "unique projects". (And they don't have anything to do with copyright! Not in my job description. :D) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

o/  Chzz  ►  12:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin reaction needed

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 13:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bambifan

I am an admin at the Tamil Wikipedia and we have an IP editor who looks like Bambifan101. The IPs he uses are from mobile, alabama and he exclusively concentrates on disney films. Here is the recent ip used. He has been editing in ta wiki for the past couple of years - i read the bambifan page only recently and made the connection. Can someone familiar with this case confirm this is Bambifan?. I have to inform the wider ta wiki community about this issue and would like to be sure that this is indeed bambifan.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've pinged PMDrive1061, who would know better than anyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually globally blocked the IP for a day earlier. --Bsadowski1 04:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Once more, he has sought to damage this organization. Might be time to get his school district involved once more. If the Foundation doesn't grow a pair and actively seek to shut him down, then they deserve to be damaged and we shouldn't feel obligated to repair this idiot child's malice. PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I will let our editors know about this guy and will revert him on sight henceforth--Sodabottle (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 is correct—editors should not need to tear out their hair over issues like this. While #Announcing our new community liaison and #Tests of new account creation processes above may be useful, what is really needed is a full time staffer who can act in an official capacity to follow up on long term abuse cases by contacting ISPs or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that ISPs usually don't care. (Some do, however; I don't know if Bambifan's current ISP does or not.) In either case, why not ask MRG/Maggie for some help on this one? Philippe did say, "If you aren’t sure who to call, Maggie will help you." Heh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And the reason ISPs don't care is that Wikipedia has an idiotic policy of tolerating any amount of abuse because blocking a million IPs for a month might upset some potential editors. Meanwhile, real editors who are actually editing are greatly upset by the severely deranged. ISPs will care if there are consequences (complaints from their customers), and some form of official embarrassment (a paid WMF staffer who maintains a public list of problem ISPs). Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting myself in the ISP's shoes, why should I care? Shutting down or sanctioning a person could potentially mean losing a customer, making me lose money. As Johnuniq pointed out, it's not like we're really gonna do something about it. Given these two options, they're likely going to opt for not doing anything to keep their customer. Our abuse response page for ISPs isn't that great. Our abuse response page is pretty slow and the abuse responses I've filed have resulted in no improvement at all probably because of what I stated first. I just stopped filing them because they're a waste of time for both me and the investigator. Most of the abuse responses I've seen are pretty much the same, have a negative outcome in which nothing was done by the ISP. Some are even cancelled just due to "inactivity" since some cases takes months for people to just accept or decline the case. I mean is there really any use for the abuse response page? What if it took an average of a week for an admin to respond to a report at AIV or RfPP? We need to first start improvements here before we can even move to try and making ISPs do something.

But, if ISPs actually did something or did care, we could maybe effectively reduce the amount of abuse from a lot of our persistent sockpuppeteers. A lot of them use just one ISP. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the ISPs use the same principle as us that we mostly act based on "recent" activity, then we're never going get what we requested since the activity has become "stale". Just trying to look at the bigger problem here. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the same activity from the same person across various addresses of the same IP. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my little MRG! One of my favorite users. You're right, John. Neither I nor anyone else should have to tear out hair or other body parts over this, That bastard (and I make no apologies for the incivility) took advantage of some cross-wiki attacks I suffered last summer at the hands of a truly deranged and possibly dangerous banned user. He chimed in with attacks of his own and what followed was a nine-week-long nightmare. It was only when I personally reported him to his school district after he'd gone on a rampage with a school IP did it stop. I am utterly astonished that he's back on his Bell South IP; I thought for certain that his parents would have stepped in. As of today, I am no longer involved with several wikis as a result of these attacks and I have no interest in returning to them; it was simply too frightening and sobering an experience. This has to end and end right now. He has literally stolen server space and user time worth untold thousands of dollars. All I know is that we're dealing with a ninth-grade boy, one who is clearly anti-social and more than a bit deranged in his own right. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading the LTA page right, this kid has been doing this since 2006??? It's ridiculous that an organization with a level of public exposure like Wikipedia (or their governing entity the Wikimedia Foundation) just allows this to continue. Why does the Foundation care so little about their project that they will allow cretins to hold it hostage, damage it, and use it as a vehicle to harass people who have so generously volunteered their time? Maybe it's time for folks to get together, draft a letter to the Foundation to deal with this once and for all and if they refuse or drag their feet, you all stop contributing until they get off their bureaucrat behinds and do something? Night Ranger (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and damned straight. I tell you here and now, what he's done to this site is criminal and what he did to me was cybernetic terrorism, pure and simple. You read that page right. Five years of this and nothing has been done beyond playing whack-a-mole with rangeblocks, but he still finds ways to come onto various aspects of this organization's projects with his machine-translated garbage regarding his damned kiddie films. I've written Jimbo Wales, I've written the Foundation, I have placed a number of abuse requests with BellSouth and still nothing. He cost this site at least one of its finest editors, User:AnmaFinotera. At this juncture, my hopes lie with Maggie. I'm highly visible as a vandal fighter, so I elected not to post an e-mail address. If you or someone does draft a letter, please inform Maggie. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vfriend kanth1705

Could somebody please create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vfriend kanth1705 for me? The reason for the nomination is the fact that there is no User with that name, it was created by a different user. If this is the wrong place to request this, my apologies. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can remove the <nowiki> tags and complete your nomination. Jarkeld (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, all pages related to this have been speedy deleted. Jarkeld (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure

WP:ANI#User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas needs closure. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Second this request.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Extended topic ban recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Rd232 ^talk 04:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

3rr violation by User:Florentyna

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 10:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug in wiki software sometimes displays old versions of pages when visiting a redirect

A side effect of which is that vandalism may still be displayed after it was reverted and editors' time is wasted on false alarms. Presently race realism redirects to racial realism, but only the former was showing old vandalism that was reverted 10 days ago. This bug was reproducible for a few minutes today but now the page that was showing the 10 day old version is showing the up to date version.76.175.197.99 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried purging your cache? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The place for this is Village pump (technical). You'll see there that lots of other people are having similar problems. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of permissions

In accordance with the process for expedient removal of permissions, administrator permissions of the account Spencer195 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are to be removed immediately given concerns that the account may have been compromised and being used to abuse multiple accounts.

This desysop is temporary until the entire Committee has had the opportunity to examine the matter and Spencer195 is given an opportunity to explain his actions.

Supporting: Coren, Risker, Casliber

— Coren ^(talk), for the committee, 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Invitation to comment - civility-related miscellany for deletion discussions

I've up two Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion nominations that may be of general interest. Both center on concerns about essays which (in my view and that of several other editors) promote incivility in the Wikipedia namespace:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch (second nomination)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nobody cares

I invite all interested editors to join the discussion over at MfD. Neutrality^talk 07:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help NOW!

Administrators, sorry to interrupt, but something is seriously wrong here. Twinkle appears to be fucked [excuse le mot] and I have a problem with User:70.62.185.149. However; {{IPsock|By78|confirmed|evidence=[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/By78/Archive|SPI confirmation]]}} I need help in blocking this. Please check Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Qwrk (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on, but JaGa understands you: s/he blocked the IP for a year. Just curious: why couldn't you block the IP without Twinkle? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend, thanks for the reply. I came home, booted up and saw the Twinkle interface had changed. Several warnings to talk pages didn't stick and neither did the AIV option. As I'm no Sysop there's no way for me to block an IP-only editor [or can I?] Qwrk (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Weird. I've never used any automated tools, so I don't know how they work. The way you spoke, I thought you meant that you tried to use Twinkle to block the IP, so I assumed you were an admin, and I figured that you reported it at AIV because you weren't able to block it yourself. You're correct: you can't block anyone unless you're an admin. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Due to some miraculous intervention of the unknown Twinkle is behaving the way it ought to. It appears yesterdays troubles were caused by a hiccup of the bits and bytes. Qwrk (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A new version of Twinkle was rolled out recently (see WT:Twinkle) which was likely the source of the problem. —DoRD (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unregistered bot

See WP:BON#unregistered bot. Marcus Qwertyus 16:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you linking this here? Prodego ^talk 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

How can I edit the "In The News" section on the home page? The part that says, "In auto racing, Sebastian Vettel won the Monaco Grand Prix and Dan Wheldon won the Indianapolis 500" does not Kevin Harvick winning the Coca-Cola 600. B-Machine (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That section is filled with items promoted based on community consensus. There are lists of sporting events that previous discussions have decided were notable enough for inclusion, so that their entries can be planned ahead of time and worked out. The major Grand Prixs are on there for F1, the Indianapolis 500 is IndyCar's entry on the list. Nascar is represented with the Daytona 500. The Sprint Cup being awarded might also be on there I believe. -- ۩ Mask 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ITN/C (the discussion page for the candidate entries for that section of the main page). Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP error on main page

Resolved

The teaser for Victoria Lockwood in the Did you Know... currently on the main page is incorrect. The article itself and the source indicate that they had known each other for only six weeks before becoming engaged, not married. --Noren (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf

I'm bringing this here because there's no single specific incident to highlight, but there is what myself and others see as a problematic pattern of behavior from this editor. After a couple of recent AN/I complaints (one from Damiens, and an earlier one about him) I dropped a note on his talk page (see: User talk:Damiens.rf#Spread things out) suggesting that he voluntarily modify his behavior so that the effect of his actions would be less confrontational and disruptive. The reaction from Damiens to this suggestion seems to indicate an unwillingness to acknowledge that there's a problem ("A community restriction just for me would be arbitrary.") and blame shifting the problem to others ("why not create a limit for the number of non-free files someone can upload?"), among other things.

I'm not wed to any single action here, but I think that we should impose some sort of community restriction. The problem is really limited to the volume of FFD nominations, and the bot-like speed with which he makes nominations (to be clear here, it's apparent that Damiens is likely not using a bot. Or, at least, he's using scripts/bots in a very limited fashion). In my view there is sufficient evidence of a problem on his talk page (including the archives), but I'm sure others can provide further evidence if it's really needed. I hope that this doesn't turn in to some sort of witch-hunt, and that we can quickly agree to some sort of community based restriction here. My suggestion would be something along the lines of: "Damiens.rf is restricted to two concurrent FFD nominations of files uploaded from the same user within a week", as I suggested on his talk page. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• A quantitative throttle on nominations has been discussed before, and it will always find me strongly opposed. Damiens' nominations are generally well considered and well within policy, even though many uploaders don't like to hear about that. And nominating several images from the same uploader simultaneously is not a problem, to the contrary: if an uploader has many non-free image uploads from similar topic domains and one of them is problematic, then it is almost invariably the case that others will have similar problems. If one nomination is objectively justified, then five or six can be justified just the same. And it's in everybody's best interest to treat them all together quickly and in one go: the pain and stress to the uploader would be no less if nominations had to be kept trickling slowly over the course of several weeks, than if they all come at around the same time, and having them all together on one FFD page ensures that they will all get the same amount of scrutiny, that common patterns and common problems can be better identified and explained, and that there will be consistent application of policy across all. (Disclosure: I often agree with Damiens' nominations, although I just closed one as keep.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  To my mind the issue here really has nothing to do with NFCC or the operation of FFD itself. That's the reason I don't consider the argument "Damiens' nominations are generally well considered" to be persuasive here. I'm not trying to advocate for preventing Damiens' from nominating files at all (although that's a possible outcome here, I'd think). Consider what the reaction would be if Damiens were instead nominating pages for deletion at AFD.
  The point that your making about taking care of everything at once could be well considered under certain specific conditions, but I'll offer the counter point that many users will be willing and able to fix problems with other files that they are interested in if given the opportunity, once the user is aware of exactly what the requirements are (and outside of the confrontational atmosphere created by any xFD process). Many users have said what amounts to exactly that on Damiens' own talk page. Regardless, the "carpet bombing" approach that Damiens.rf employs is a significant problem, and we need to impose some sort of restriction on him due to his unwillingness to consider that the community has expressed problems with this behavior.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ill counter your counter argument, many users will be willing and able to fix problems with other files is utter fantasy. This has been tried multiple times, with very very little success, the only thing it does is makes more work/takes longer to clean up a mess. Back in 2007 this was tried in large scale (including watchlist notices) with trivial success (less than 5% of affected images where corrected) So Damiens is doing the most prudent thing. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  PS here is a better solution, FIX THE PROBLEM and Damiens will have nothing to tag. Until this gets to a manageable level carpet bombing is the best solution. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ohm's: I've seen these cases dozens and dozens of times. People who are otherwise productive, well-respected, established contributors, but who have systematic patterns of problematic non-free image uploads. I've heard dozens of them complaining how terrible it is to have three or four of their images nominated at the same time. What I have never seen any of them doing is changing their upload habits or proactively improving their articles to a point where they would support better non-free image cases. If a pattern of uploads is in fact problematic, there is usually not much the editor either can do about it or is prepared to do about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough, we'll just agree to disagree on the point then. It's really not that relevant to the actual issue issue at hand (Damiens.rf's practice of carpet bombing multiple users with FFD nominations), and the remedy being sought (preventing him from doing that).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  So ignore the elephant in the room, for the mouse instead? I dont think you can do that. Carpet bombing is a valid tactic, hell I tagged over 5,000 files on a single day. A better remedy would be to force users to fix the issues with their files, But that cannot happen, thus the result is carpet bombing tactics ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Delta, that statement and your own track record are hardly helping Damiens out here. That you both have similar attitudes isn't going to persuade myself and others of the merits to this sort of confrontational behavior. The expressed belief that "it's all their own fault" is the main problem here. Wikipedia is supposed to foster a collegial environment. Laying blame and behaving disruptively isn't going to get other people to change their behavior. FFD (along with AFD and the other xFD processes) serves a necessary function, but it's not the solution to the issue that makes FFD necessary. Educating people about the potential issues with their contributions is the only way to achieve your stated goal of "forcing users to fix the issues". That can happen, but it's not going to happen at "gunpoint". Anyway, as I already said above, all of this is incidental to the real issue being raised here: dealing with Damiens.rf's attitude.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for saving me posting much the same issue to WP:AN.

Take a look at WP:Files for deletion/2011 May 26 These are not "well considered and well within policy". Many of them appear instead to be nominations from real ignorance of the historical context behind what's illustrated, and why these images are much more than "decorative".

WP:Files for deletion/2011 May 26#File:Fagotsstayout.jpg

WP:Files for deletion/2011 May 26#File:Four-in-a-jeep_allied_patrol_in_Vienna.jpg

Then we see some truly bizarre nomination rationales, such as deletion because it ought to be PD anyway

WP:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_26#File:Dana_Plato_mugshot.jpg "Non-free mugshot being used just to make the point someone was arrested. (aren't mugshots PD?)"

and

WP:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_26#File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg "This is an unique, irreplaceable photo showing the meeting of notable hitoric relevant people, in what was likely an historic event itself." (NB this was a nomination to delete the image)

The key justification for most of these deletions seems to be no better than "Wiki will survive without this", with no consideration giving to the view that the encyclopedia will be made better by their use, and made substantially better so as to justify fair use. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As ad admin with years-long experience at FFD I can assure you that none of these nominations is groundless. People unfamiliar with non-free image policy are often astonished to see how strictly the policy applies – but it does. Yes, these are all entirely reasonable nominations. Only the Windsor/Hitler one is a bit more borderline, but that one too can certainly do with some legitimate scrutiny. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be an indication that the way FFD operates, and the way NFCC is interpreted, is actually out of line with the wishes of the community. Just saying. Thparkth (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Community wishes are kinda irrelevant here. NFCC was handed down by Wikimedia lawyers, so the community doesn't have much say in changing it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

From the page history, it is obvious that WP:NFCC was not "handed down by Wikimedia lawyers" but rather it was written through the usual consensus building process by ordinary en.wiki editors over many years. It has continued to change even after the foundation resolution I suspect you are referring to. We have wide latitude to develop our own non-free content policy provided it doesn't contradict the foundation resolution, and at the moment our policy is stricter in some areas than what the foundation requires. For example, we could have a specific allowance for images used to illustrate historical events, as the foundation allow, but we don't. Thparkth (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We could, but we're not lawyers. Adhering to the strict licensing is the best way to comply with the Foundation's decision. Are you really wanting people who can't even agree on the most basic stuff to try and write a less-strict policy? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push back the boundaries of NFCC. On images like the amplifier rack, this is very much a judgement call about NFCC and although we disagree over this at present (with substantial caveats on my side anyway), I'd be happy to support a decision that as you claim, it fails NFCC.

In most of these images though, and "Four in a jeep" is one of the more obvious, the nomination seems to have been done in ignorance of just how historically significant the photograph was. This isn't just any "four people" in a jeep, it's a bizarre historical situation that's discussed in the article, an article that the nominator appears not to have read. Similarly for "Fagots stay out". High-volume nominations like this are very rarely well thought through, especially when they are cases like this that are clear for NFCC, yet not obviously so on a cursory reading.

Most disturbing though are the bulk of nominations that push the point, "This image is valuable, NFCC recognises value, adequate value can justify fair use, but if the servers won't actually grind to a halt and delete the page without this image, I claim we should delete it". That's an attitude that's really the antithesis of NFCC, not merely a cautious or stringent application of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that nonfree image use has escaped detailed scrutiny for so long that there are hordes of images which fail our standards; the problem can't be addressed in a reasonable period of time without chocking the review system we now have. As several users have noted, one part of the problem isn't that Damiens.rf is making bad nominations, but that he's making good ones. Perhaps it would be better if we had a different process for handling these cases, more PROD-like, or empowering a class of expert admins to review individual cases and dispose of them more summarily, with a longer time frame than seven days for action.

Also, not all of these images need to go to FFD. For cases like File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg [2], nonfree images of living purposes used as general illustrations or unnecessary illustration (typically, illustrating the claim that the subject appeared on the magazine cover involved), it's more appropriate to remove the image from the article; if no one elects to replace it, it will simply be deleted automatically after a waiting period (unless it's also used elsewhere). FFD is called for only when there's an attempt at a reasonable NFCC rationale, not a clearly invalid one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• And now I'm apparently a target. Not unexpected, certainly; tihs sort of retributive and confrontational behavior illustrates perfectly what the issue at hand actually is, though.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Support restrictions on Damiens.rf nominating for deletion large number of files from the same uploader in a short timeframe, possibly with an exception for those files which blatantly and indisputably fail fair use. The vast majority of the files which he nominates pose no legal risk to the project, though they may fall foul of the increasingly absolutist understanding of WP:NFCC#8. No legal risk means no urgency, and if there is no urgency, it is disruptive and punitive to nominate large numbers of files from one uploader at the same time. It has the effect of discouraging good-faith contributors, and it should not be allowed. Far better to nominate only two or three images, and if they are all deleted, to approach the user informally and say "hey, given that those three were deleted, what do you think we should do about the other sixty similar ones you uploaded?" (Non-administrator comment). Thparkth (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Urgency is required by the Foundation - images that fail NFCC are supposed to be removed within 7 days of that determination. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Could you point me in the direction of that Foundation requirement? The only thing I can see that requires 7-day deletion is our own speedy deletion criterion F7, which I believe is not at issue here. Thparkth (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • My bad, I forgot that the Foundation Resolution doesn't specify a time, but they do certainly stress deletion over keeping questionable images around (Resolution:Licensing policy). Mind you, our NFCC policy has additional time requirements above speedy. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed. All the same I don't feel the Foundation's interests are harmed by taking a slightly less aggressive approach towards the individual user involved. I won't repeat my argument, but it is possible to do this in a more collegial way. Thparkth (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  So, what's the solution here then? Do we allow him to continue on with his poor behavior because what he's doing can be supported by policy? I'm not trying to argue with NFCC, I'm trying to prompt the community into reigning in a user who is frequently out of control and can't seem to grasp why he's running in to issues with people. That his boorish behavior involves NFCC is really incidental.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think it's important that editors be discouraged from uploading content which is not appropriate at Wikipedia. If it takes a little bit of incivility or agressiveness, that is excusable. Damiens is only one of many editors and Administrators doing a fine job of this, and I don't think he should be singled out for criticism. There are other projects which welcome content and contributors. Editors wishing to add content should be encouraged to seek out one of those. They should be here only to help enforce our policies and guidelines. Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  Dekkappai, your sarcastic trolling is not helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the problem here isn't really just the nominations. In other words, I have a feeling that, if the proposal were to be adopted, the problems would persist. If we get bogged down in talking about whether Damiens nominates the right or wrong files for deletion, we will just get bogged down. The real issue is civility, and more broadly, the ability or inability to interact productively with other users. The last time this came up at AN/I, the advice was to go next to an RfC/U, and I think there are probably no shortcuts around that step. There is clearly no shortage of people who have tried to address the issue on his user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Incivility has very little to do with it. Nothing in what Damiens said during these last batches of deletion nomination that sparked this new outcry was incivil. Sure, he can be rude on some occasions, when provoked, but he wasn't here. He wasn't aggressive either. What people seem to find irritating is merely that he's stubborn, and unfaltering in his focus on policy. He doesn't actually do anything to hurt people's feelings and sensitivities; he just refuses to pamper them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with this; Dameins.rf has a long history of being offensive. I do not count his profanity-laced edit summaries as merely "refusing to pamper" editors. I count it as being clearly rude. Perhaps you'll look at these (calling editors "nosy and arrogant", "vain", [3][4]) and tell me if that's your idea of 'not doing anything to hurt people's feelings and sensitivities'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at the first: I can't blame D. for that one. The other guy was indeed being an arrogant dick, and got exactly the rebuke he deserved. The others are at least in no way related to image deletions, so why bring them up here? It's again just mixing up issues. And I note you thought it appropriate to search his edits until back in 2009 to find these. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I included one link from 2009 because the three links from the last couple of months obviously wouldn't justify my statement that Damiens has a "long history of incivility". The three links from the last three months, by themselves, would demonstrate only a "recent history of incivility". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And you (FP) should feel free to try to make that argument at an RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to open an RfC/U then? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are asking me. Please read what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. You asked FP to take an issue he does not have a problem with to RfC. Since you, apparently, do have an issue with Damiens, I wanted to ask if you were going to do it yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? I said that FP could try to make that argument defending Damiens at an RfC. And I said that there are plenty of editors who have recently attempted unsuccessfully to resolve these issues with Damiens on his user talk. Maybe you are unfamiliar with how RfC/U works. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Damiens has been incivil or agressive. Just that a incivility or agressiveness in the implementation of policy and guideline are inexcusable, for the greater good. Sometimes persistent contributors need to be driven off by the firm application of Policy and Guideline. Anyone who has been here more than a couple years knows this to be common practise. I apologize if I am being incivil for putting it in type. No, Damiens has acted in perfect Good Faith and Civility, and I, for one, hope all my inappropriate contributions are deleted with this much Civility and Good Faith. I will do all I can to cooperate. Dekkappai (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding myself to the horde of disgruntled masses. Damiens.rf tagged 3 images in 2 FAs and a GA I wrote that have already passed fair use image scrutiny, fully justified, and referenced by reliable sources. My response on his talk page, for reference: [5] At this point, as Damiens has made the decision about what is important for readers apart from what reliable sources have repeatedly stated is important, this appears to be a wide tear of original research. Damiens decides what's important; sources do not. I think he's out of line. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's funny to see how these discussions always go in identical cycles: A: "Damiens.rf is teh evil! Look, he nominated three images for deletion that I think ought not to have been nominated! He's a deletion extremist!" – B: "But look, his views aren't so much out of line. Most of the images he nominates do in fact get deleted, which shows he's in line with policy." – C: "Yeah, but it's not just the fact that he nominates so many images. It's his incivility!" – B: "Well, yeah, but he wasn't really incivil here. He just nominated a couple images. He was quite matter-of-fact about it, and merely explained policy." – D: "Yes, but look how many images he nominates. See, here he nominated three images for deletion that I think ought not to have been nominated! He is teh evil!". Rinse and repeat. As long as the accusations run in these circles, I doubt an RFC/U would be able to achieve anything rational. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotta agree with FPaS. I've seen several of these reports on AN & ANI, and it's always the same circular argument. Simply put: Damiens.rf isn't doing anything incivil, or against policy, with these deletions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"He was quite matter-of-fact about it, and merely explained policy." Well, that's one way of describing it. Oh, but that cycle leaves out the step where he was "matter-of-fact" again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support some sort of additional restrictions on Damiens. Intentionally dropping the f-bomb, being a generally uncivil force in the XFD realm, intentionally violating his community ban, numerous ANI complaints...something's gotta give, folks. At some point we should stop handing out probation and start throwing out a block. I disagree with the FP analysis. He is indeed being uncivil. He stated straight up that his behavior won't change and he WILL nominate a massive number of articles for deletion when his ban ends. The buck has to stop somewhere. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Dont shoot the messenger, FIX THE PROBLEM. Lets get all of the NFC files within policy and then lets review this. Until the root problem is fixed dont ignore it. Too many people want to ignore the major issues which is unacceptable. NFC enforcement needs to be done. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 05:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• FPaS has done his usual stellar impersonation of one of Robin Hood's arrows. Damiens.rf, while abrasive I agree, is looking out for the best of the project. If someone could point out that his end results are majority incorrect, maybe we'd have a good reason for putting any restriction on the volume of his nominations. As it stands, there is no such good reason. If his actions are driving people away from uploading images which are against policy that is a net benefit. The only room here is for someone to guide him into being less abrasive, and a little more review to lower the incidence of false positives. That's it. → ROUX ₪ 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Damiens' issue is not that he's out of policy (he's not) and is not that he's uncivil (a plurality of Wikipedians are uncivil and Damiens is tamer than many). The issue is that Damiens has a holier than thou attitude. Damines only becomes problematic when his nominations are challenged. He has an unshakable belief that he is completely right all of the time, and that anyone that disagrees with him is either an idiot who can't understand policy or a fanatic that lets personal attachment to images outweigh reasoning. Damiens is right most of the time, but he brokers no resistance and treats alternative interpretations (even reasonable ones that can be justified by policy) with open disdain. Damiens shouldn't be restricted from nominating things for deletion. That being said, he needs to understand that he knows image policy a whole lot more than most people and he can't expect everyone to be at his level, and he needs to understand that there are multiple correct, policy backed ways of looking at a given situation. If he can do that, I think he'd wind up here a bit less often. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sven, I think your analysis is, in many ways, more precisely accurate than was my earlier reference to civility. But, even though Wikipedia hasn't been very good at drawing a rigorous line between civil and incivil at the policy level, I would suggest that we should regard "he brokers no resistance and treats alternative interpretations (even reasonable ones that can be justified by policy) with open disdain" as something that is bad for Wikipedia, not as something that is good. Truly, reading many of the comments in this talk, I see users who seem to be arguing that it is not only good, but admirable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• This proposal is simply misguided. Damiens.rf is nominating images using the normal process (including mass nominating using twinkle which is something that I and others often use - my rate is much smaller partly due to time and bandwidth constraints) and in general is proven correct. The issue here, and I've been watching this for a long time, is that he persues his defence of the "Free" bit in the logo above doggedly. This coupled with stubborness and sometimes unfortunate reponses leads to people getting pissed off and making obstreperous protest. This proposal is here, not because he has done something especially egregious, but because as with many discussion on this board drama has fed on drama and the cries of anguish have gradually become more strident. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support restrictions on Damiens.rf nominating for deletion large number of files from the same uploader in a short timeframe. He obviously often does not read the articles in which the images appear and provides misleading nomination rationales. Many of them appear instead to be nominations from real ignorance of the historical context behind what's illustrated, and why these images are much more than "decorative". This guy needs to be slowed down and warned that he has to change his arrogant attitude towards people who do not agree with him. - DonCalo (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is 90% of the time that context is not stated in the article or the rationale for its usage. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Those images generally aren't the problem. It's the 10% of images that you fail to mention where the source IS mentioned, the rationale IS in place, and he nominates anyway. He should at least make an attempt to improve an image or ask the uploader a question instead of nominating it for deletion on a technicality. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I offer for your consideration another example of him calling another user an "asshole" (Yes, I'm well aware that the article is "Asshole", but this is a [recurring behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stone_Brewing_Company&diff=prev&oldid=429600209] where he uses an article's name insult contributors. He doesn't do this in other articles, just those where he can "hide" snide insults in the edit summary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh puh-leeze. Get a grip already. Damiens very rarely nominates deletions "on a technicality". Few of his nominations have anything to do with simple formal problems such as the lack of a rationale. Almost all of them are about substantial failings of NFCC#8 or #3. You can't improve such cases. If it fails these criteria, there is usually not much one can do about it, except deletion. – And about the "asshole"/"bastard" edit summaries, you seem to have been trying to get him in trouble for those for quite a while. It won't work. These were obviously not directed at other contributors. They were silly jokes. (Not much different from a whole thread I once had on my talkpage about that Fucking Article, though perhaps not quite as funny). Going on pretending those were personal attacks is, frankly, disingenuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry I don't "have a grip". These aren't very good jokes and they are in bad taste. My "trying to get him in trouble for those for quite a while" has "spanned" nearly 2 edits and 8 days. They are also a symptom of other problems regarding civility. Bottom line: they aren't necessary and aren't funny. Others agree and he continues to make snide remarks despite warnings of admins. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • You want something done about Damiens? Well I did something [6] ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
        • You gave him a barnstar? Not only was that unconstructive, I expect several people will support this proposal based on your endorsement alone. If I were Damiens.rf, I'd immediately repudiate it. -- llywrch (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem?

It appears that there is a large backlog of files that either a) clearly don't or b) probably don't or c) possibly don't meet non-free use criteria. Tackling this problem tends to annoy people, but as long as a user's nominations are generally successful, they're not doing anything wrong per se. Damiens could probably be more politic about how he does it and how he responds to criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual problem is the large backlog. That could be reduced perhaps by other additional measures, like working harder to ensure users who have uploaded non-free images and had them deleted don't upload more images that may not meet the criteria (suggestions on a postcard to the usual address). But you can't really get away from deletion nominations for dubious non-free images; if the use is justified, it'll be kept, and if a user's nominations are too infrequently successful, that's a problem. Otherwise, not. Rd232 ^talk 12:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

They would rather attack the person than address the real issue because too many people think WP:NFCC is an optional policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's an accurate summary. I think that the community believes that the strictest possible interpretation of NFCC is 'optional', and that deletion—even of non-free files—is not the proper solution to a need for (frequently minor) clean-up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If "the community" believed that, "the community" would be wrong. Fortunately, there is no such thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I think that the community believes that the strictest possible interpretation of NFCC is 'optional', and that deletion—even of non-free files—is not the proper solution to a need for (frequently minor) clean-up." - if that were true, then Damiens' deletion nominations would have a low success rate, no? Nobody seems willing to claim that, in which case, there is no fundamental problem. Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's really two issues here and they're getting mixed up. One is the potentially valid concern that Damiens may be nominating a large number of images for deletion; my question to those that complain about this is what is his hit-to-miss ratio? If, for every 10 images he nominates, 9 are deleted, that's appropriate work. On the other hand, if only, say, 3 of every 10 nominations were ultimately deleted, that's a bit of a large number of false positives, and I would agree admin action may be necessary to stem his nominations. The evidence suggest, however, it is the former case and that Damiens' pretty accurate as to NFC failings, so I can't see admin action needed here. If you don't like that his nominations often end up deleted, get NFC policy changed. The other aspect is the demeanor that Damiens takes with FFDs, and to that, as long as he's not personally attacking editors, WQA and WP:RFC/U are thataway and not something to deal with ANI. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I, in turn, agree with WhatamIdoing on the merits, and with Masem about the right and wrong venues for discussing them. But while we're still here, I'll repeat an observation that I also made at the most recent AN/I thread about Damiens. This discussion resembles those that we sometimes have about so-called "vested contributors", users who have a strong history (complete with numerous FAs) of high-quality content creation, but who are either incivil, or at least a bit too unable or unwilling to "suffer fools". Here, instead, we have a user who is not so much noted for content creation as content deletion. It seems to me that the cost-benefit analysis comes out more on the side of not enough benefit to the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to take issue with "It seems to me that the cost-benefit analysis comes out more on the side of not enough benefit to the project.". Sure, Damines won't make my top ten list for users that are pleasant to work with, but he goes after dead weight non-free images. That's not going to earn him a fan club, and it's going to piss off a few people, but dead weight hurts the project. Wikipedia, as a massive institution of the internet, can't get away with negligent abuse of non-free content the way that most smaller websites can. If Wikipedia cannot police itself, others will step in and demand action eventually. If that happens Wikipedians lose control over Wikipedia, and that's much worse. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And here is why I see it differently than you do: Let's look at other ways in which Wikipedia polices itself. In my opinion, the constant tide of drive-by edits of the form "Jimmy is AWESOME!!!!" in the middle of articles is probably even a bigger problem than are files that, in some cases, violate NFCC. Consensus is that we give those editors an escalating scale of warnings, starting out with a very gently worded one that begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia". Carrying your reasoning, and the reasoning of many of Damiens' defenders, to its logical conclusion, we should replace it with a template saying something like "You are such a fucking moron, just go away!" Actually, I think there is a pretty good case to be made that anyone who makes that kind of rollback-able edit really ought to know, without coddling, that it's a bad idea—but someone can be a very intelligent editor, with a generally good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and acting entirely in good faith, and upload a file believing that it is a constructive thing to have done, and only a carefully parsed reading of a very byzantine policy would lead one to consider the file to fail NFCC. Do we really think we need to treat such an editor as someone who is beneath contempt? Do we really think that's the right way to grow Wikipedia? One hardly needs to adopt Damiens' style in order to prevent Wikipedians from loosing control over Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a striking lack of actual material evidence in this discussion which would support the thesis that there is something wrong with what Damiens is doing (there are some complaints about demeanor). It appears to amount to "I don't like having images removed from articles I've worked on." Fair enough as a sentiment, but it carries no weight as an argument. All of you with concerns: provide some evidence that there is a real problem here, or drop it. Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are plenty of users who would be quite accepting (maybe after a transient moment of concern) of "having images removed from articles I've worked on", if the removal were explained to them in a polite way, in a way that acknowledges that the images were added in good faith. It's treating the supporters of the images as nitwits or delinquents that is disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If he had gotten the message, why is he making the nominations? There are disruptive and distruptive ways of fixing problems, and trying to delete by proposing more material for deletion than can be evaluated properly is not acceptable. It could only be excused if the material were of the same nature, but the discussions at the relevant pages shows that no attempt whatsoever is being made to distinguish significant and acceptable uses from the majority of ones that should be deleted. It is time we stopped tolerating it. It's accepted that the proper ways to proceed are to either nominate a small number so they can be discussed individually by the community, or to make sure that they are all of identical rationals, and deal first with the ones that have the most unacceptable use--for example, the Time and Newsweek cover portraits could be listed all at once, since they have the identical problem. As an analogy, I object to the deletion of some small percent of these. Were I to therefore opposed every one of them with the same comprehensive defense, what I said would properly be ignored. I am instead objecting to only the ones for which I think I have the strongest case, and where what I say can be directed to the individual circumstances. The same should go for such nominations. For them to be acceptable in this volume, they would need close to a 100% success rate. If they were being nominated 20 at a time, then OK, even a 80% success is OK. I think the general view of the community is strongly opposed to strict interpretation of NFCC, and the only reason this is not clear is that the general community does not participate in the process. Few people are willing to participate in a process where a few regulars with strong views dominate, but wider participation is the only method to deal with it--another way of saying, DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Many of the nominations I have seen Damiens be involved with recently (including with myself) have been on images with accompanying fair use rationale (and proper sourcing), but in instances where Damiens contends that they are merely "decoration" or not notable enough to warrant inclusion when in his view "text only" would suffice. The problem however lies when he nominates 10 such images in a span 60 seconds, as how could he possibly be taking into account the contextual significance of the image with relation to the article? When you further factor in that he might nominate 100 images for deletion every day (and possibly 5 or 10 + from the same user by going through their entire image log), it becomes potentially problematic in my view. I believe that Damiens means well, and that he sincerely views himself as the "last line of defense" against what he perceives to be a metastasizing horde of copyright violations which could bring the entire Wikipedia project down at any moment – but there is nothing to warrant such a feeling, and if many of these images were so blatantly "decoration" then they would (a) obviously be found eventually by someone else as well, (b) not sit in FA & GA articles for years until Damiens swoops in and removes all of them with the echo of 2 to 3 users from the deletion board who also share the same anti-fair use bias that Damiens does (hence the high % rate). The unfortunate reality in my view is that 2 to 3 users who universally favor deletion in nearly every instance and philosophically are against fair use - can literally cause an avalanche of deletions on the nomination page as they are the only ones who would even bother to normally patrol such a page. The other users who may likely favor the rationale of including the image don’t participate or are not even sure when the nomination occurs (plus, since the images can be deleted within days on most instances, little time is available for them to become aware). Lastly, I keep hearing about these impending lawsuits or genuine risks to Wikipedia from Damiens et al when some company logo is being used on the article that provides free advertisement to thousands of readers daily about that particular product the logo represents (as if any company would be irrational enough to complain about such a practice). In reality companies want their products/logos/ad campaigns featured in fair use on Wikipedia, movie companies want their promotional photos used in their articles, photographers want their attributed photos featured and them given the credit/recognition/publicity, and authors would never object to the covers of their books being placed in their own article etc. Where are these phantom threats to Wikipedia from such fair use violations and impending threats to the overall project that Damiens and others are protecting the project from, because I have never seen any?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any kind of restriction, basically per FutPerf. Reyk _YO! 06:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto everything RedThoreau said. Seriously, if only to save you reading this time I'd repost it all. --Moni3 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Redthoreau. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Speed limit

OK, per clarifying comments from DGG and Red Thoreau, I suggest the following:

In order to ensure that deletion discussions receive adequate attention, Damiens.rtf is required to limit NFCC-based image deletion nominations to X per day, of which no more than Y per day may have fair use rationales and adequate sourcing present. In addition, prior consensus on the relevant article talkpage(s) is required for nominating images used in FA and GA articles, where fair use rationales and adequate sourcing are present.

obviously X and Y need numbers substituting; those more familiar with the issue can suggest numbers here. Rd232 ^talk 07:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• strong oppose, per everything above, and it should already have been clear by now that this has no chance of getting consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "this has no chance of getting consensus" is a bit presumptuous - it is the first specific proposal that articulates the specific concerns into something implementable that doesn't merely stop all such activity. I mean, seriously, if NFCC is that much of an issue that we cannot throttle discussion of individual files to a manageable rate, then we need to concede that the problem is unmanageable without drastic measures. Those measures might include a bot removing every NFCC-use which doesn't have a fair use rationale (maybe with some days' warning), leaving a note on the article talkpage for 4 weeks, before queueing the image for deletion if it's unused. The status quo is untenable: we have to decide if the global problem is dramatically urgent (such that tackling it supercedes issues of ensuring rescuable uses aren't overlooked) or if it is mildly urgent (such that tackling it can be throttled to the highest speed compatible with examining each individual case sufficiently). I don't know the right answer, but I do know that making one committed user take the brunt of the community's inability to decide this point is unfair. Rd232 ^talk 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Honestly Future, I don't get it. There are issues with images and the NFCC, and there are thousands of images on Wikipedia that need better sourcing, improved FUR's, and there are probably 1000's that need to be deleted. I don't dispute that the work should be done, but what's the godawful rush? As far as I'm aware, this has been an issue for... ever. As far as I can see there isn't any real solution to the problem, either. Say Damiens nominated every non-free image on Wikipedia today, and a couple of days from now yourself (or someone else) deleted them all. Do you honestly think that would be the end of the problem? In a week there would simply be a few thousand more, many of them the same images. Anyway, I fully expect yourself of someone else to take this and stretch it to it's most absurd by saying that I'm advocating for FFD to be shout down or something, but I'm not saying that at all. You'll note that myself and others aren't trying to prevent Damiens, or anyone else, from nominating files at all. All we're trying to do is manage the workflow so that there's some oversight. If 10's of files are added to FFD per day it's impossible for outsiders to keep up. If a single user has a handfull of files nominated at once, that's a real burden on they're editing (we're all volunteers here. I for one don't appreciate someone else telling me how they want me to spend my time). So, what's your alternative solution to this problem? Do nothing?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't get it how the premise that there are many problematic files in need of scrutiny can lead you to the conclusion that there is no rush cleaning them up. At the very least, one should think, we need to make sure that the rate of daily cleanup keeps in pace with the rate of new problematic uploads, so the backlogs at least don't get larger. In any case, just to provide a bit of hard data for once, here's some statistics:

• The average traffic at FFD is somewhere around 19 per day, based on a random sample of 36 daily pages distributed across the last 12 months. There are few days with less than six, and a few outliers with more than a few dozens. The highest outlier I saw was 107. Most of these extra busy days are not due to Damiens (some other editors such as Calliopejen, Peripitus or Sven Manguard also do large batches.)
• Damiens, since coming back from a several-months hiatus in late November 2010, has made 539 FFD nominations in 186 days. This is just below 3 per day on average, and may contribute to somewhere around 15% of the total FFD traffic.
• Most of Damiens' nominations come in daily batches of about four or five. Again, there are a few outliers (38 on 7 January; 39 on 26 April; 23 on 20 March; 69 on 26 May; 41 on 27 May).
• Among his FFDs since November, 374 led to deletion, 30 to a keep. (Just counting by which of them are now in his deleted contribs list rather than his normal contrib history; not taking into account complications such as double nominations, DRVs, overturns or the like). This is a success rate of >90%. 135 FFDs are currently still open.

And the argument that having "a handful" of files of the same uploader nominated simultaneously is an unbearable burden on their editing is still bogus, and doesn't become truer by repetition. Uploaders have a full week to respond to each nomination. Any active editor can find the time to write four or five brief comments about four or five of their files within such a time span. (In fact, those who complain how terrible it is to have to do this, will readily spend a lot more time writing their complaints and making a fuss at noticeboards.) And it is a lot easier for them to keep track of these issues if they are all on a single page, than if they are spread out over several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fut Perf, per your own statistics, I don't think it is a coincidence that the requests on Damiens talk page to temper his speed began to ramp up in the last few days when he decided to nominate 110 images for deletion on May 26th & 27th - after as you say usually averaging 3-5 a day. So was there a massive influx of uploaded images during the past week, or did Damiens just decide to go on a deletion purge/rampage, which predictably caused a range of complaints from users as he may not have given as much attention to the fair use rationale of each image by declaring so many of them "decoration" within minutes of each other (which itself is often subjective)?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the timing is the other way round. People didn't start complaining because he suddenly nominated more images. He started to nominate more images in a gesture of defiance after people attempted to brow-beat him into stopping. At the time these people came to complain, he had been working well within normal levels of activity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fut Perf, so your saying that in response to some users "brow beating" him about his 3-5 nominations per day, he decided to make a "defiant" WP:POINT and nominate 100 in two days and cause even more complaints by other users? And this is somehow better?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms, per my commentary above and that of FutPerf. Damiens.rf may be abrasive but, bolded for emphasis, not a single person here has shown the slightest bit of evidence that the majority of his nominations are incorrect. → ROUX ₪ 14:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not safe at any speed. Either Damiens learns how to act like a constructive member of the editing community, or he will end up with a complete site ban. Maybe not today, but soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a low limit or complete ban. These files are not subject to speedy deletion, therefore discussion and consideration of the individual circumstances of each individual use are, by definition, required. This is not possible when then volume of files to be considered exceeds the time available to consider them. I would support 10 files a day, of which not more than 5 may have adequate sourcing and a FUR present. I would also say that no more than 5 currently open discussions should be about images by any one uploader (unless that uploader explicitly agrees otherwise) - if there is a concern about a specific uploader then this is best dealt with at a process like RfC which is set up to deal with user problems. To Roux, I had a look at his nominations to see what the error rate was, but there were far, far too many to investigate - which illustrates exactly the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, that illustrates nothing more than your unwillingness to look at data which would disprove your point. This is normal human behaviour of course, but if nobody's going to show that damiens.rf's nominations are an actual problem, then the only concern is his abrasiveness. → ROUX ₪ 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about what's going on here in totality to make an intelligent comment on Damiens' behavior, but should he continue his direction and nominate dozens or hundreds of images in a 24-hour period, he should at least take into consideration the article assessment level and either stay out of GAs and FAs or nominate the articles for GAR or FAR for failing to adhere to Wikipedia policies. In those venues, people who take care to read the articles and pay attention to the sources will be able to better assess if the images are appropriate in the context of the article. The speed and erstwhile efficiency accomplished in this kind of rapid nominating does not maintain high-quality content or improve the encyclopedia for GAs and FAs. If Damiens truly cares about images in GAs and FAs, he should participate in the collaborative conversations where the articles are being discussed in their entirety. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support @Delta - Damiens.rf IS THE PROBLEM. This is the third time I've seen a thread on him at AN/ANI in less than a month. The issues with him obviously go way back. Time for the the community to stand up to him for a change. It's no surprise DELTA defends him, as I've also seen similar threads on DELTA during this month. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as I'm still not seeing a solid explanation for what Damiens is actually doing wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Like others, im left wondering what exactly Damien's being accused of. Nothing he did seems inappropriate. Frankly the only speed limit that would reduce drama is how many frivolous threads about him can be started in a month. -- ۩ Mask 00:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't suppose it'll make any difference at this point, but it's worth pointing out that this "speed limit+" proposal could easily be a general policy amendment (not quite sure what policy though...). If the community has trouble keeping up with large volumes of nominations, that does merit some response. Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is lack of consensus

If large numbers users are justifiably astounded by the legalistic strictures and subjective requirements of what is alleged to be non-free image use policy, I would question its entitlement to the label of "policy" to begin with. There are those who are about building an encyclopedia; that is our primary purpose, and we're only peripherally about displaying the power of collaborative development or the support of some general "free content community". These goals, however fervently held, are peripheral to the goal of building an encyclopedia. At least one "only free content" advocate compares the cause to other socially obnoxious cranks like vegans. The bulk of the editorship, busy with other tasks, is constantly being interrupted by lectures deploring the environmental cost of meat, nagging about fat and cholesterol, and weeping salt tears over the suffering chickens in their pens.

The history of non-free content policy is a history of asshattery, which you have to have several years of experience with the project to get a panoramic view of. First came the demand that each such use, whether unique or of a type already recognized as apporpriate, must bear a fair use justification. Fair enough. Then the justification had to appear in a template. Then it had to appear in a separate template for each article. Each such change results in a drive for mass deletions of files, many of which were uploaded by editors who no longer stop by that often. Now comes a demand that articles themselves be rewritten around images, and another fair-use pogrom. A minority of editors have made removal of fair use material as a cause, and press for more numerous and subjective strictures. The majority of editors holds no such commitment to the cause, and notices only when articles they are interested in are effectively vandalized. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that this policy has at least been partially highjacked by a minority, with a commitment to a cause that makes building an encyclopedia a secondary issue.

If we were somehow to deprecate all content from the last hundred years or so, and insist on equally strict restrictions on the suitability of article subjects from the past century or so, these stances would make more sense. The history made by men in neckties tends to be dreary and not conducive to reverie in any case. I'm probably one of the few editors who could be persuaded to go along with such a stricture, mostly because of my insistance that notability always means "long term historical" notability. It's yet to be seen whether John Coltrane will pass the test of time, much less Lady Gaga. Popes, presidents, prime ministers, and major wars from the past century get encyclopedia articles; hardly anyone else from the same time frame gets one. It sure would make my own fanatical crusades (sales patter and IT-cruft) easier. I suspect this will be a minority position, though.

I'm reluctant to blame another editor; the rules themselves are the problem. They do not represent the consensus of contributors. All Damiens.rf has done is to bring matters to a head, and if it was not him, someone else would. I do get the impression that while some of his defenders might otherwise perceive that he is being dickish, but look the other way because the stuff he is being dickish about is Too Important to Stop.

About all I can suggest constructively is that I do think that WP:FFD desperately needs a WP:BEFORE. Subjective concerns like whether an image is merely "decorative" and arguing about the "significance" of an image for a given article, whether a free image is an "adequate" substitute for a fair use image, and other demands that articles be rewritten to specifically support images, probably ought to be raised first on article talk pages rather than FFD. These are, after all, content disputes about specific articles in which files are used. Current practice places these content disputes in arguments about whether a file should be kept. This probably increases friction. It's brought to other editor's attention when they get a template on their talk page announcing they have contributed unacceptable material. I also get the impression that any procedural obstacle that might slow the work of purification would be resisted by the "free content" crowd. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. "Asshattery", "vandalism", "pogrom". I know one thing at this point: the next time anybody complains at a noticeboard about Damiens' "incivility", I'll speedy close the thread, and block anybody who attempts to re-open it for rampant hypocrisy. As for you, Smerdis, much of what you say is just factually wrong, but why would it matter to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me make my point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Smerdis, if Wikipedia had an applause button – I’d be pushing it right now. That polemical eruption was a thing of beauty :o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It reminded me of Jaron Lanier's criticism of Wikipedia. Future Perfect doesn't have to agree, of course, but his comment tells me he is somewhat alienated from a general understanding of this topic. Props to Smerdis. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt we'll get agreement to raise NFCC issues on every article talk page first, but I do think we should be able to agree that for FA or GA articles, which seems a primary concern for some because images there should already have passed some NFCC checks, so a bit of collaboration on that front would help a bit. For the rest - yes, it seems partly driven by differences of interpretation of policy. What might help a little here is to draw on the way Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples clarifies WP:REVDEL a bit: create Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/examples to help illustrate what is agreed to meet or fail the criteria. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches would be a good place to start from in putting that together. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wait Wikipedia:Non-free content#Guideline_examples exists. But I've only just found it; the pages on this topic are a labyrinth. I think it would be helpful to split it to a separate page, with its own shortcut (WP:NFCCEG), and then build on it. Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and created your shortcut, so some slight good may have come out of this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The text at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches is much better explained than most other guideline and policy texts on this issue. Should be made mandatory reading. So much for claiming that all these content requirements were somehow "new" and "not really policy". Just read that text, they are all there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be relevant to note that one image whose justification and use was specifically cited with approval in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, File:Stonewall_riots.jpg, is one that got included in one of Damiens.rf's recent rounds of mass nominations (Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_27#File:Stonewall_riots.jpg). This does nothing to disconfirm my impression that vague, subjective criteria that make demands of underlying articles as well as file pages are deeply flawed. When you have vague, subjective criteria, plus a group that's hostile to all non-free content, a situation's created that's going to generate paranoia, mistrust, and accusations of bad faith. It isn't about numbers. It's probably safe to assume that any of the files beginning with DSC*.* probably can be deleted without loss. But when a file has been specifically commended as being adequately justified under the policy, and Damiens.rf nominates it for deletion anyway on the very subjective grounds (we don't need to see this specific image to understand anything relevant and particular about the riot. Our use is also clearly non-transformative) I would suggest that people who don't see a problem here are sticking their heads in the sand. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The text at Signpost commends this image's FUR in that it describes a valid purpose of use. While I agree in commending the text used as purpose of use, mainly because it makes clear what's about the visual aspects of this image that make it relevant to the article, the Signpost (and featured article) reviewers failed in not notice that, without support from reliable sources, that text constitutes original research. The text says the image is used because "it illustrates the beginning of the riots, showing the type of people who participated: primarily young men with more liberal clothing and hair, contrasting with the conservative appearance of the police. The value differences between riot participants and the police is reflected in this image, and directly led to the cause of the riots.". This is the kind of prose I would tag with if I were to read it in any article without a reference link.

This is not to say the image is unusable. If reliable sources are found to support the thesis some Wikipedian created for the rationale, I would withdraw the nomination.

Big picture is, featured article reviewers and Signpost regulars, while great editors, are not necessarily experts in NFCC. Nobody is, by the way. --Damiens.rf 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Which thesis? I've already asked you to detail what you want to see in the FUR. I'm the "some Wikipedian", by the way, for anyone reading this. I uploaded the image and wrote the article. What do you want to see, Damiens, the thesis for the rationale? What does that mean? What wording do you want to see? And why pay attention to you? Why your standards? No one has yet explained this to me. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If the rules are vague, unclear, or involve highly subjective determinations, and no one knows what they really mean, it seemns to me to confirm that there is a deep issue with the rules and their wording. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Smerdis. That confirms my own experience as someone who has been an Admin longer than most reading this have been Wikipedians. The entire issue over fair-use images is that one group wants them gone entirely, while others believe some use of them is justified because we are writing an encyclopedia. On the other hand, I am very disappointed in Fut. Perf.'s response, & hereby announce my intention that I will block Fut. Perf. should I discover that she/he speedily closes any such thread or carries through any other of her/his threats made above @ 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC). I've seen this approach taken towards many controversial topics in the past, & all that accomplished was to piss off more people. -- llywrch (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There currently is present discussion on the use of historical images which themselves aren't specifically the subject of their own critical commentary but are discussed in conjunction with the article, such as those mentioned in the dispatch above. That discussion is here [7], and clearly is is a split consensus with no obvious answer yet. If I were in Damien's shoes, I would be avoiding these unless they clearly fail other NFCC rationale until this issue is resolved at NFC (And yes, he's responded in that discussion so he's aware it is going on).

So, as to a solution to the current situation here, it may be recommended for Damien and others to avoid FFD'ing historical photos until the NFC discussion is resolved. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd add, just as an aside, that any editor who adheres to an outlying or strict interpretation of any policy probably ought to avoid acting unilaterally or in bulk in the absence of clear consensus where that policy is involved. For myself, I've bit my tongue more than once and avoided using admin tools to speedily delete unambiguous advertising. I'm a hardliner on the issue, and because of that I seek consensus before acting. We are none of us infallible, though some are more so than others. I think this is good advice generally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Smerdis for this view. I agree that the rules are the problem, and the way that they have been made a little bit stricter every year has caused a huge amount of fighting every single time. Until we agree on clear non-subjective rules, the fighting will continue. I do not believe that there is a clear non-subjective rule that will work other than "do not use non-free images", a position that I support anyway for ideological reasons. But I fear that the only way we'll get there is by burning out everybody interested in images by endless bickering, and by another 5 years of more and more onerous criteria for image use until people stop caring. I'd rather see more non-free images than more fighting about this issue. —Кузьма^討論 04:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To be completely fair to those that are defending NFC policy, what is happening is that those partrolling NFC are able to use consensus and past FFD closures to recognize ways to add to both Acceptable and Unacceptable uses at WP:NFC, providing better bounds for new users to understand images. But there will always always be exceptions, both ones within these rules (for example, a free equivalent replacement always takes precedence over an allowable use) and ones not yet defined by these rules. The problem is that these changes have be secured before they can be acted on unilaterally, which seems to be the case here. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing what I can on this page, I think someone needs to deal with Fut. Perf's threat to block anyone trying to discuss this matter (conduct not suited to an admin), Damiens needs to be admonished to slow down and learn the way things are done on Wiki and stop initiating spurious deletions, and to whomever said no one here is an "expert", they clearly didn't encounter Elcobbola (talk · contribs), who wrote the Dispatch. There's a reason the Dispatch is the best written info on the topic, and why these aggressive users should be deterred from the asshattery that is happening on Featured Articles, particularly those already reviewed by Elcobbola. Some folks have charged in here as if they own the Wiki and the Truth-- and they don't seem to have ever dealt with Elcobbola, or understand the diligence applied in his image reviews at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read the Dispatch article, and found it to be very helpful. What stood out to me, for purposes of the overall discussion here, is how the article draws attention to what it calls the "conundrum" of reconciling the needs of a free encyclopedia with the needs of an informative encyclopedia. I don't believe for a minute that most editors who upload non-free media do so with the evil intent of subverting someone else's copyright. Rather, I think they are doing so with the good-faith intention of adding useful information to Wikipedia. As the Dispatch article makes clear, some considerations, like whether certain content can be adequately explained without an image, are subjective, and are not the kinds of things where one "side" of the argument owns the ultimate truth. The conduct problems we are discussing here arise when Damiens and some of his defenders adopt the attitude that those who disagree with them about a particular image are so objectively in the wrong that they are not entitled to a courteous discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is unavoidable subjectivity in the application of all the NFCC rules,because the basic concept, fair use, is inherently subjective--as exemplified in US law, where both the legislation and the US Supreme Court and the trend of judicial decisions has been to firmly resist any unambiguous or precise criteria. If we are going to use subjective considerations, such as the value of a picture to an article, the only way to do this in a consistent and productive way is to have full discussions of each item with wide participation--but unfortunately we have too many items and too dew involved people to actually do that effectively. The only practical way is to narrow the area of subjectivity, and discuss relatively few items, but discuss them fully. this requires restraint by those espousing both particular sides, We quite properly take drastic action against those using unreasonable amounts of unfree material that might overwhelm our processes. We should be equally vigilant against those who unreasonably want to remove content i n quantities we can not reasonably discuss. I see no pointy in just limiting to X items per time period. Those who cannot use reasonable criteria to decide what to add or remove, should be prevented from participating in the relevant process. I and any admin would warn and then block anyone who persistently attempted to add large amounts of dubious material. The reciprocal should apply also. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Invariably, in these types of situations 2 questions come to mind: (1) which is disruptive, the behavior or the response?, and (2) was the demonstrable intent to better the Wiki or harm it? I've never come across this user, nor been involved in his/her deletions (or cleaning up after them). That said; it seems that factor (1) is in doubt - if this user hasn't packaged deletions well or hasn't described the rationale well, those are mistakes not disruption, and factor (2) appears to be in the user's favor, s/he wants to rid Wiki of copyvio's. Now s/he knows that this area is one where people's sensitivities are high, and the "rules" are subject to interpretation. I think a "go lightly" admonition to temper the "be bold" admonition is in order and see if the behavior is modified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You seem to be making the mistake of confusing the distinct issues of copyright violations and the use of copyrighted material under "fair use". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The blinkers at work. With the best of faith, the people who subscribe to the belief system that engenders all of these issues do not perceive a significant difference between "fair use image" and "copyright violation". Because of this, they aren't going to see bulk nominations for deletion as "being a dick". They aren't going to see their view that consensus does not matter in these issues and that the entire purge is non-negotiable as "being a dick". They aren't going to see repeated demands for the revision of image description pages every time they get a new stricture in the policy page as "being a dick". They aren't going to see the use of deletion procedures as the best way to raise these issues as "being a dick".
      
      Which is why I specifically am not going to criticize Damiens.rf for lack of good faith. And there is absolutely no contradiction between this stance, and my previous observation that "the history of non-free content policy is a history of asshattery"; it just is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This is now the second time this person has insulted a whole group of editors he opposes as engaging in "asshattery". Previously, it was "vandals" and "pogrom". In a thread that started with a complaint about somebody's alleged "incivility". This is unbearable. I am absolutely not willing to tolerate this permanent trickle of insults. Either an uninvolved administrator steps in at this point and removes Smerdis/Ihcoyc from this thread, if necessary through a block, or this whole thread gets closed down. Here and now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
        • What I wrote speaks for itself. I've specifically gone out of my way to defend Damiens.rf from accusations of bad faith, and observed that IMO he honestly does not see that his bulk nominations of files is disruptive. Nor have I accused any specific editor of anything either. I've blamed only the vague and subjective rules, and observed that over the history of my editing Wikipedia, they have led to dickish behavior even if every step along that path to dickishness was taken with the best of intentions.
          
          Misguided zeal to eliminate fair use images, and if they cannot be eliminated, to make their retention as difficult as possible, and subject to continuous, repeated second guessing, may be part of the problem. It is my opinion that it is. It is also my opinion that a fair use policy that can be read as making that sort of editing seem desirable does too little to discourage dickish behavior. This remains so even if the editors acting under that interpretation do so with the best of intentions given their beliefs about what's good for Wikipedia.
          
          If I'm going to personally attack anybody, an administrator's noticeboard is either the worst or the best place to do it. What I get out of this exchange is that the defenders of mass deletions of fair-use images don't want to hear what the broader editing community thinks of their cause. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I think you need to take a deep breath and a step back from this discussion. What Snerdis said was not insulting anyone, unless you are considering the NFCC rules to be a person. And I pledge now to re-open this thread if you try to close it. Silverseren^C 07:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• A question, if I may. If policy was meant to be as strictly interpreted as some are suggesting, why do we have this document and, for that matter, why would we allow fair use material at all? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone almost completely uninvolved in the image deletion process, I find this entire discussion illuminating. I don't find Smerdis's comments uncivil, although they are direct and biting. It's refreshing.

That's not to say I agree either; I don't know enough to say. My two points to Smerdis are this:

1) I don't think this sort of non-free-image deletion is driven by copyleft politics, or anything similar. I suspect it's a frustration at the bulk of incoming submissions compared to the number of people to ensure they comply with policy and law.

2) People like to do a lot of hand waving about copyright law because it's complicated and somewhat ambiguous. But it's a real requirement and the policy's key to that. Because, not in spite of, the bulk of submissions, policy is critical. DGG's comment is pertinent: "the only way to do this in a consistent and productive way is to have full discussions of each item with wide participation--but unfortunately we have too many items and too dew involved people to actually do that effectively." If we've simply thrown up our hands because the issue's too big, only a stricter criteria or policy can effectively deal with the flood. The alternatives are 1) make the process more efficient but effective, 2) accept that fewer articles will have images, or 3) face legal consequences, or 4) face the Wikimedia foundation fearing legal consequences and dealing with the issue.

If I thought we delete too many non-free-use images then I'd hope we were doing a great job of policing it as is, thank you very much. There's always going to be what the law allows and what policy allows. There must be a buffer between the two; the debate is over how big. Shadowjams (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help with the CFD backlog

Categories for Discussion currently has a huge backlog of over 100 pages, 46 of which are over a week overdue in closing. Can some admins please come and help with dealing with closing these discussions? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Start of big test

Hello,

After a series of smaller tests and even some false starts, I am preparing to start the big test of the two new account creation processes in just a few minutes (it takes some time to set it up).

This test will run for the upcoming two-three weeks in parallel with the regular account creation process. It may result in an increase in new accounts who create their user page (which we offset in two ways: 1) a category for new users, and 2) an edit commentary with the text "New user page thru Outreach:ACIP"). But hopefully the biggest change is that more users than usual will go from being readers to edit Wikipedia.

During the test period I will tweak both processes almost daily. I am looking forward to comments and suggestions for improvements and aim to answer your questions very quickly.

Thanks to Frank Schulenburg, Fetchcomms and Sertion and everybody else that have been involved in this process.

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this form part of the trial!?

Is the user warned about the really bad consequences that may occur from following the form's advice to enter personal information? If I were a new user, I would take that form as a guide that I should enter my real name, occupation, location, and approximate age. OMG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to use that tedious "word" thru? What's wrong with "through"?! - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the username policy? That's a big mistake. MER-C 12:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Let me respond to them in turn:

• Yes, the form is a central part of one of the processes we are testing.
• About bad consequences: for people who start new accounts, the most frequent consequences are in order a) not beginning to edit, either due to them not knowing that you can edit Wikipedia or not finding any articles that they can edit (WWII, Barack Obama and Beatles all having quite long articles already), b) being reverted because they make mistakes or because other users don't trust them, c) being scared away by unfriendly posts on their talk pages, and d) getting drowned in information about how Wikipedia works ("here's another document you should read before you post anything"). The really bad consequences, while truly really bad, only come to a fraction of the less than 27% who make it past even one edit.
• That said, it's a fine balance between encouraging the new user to write about something he or she knows something about (him- or herself), which may inspire him or her to start editing about other subjects he or she knows a lot about, on the one hand, and guarding against net stalkers, on the other. For me, whose home wiki is the Swedish Wikipedia, where I, as a former press contact, have my home phone number listed, it's a little strange to react so strongly towards revealing personal information as occupation and approximate age. Especially in the age of Facebook that many of our prospective new users already use and have much more information on. But, this is only the first iteration of that form. I welcome others to contribute to other versions. In fact, I've asked for help for a long time now. You can either post new example texts below or on my talk page, or even email me. In either case, I will hone the text over the next weeks to something that is useful for both the new user and the people checking in on the new users.
• We can easily use the word "through". "Thru" was only used for shortness' sake.
• We can easily link to the username policy and even list some of the more common problematic usernames. What we want to avoid is having too many warning signs.

I hope that clarifies my view a little. And of course, I welcome other points of view, becuase with this new testing possibilities we can actually try out things and see which method works best, so please, add your thoughts below. Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am really worried about the suggestion that personal information be provided. So many of our first-timers are young people who are inclined to say too much already a la Facebook. (At least FB can have filters and limit the information to friends only.) Admins on wp.eng are frequently blanking pages with too much information when the users are young. There have also been a number of high=profile stalking cases with serious real-life consequences as a result of professionals saying too much about themselves on Wp. I do ask that you reconsider this, and soon. Bielle (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, suggest another version. I am, and have always been, ready to reconsider, but the more Wikipedians that come with input, the easier it becomes to come up with something better than what we have now.

Also, we've worked on these versions of the account creation process for several months. Is there something else that we should change, or perhaps even feel good about?//Hannibal (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hannibal. It looks like you're doing some great work in a tedious area largely ignored by most of us :) don't feel discouraged. On the other hand that particular form has potential to exacerbate a regular problem here (of people posting personal details). I seem to remember every time you come up with a new test and post it here there is fairly heavy criticism of aspects - whilst that is to be expected I think a large part of the reason criticism is so heavy is because the work is being done on outreach. You're simply not going to a) get en-wp editors over there to regularly contribut ideas/experience and b) the changes won't have gone through the normal en-wp decision making processes. Really, these changes need extensive input from local Wikipedia editors here, because it is clear that your brilliant ideas are being viewed simply in the light of the problems they don't address :) Is there anything that can be done to bring this over to Wikipedia for en-wp specific input and work? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and no, I don't feel discouraged. I recognize the same attitude on any wiki I have been active.

The suggestion of moving all the work to enwp is not a new one. I tried to move it some time ago, and as you can see, there has yet to come even one edit to that page after it was set up and only two edits on the talk page. Now all relevant pages are on enwp, see my user page here where they are. So it's just a matter of deciding how to proceed that is missing. I am certainly open to hear every comment and hope that more people would edit the relevant pages, or plan what to test. Either here, or at any other place, as long as you link clearly to it.//Hannibal (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think ErrantX has a good point. First, it is much easier to criticize than to create. We notice what is wrong first; what we don't comment on is, by extension, right, but that is not the best way to get continued creative work out of people like you, beavering away behind the scenes. So, thank you for all the work that you have done. I am a regular around WP, the Ref Desk and the administrative pages, and yet this is the first I have heard of the project. The fault may well be mine; it may have been well advertised and I just missed it. I do know, though, that identifying yourself on wp.en is not generally thought to be a good thing, for the reasons I noted above. There have been and still are in at least one on-going case that I know about, dangerous consequences to being too identifiable. In fact, there are many who would like to see a warning NOT to be too specific about your self and life. Bielle (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your amended comments. I have tried to advertise it here and on two Village pumps (technical and proposals), plus on the Community portal, and in a couple of blog posts on WMF's blog, and there was a short mention of it in a couple of Signposts, but I know it's hard to follow every page, because there is just so much traffic. I try to never hold it against anybody that they didn't know about this, but I am sure that I make my mistakes there too :-/. Anyway, feel free to suggest a wording that you feel comfortable with, but keep in mind that privacy is one facet of this. On the other side of the problem is the fact that we trust people more if they are known to us - at least in some fashion. Education may be okay to add, right? And job? Hobbies? Perhaps even general area you live in, if you don't divulge your name?//Hannibal (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll make this my last comment on the subject because it seems clear that I may be the only one concerned about matters of identity. I had my profession on my page at one stage, but it was used to taunt me by an editor who did not like what I had to say. If you don't tell such things, they cannot be misused. We actively discourage personalities; our mantra is "comment on the content, not the editor". To start people out by disclosing identifiable things about themselves is to encourage them to think that wp is safe for such disclosures, or that knowing something about who you are in real life is somehow tied to how you are perceived on wp. This is not true, in either case. I'd stick with fields of interest, which may pertain to what you can do on wp; the personal stuff does not. (In case you would like more information on how really, really badly this identification matter can go wrong, email me, and I will put you in touch with someone who knows, both for themselves and for many, many others on wp.) End of passionate plea. Bielle (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking people to supply personal information about themselves here is serious trouble. Wikipedia is regularly trolled and many people who have unpleasant interactions and arguments with others have been subjected to real-life stalking, even beyond the kinds of simple public humiliation others have been subjected to. People have had their employers called, their families harassed, etc. Wikipedia is not viewed as the real world and many people do not treat it as such. I appreciate the outreach attempt to lure new editors and make them feel like a part of the community, but when one of them runs afoul of one of our many banned users or even some other yet to be detected, demented creep who then stalks and humiliates them both on Wiki and offline it's going to have the exact opposite effect. The thought is a nice one but we are no longer living in 1995 and the internat is note a nice place. That form should be wiped clean and if anything, should only ask people to indicate topic areas they're interested in contributing to on Wikipedia. The sample should not have anything about people's real-life jobs, their locations, or anything personally identifiable. The chance of the current form resulting in complete disaster is 100%. Night Ranger (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:File-Class Chicago articles

If it is possible to move category page history along with a rename could it be done for Category:File-Class Chicago articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing history for a category page can't be moved when a category is renamed (unlike an article) because the old category is deleted and the new category created in its place. This is a long-standing "feature" of the category namespace. However, I have added the history of the old category to the new category's talk page (not that it looks particularly exciting...) Bencherlite^Talk 12:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration policy update and ratification

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. It has been extensively reviewed over the last two years, with a series of wide-ranging community consultations. A proposed update has now been posted and is awaiting community ratification. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the ratification process, which is now open.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

What to do?

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 08:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wanted: Uninvolved admin to close straw poll

Resolved

 – Poll closed

The straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles is set to close in about two hours (I foolishly overlooked the fact that, when starting a ten-day poll over the weekend at 2:30 in the morning my time, it would be ending at that hour in the middle of the next week). Yes, I really would prefer it be an admin to close it, as the weight of adminship may be helpful in enforcing the outcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear consensus there. I'm sure someone will be able to close it within a reasonable amount of time. Prodego ^talk 04:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a gentle nudge on this one: time has run, a closer would be appreciated. bd2412 T 17:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AWE (Academic Writing in English)

Resolved

 – Userfied to User:MacAuslan/AWE (academic writing in English). Please ensure that the article meets WP:WEB inclusion guidelines before moving it back to the mainspace. –xeno^talk 15:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend asks that you userfy AWE (academic writing in English).

I hope I am in the right place - Nyttend left me instructions that I hope I have followed. I am asking for reconsideration of a deletion he made (partly so that I can improve the article before any longer). My reason for persisting is that I believe the website (AWE (academic writing) is unique. I think that the website meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, in that it is of wide interest and usefulness - a claim that is supported by its 3,200,000 + hits so far (and adding around 10,000 hits a day). I can't say that it has yet had any exposure in print, but it was started under the auspices of the University of Hull (England), who awarded a University Teaching Fellowship to Peter Wilson to get it going; and it received the following commendation from John Hilsdon, then Chair of the Learning Developers in Higher Education Network:

"Briefly, I'm a big fan of Peter Wilson's excellent AWE site ...  
I've directed various students there and always had good feedback".  

I trust this will qualify my article for entry. (I know that it needs attention before it is any good, including, I suppose, the above quotation, as well as the actual address.) MacAuslan (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Could somebody with appropriate rights revert the vandalism to Encyclopedia Dramatica? Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin to close "proposal" discussion on talk page

• Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal

Requesting uninvolved neutral admin to close this "proposal" discussion on the article's talk page. Would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin can assess if enough time has passed, and upon archiving the discussion comment as to an evaluation of it.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just curious: Why does it have to be an admin? ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good point. Uninvolved established editor, please? -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just curious (and absolutely no disrespect intended toward anyone in the discussion); are you opting for some sort of RFC? .. or just looking for someone to establish a consensus? Note: I can't close it as I'm involved. — Ched :  ?  21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do I see an Arbcom case coming up over this Santorum issue? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would help but I have followed the discussion and already have a firmly-established opinion. So although I haven't participated I am not neutral. Sorry! ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@ The Resident Anthropologist. From what I've read so far the discussions have been ... often strongly opined on, but I think pretty respectful and within the bounds of acceptability; so I'm not sure a user conduct case is called for. (although I know I haven't read everything.) If something were in store there, it would likely be for WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK clarification. At least IMHO. — Ched :  ?  23:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking for an uninvolved editor to evaluate consensus and see if time has passed to archive that particular discussion, as was done with another "proposal" at that talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Ched a Large part of the problem is that there are two camps that have been fighting each other for several years now on a varieties of venues and topics. To me that's the problem here. I have taken variety of positions in each of those disputes but its been going on long before I walked on to the scene. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:ResidentAnthropologist, actually, there are a whole host of different users that have commented at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal and voiced their viewpoints. Consensus is built so far on over twenty editors that have commented, and appears to be clear at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion only opened on May 26, so it would make sense to leave it open for longer. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, SlimVirgin, you are right. That makes sense. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been a 8 days since the 26th, longer than the normal WP:RM discussion. Any reason you would object to a closure now SlimVirgin? NW (Talk) 11:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Request details of deleted image

Resolved

 – Such requests would probably be served at WP:REFUND. –xeno^talk 15:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please move this to the right place. Could an admin post the original page description and upload history of the following deleted image? In 2007 it was moved to Commons as Commons:File:Dominant_wavelength.png but without the usual upload history. I wish to ensure Commons holds the the full attribution chain in case it is decided that this is possibly copyrightable. -84user (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File details

* (del/undel) (diff) 05:24, 4 November 2007 . . SieBot (talk | contribs | block) (234 bytes) (Exact duplicate on Commons with same name) * (del/undel) (diff) 05:23, 17 May 2006 . . DavidHOzAu (talk | contribs | block) * (del/undel) (diff) 12:24, 31 May 2005 . . Chinasaur (talk | contribs | block) * (del/undel) (diff) 12:21, 3 March 2005 . . Mailer diablo (talk | contribs | block) (Thousands of images have no copyright tags. You can help[...truncated for display]) * (del/undel) (diff) 09:21, 4 October 2004 . . Chinasaur (talk | contribs | block) * (del/undel) (diff) 09:18, 4 October 2004 . . Chinasaur (talk | contribs | block) (Example of dominant wavelength on the CIE diagram) File history * (del/undel) 09:18, 4 October 2004 . . Chinasaur (talk | contribs | block) 400×382 (58,298 bytes) (Example of dominant wavelength on the CIE diagram) (the above history was added by Xeno)

Well, down the rabbit hole we go. image:Dominant_wavelength.png's initial author user:Chinasaur added the copyright message Based on below, which doesn't have copyright info as of 10/2004. Assume Public Domain. Image:Cie chromaticity diagram wavelength.png In turn Image:Cie chromaticity diagram wavelength.png (which is now also on Commons) is a modification by user:Hankwang of :File:Cie chromaticity diagram.png. That image was deleted as without having an adequate licence. It was initially uploaded in 2004 by user:Gliese who in 2005 marked it "PD-user". The 2006 discussion on Gliese's talk page (posted by user:Simetrical) suggests Simetrical believes that the image belongs to International Commission on Illumination (CIE) themselves. I don't know if there's a conclusive discussion as to whether Gliese created it themselves or just copied it from CIE; its deletion suggests that the deleting admin thought the latter. If this is true then Image:Dominant_wavelength.png and Image:Cie chromaticity diagram wavelength.png are both derivative works of an ineligible source, and thus are both themselves ineligible (assuming this kind of thing is more than "sweat of the brow"). Note that we have image:CIExy1931.svg which is an SVG version of Image:CIExy1931.png which was created by user:PAR. PAR's comment on that suggests PAR created that version from whole cloth and so it at least seems untainted. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for following the trail here, I have linked here from Commons:Commons talk:Licensing#PD-ineligible ? I did consider asking at WP:REFUND, but decided to ask here because I only wished to see the upload log and not actually request an undeletion. -84user (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting salting of a page?

Resolved

 – deleted and salted

Is there anywhere that I can request that a page be salted? Specifically Y.R.F Introduces New Child Star, whose creator keeps re-creating it after it's been speedily deleted. Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Pedro :  Chat  08:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, WP:RFPP is the place to ask for salting. – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:James William Middleton#Merge

Resolved

 – Discussion has been closed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been open for two weeks, can an Administrator have a look at it and decided what should be done please. Mtking (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Relist template modified to allow comments within the relist template

In order that everyone get the memo: The {{relist}} template, used when relisting deletion discussions, has been modified to allow an optional comment within the relist template's framework.

Without the optional comment, the template is put in as {{subst:relist}} (same as always), and looks like this:

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

However, when the optional comment is used, the template gets put in as {{subst:relist|blah blah blah}}, which renders like this:

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment by relisting admin: blah blah blah

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Hopefully people will find this new feature useful, and feedback on the new functionality requested and welcomed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked TraesuryTag

I just indefenitely blocked TraesuryTag (talk · contribs)... for impersonating TreasuryTag and starting a bogus FFD and just being a general dick, which is his expressed goal on his user page. Most likely a sock with a grudge? — Edokter (talk) — 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good call. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And good section heading. Almost got me there. If the sock hadn't in fact got me first ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And I've blanked the user and user talk pages as they were just personal attacks. I wouldn't object to (revision) deletion, but don't really see the need unless the real TreasuryTag complains. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm dying to know whose sock this is... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Me too. You could try WP:SPI. — Edokter (talk) — 13:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. The list of people who'd love to play this joke is a bit too long... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, Edokter. I've not yet looked at the diffs, but unless there's anything vile, I don't imagine that rev-del is necessary. I'd support an SPI/Checkuser though. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, as juvenile as it all is, I'm laughing my ass off at the user and user talk pages. That's pretty funny, right there. Definitely blockable, and even blankable, although it's really not that bad. If y'all really want to revdelete it, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way, but there's really no reason to do so. Still chuckling, slightly.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there has been quite a bit of impersonation of users as of late, myself included. If this is the same person who is doing the same for the admins, then this user is going to be hard to get, as he jumps all over the CIDR spectrum. –MuZemike 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not too long ago I found an UlherSRG (talk · contribs) removing an AfD tag from an article nominated by UtherSRG (talk · contribs), and I also remember finding Cidebot (talk · contribs) claiming he was a new bot for Cyde. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible carry-over case from Commons

Hi there,

Can an admin please have a look at this and this over at Commons. As the users have accounts over here at Wikipedia, and as at least one has a record of adding copyrighted material, the behaviour the users are accused of at Commons may also be being done here. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please post an account list - I get the distinct impression that the Commons sockpuppet investigation does not list all accounts. The account you linked has both text and image copyvios so a WP:CCI is likely (groan). MER-C 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The WP accounts that I know of appear to have the same names as on Commons: User:Archaeo89, User:Awatpishdad, User:Drea63, User:Emad456, User:Mira3z and User:Hawarjowan. I only came across it when the talk page of an article I'm watching was marked by a bot. So it appears the possible copyvio aspect may be under control (at least, as regards those images uploaded via Commons). I haven't checked out the WP accounts so have no other basis on which to make accusations about sockpuppetry. Hence, I brought it here rather than to WP:SPI. LordVetinari (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional accounts: User:Jahani65, User:Chanani, User:Kashtari90, User:Wise42, User:Jamal79, User:Banaboor and User:Gasha84. You need to deal with the images uploaded by these users. "[I] have no other basis on which to make accusations about sockpuppetry"... checkuser confirmed on one wiki + unified login = obvious. Can an (en.wp) admin oblige with the banhammer please? Also, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Awatpishdad. MER-C 13:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slang naming convention

Resolved

This is fast turning into a SNOW oppose. Could an uninvolved admin please review and decide if it's appropriate to initiate an early close? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a consensus of sorts at the RFC page that there's no way it would pass, and currently has no support from anyone bar the proposer. This is a pretty clear-cut one, so could an admin please stop it now? Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dash proposal has been finalized for voting (through July 14)

Anyone who hasn't seen the notice and cares about the dash wars should see 'Dash drafting open for voting', an announcement by User:Casliber. If any clerks are around they could perhaps do the notifications of individuals that Casliber requested. The background is that a Request for Arbitration was filed on May 5, and as a result, Arbcom passed a motion asking for a community decision about dashes. If I have misstated anything, please fix. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiGuide RfCs

Would an admin (or admins) close the following RfCs CSD criteria for new articles, being templated, and socialising on WP? Crossposted to WP:VPP. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure these RfC's should be "closed". I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I am raising the question. Not all RfC's are closed (I think) and not all RfC are necessarily looking for a GO/NOGO decision -- they are just that, requests for comments and conversation about a matter. In the case of Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing for instance, the proposal is

"Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Wikipedia's IRC channels."

It's quite possible that this is designed to foment further discussion that might lead to specific proposals for specific changes. If a person were to close this RfC with a result of "accepted", how exactly would the person then implement "Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing"? Changes to the WP:NOT page and other pages, writing a new policy, or what? Similarly, at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates, the proposal is

"When dealing with new users, we should discourage excessive templating and encourage more personal messages."

If a person were to close this RfC as "accepted", how would she then implement this? The proposal at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts is more specific and perhaps is amenable to a close. If closed as "accepted", though, implementation would require some changes to Twinkle as well as text changes at policy/procedure. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think stuff like this needs more discussion, and if someone is going to close it, the close should mainly summarize the main points and arguments and not try to locate some consensus for something. –MuZemike 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Not every RFC asks for consensus; these seem more like organized discussions, and as such should be closed by summary and not by consensus. --Jayron32 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that the closes should be summaries of the above RfCs, rather than than implementations. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes a summing-up would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing remain open. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard proposal

I have opened a final proposal on the Village pump to implement some changes to the dispute resolution process. The initial discussion for the idea can be found here, and the proposal outlining the changes that would be made if enacted are are outlined here. In summary, this proposal would create a new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, move dispute-related ANI threads that don't belong there, to DRN and for a trial, deprecated WQA and the Content noticeboard with these sorts of discussions moved to DRN. Full details on the proposal are at the relevant pages. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick help with strange page move

Hey, I don't know if it is possible for an admin to move a regular page in File:space to usersapce, but I sure can't. A user created something similar to an article at File:7312 deleted edits.png, which is the page of an image at Commons. I tried to move it to User:Kristijan gjorshoski/Slatino but can't because of the namespace. If someone could move it or delete it or something that'd be great, thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

After trying to move the file a couple of times, I deleted it and re-created it in the user namespace. It turns out that it's now impossible for anybody to move pages from the file namespace to another namespace. I don't remember having any problems when doing a similar history merge at Wikipedia:Wikipedia-mode.el in November 2009. Graham87 05:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Would the problem be because the File page is on Commons? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, or not ?

It has been suggested that a discussion be opened about the effects of Template:Convert. Let me give some background. I was using Huggle and up came an edit I considered vandalism here, so I reverted the edit and warned IP 72.193.240.28. The IP continued the same type of edits on other pages, [8] [9] [10] so in no time I was reporting the edits to WP:AIV [11]. I was asked by Materialscientist at AVI why did I think this was vandalism and why did I revert them ? here and here the subsequent discussions you can see. I was glad to see Fastily's comment at AIV [12]. My reply was "Why would anyone remove a conversion template and hard edit the values ?" Since Fastily comments sided with my rational I posted a question on his talk and here we are.

If Materialscientist rational for hard editing these values instead of using the template, and I agree this does make sense, then we or at least I need to know how to approach and handle these situations in the future. Peteypaws (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Involved user notification diff's
• Fastily [13]
• Materialscientist [14]
• IP 72.193.240.28 [15]

There are good reasons to hard code conversion values -- mainly, it can reduce server load. However, the values that were hard-coded in these NASCAR articles (for example, representing 211.6 miles as 340.537 km) represented false precision. (Alternatively, if the tracks are actually measured to that precision, then the miles value should also be rendered in thousandths of a mile.) --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

While the focus of this discussion is the use of the template in large pages and consequently server load as it applies to the rate at which the page loads, the accuracy of the values is not. Peteypaws (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL at "it can reduce server load." Got statistics or something to back that up? Not that it matters, since that's none of our concern anyway... Oh, and there's a parameter to take care of the false precision. How the heck is this an administrative problem, regardless? Go hash this out at WP:AIV.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should have no concerns about server load in writing normal articles. The convert template has a "round to x significant figures" (sigfig=) parameter that can be called to give the correct level of precision. Typically it does pretty well without that parameter, and doesn't need tweaking.

Is changing format between templated and non-templated vandalism? No, it is a change in style. Such changes are trivial to the reader, having no affect on the way the article looks, and should not be made into a campaign to 'fix' all the articles. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ editing restrictions on NFCC

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

This lengthy discussion explored a number of options, but ultimately there is no consensus to do anything. Δ is, in the end, just one more combatant in the NFCC enforcement wars, albeit one subject to edit restrictions. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement is an attempt to make peace break out. In the mean time Δ needs to be very cautious about sticking to his edit restrictions, and others need to stop thinking they can treat him as punching bag in the NFCC arena with impunity (they may have got away with a lot, but their luck may run out). Rd232 ^talk 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I've just blocked User:Δ for a week for violating the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions on speed of edits (brought to my attention here). In addition, I propose extending the restrictions, noting i) the recent civility incident related to NFCC; ii) the recent speed violation related to it; iii) some of the recent edits [16] were removals of a bunch of logos which had fair use rationales, on the basis that they had "no valid fair use rationale". I could be wrong but that strikes me as controversial at best. So

User:Δ is restricted from making any edits relating to the WP:NFCC. Talk pages are explicitly excluded from this restriction.

Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out the specific edits that you're claiming he removed citing no valid rationale that did have a rationale? In this latest batch, I'm seeing several Disney articles that seem to suggest that situation, but properly noted by Delta, they lack a rationale for the use of that image on the specific pages they were removed from, which is a failing of NFCC.

I recognize that its hard to defend Delta on his civility and the speed issue as long as the current restrictions stand but his NFCC handling seems absolutely in line, spot-checking his contributions, and a ban on his activity in that area seems unwarranted. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Could you please point me to which exact logo removals you mean. To me, there is nothing controversial there.

Seen that, I do not think that there are many major errors on NFCC work, and if there are/were errors, then Δ has been very responsive about them. Since NFCC is non-negotiable, we are talking about copyright violations here, I find it improper to ban Δ from NFCC work on the basis that that work is causing him to violate speed restrictions and civility restrictions - those two are not linked, and banning him from NFCC would not necessarily stop speed restrictions or civility restrictions, it would only leave the problems in place. Hence oppose this extension. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant removals like this. This was a logo used in a dozen articles about the company's subsidiaries, and a fair use rationale could have been added just as easily into the relevant file page, if not more easily. And - particularly relevant for Delta - that would have required one edit instead of a dozen. On a related note: when repeated uses of an image all have exactly the same rationale, is there any way to avoid repeating the same large box over and over? We could just have a brief template {{fur-asabove|article|article with main FUR}} that states the rationale is the same, no? Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been long a contentious point that some argue that those that are seeking deletion/removal of images must fix "simple" problems, but this is not a simple problem, and it's been long established that the burden is on those seeking to keep NFCC to provide all valid parts to meet NFC policy. Here, in this case, there is no way that it is immediately obvious if the original uploaded intended for the image to be used across all the subsidiaries, if the subsidiaries actually use that logo, and so on, and thus it is impossible for us to expect Delta to fix the error. This is far different from a case where, for example, there may have been a rationale for use in "Disney Channel Aisa" when it is really used in Disney Channel Asia, and all that would take to fix is a simple corrective spelling.

As to your second question, no there actually isn't. There needs to be a new separate rationale for each image use. I know more often than not it is the same language used over and over in each one, but it still needs to be a clear, separate rationale. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is {{Non-free image rationale}}, used in conjunction with {{Non-free image data}}. Frankly, if all FUR were structured as a clear two-template system like that it would be a lot clearer. Rd232 ^talk 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

While the non-free image data would be able to have a single use, you'd still need to repeat non-free image rationale for each article its in. What we can't have is a single template that ends up saying "This image is used in article X, Y, and Z for this rationale: blah blah blah". --MASEM (t) 16:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean that. Incidentally I've tweaked {{Non-free logo}} to clarify things. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Disney Channel logo from Disney Channel UK, Disney Channel Asia, Disney Channel India etc, on the basis that there is no separate fair use rationale for each, was unnecessary, legalistic and disruptive. These removals may have been technically correct according to a pedantic reading of NFCC, but that does not mean they were beneficial to the project. If someone felt, as Delta apparently did, that insisting on having separate FURs was important, then it would have been more constructive, and just as easy, to have written the missing ones rather than removing the images. If this is typical of the kind of NFCC work Delta does, the project would be better off without it. (Non-administrator comment) Thparkth (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly it was exactly these sorts of removals that he was last told he shouldn't be doing. When it is clearly obvious that the images are valid with a slight fix to the rational on the page that it was more beneficial to the project that he fix the rational instead of remove them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is required by the Foundation, and in fact, Delta's actions follow exactly from the Licensing Resolution (Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale). As I've mentioned above, there is no way for Delta to know if there was appropriate intent to use these logos on these pages, and thus assuming its an easy fix is incorrect. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

" there is no way for Delta to know if there was appropriate intent to use these logos on these pages" - indeed, a company logo in an infobox on a company subsidiary - it's a complete mystery, best remove the image. Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this is a clear as day scenerio. There may be other cases where it was too hard to tell. But this certainly was not one of them. This was as obvious as it can get. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The subsidiary could have its own logo. The uploader may not have intended for the image to be used on those pages. It may not be necessary to illustrate the subsidiary with the logo (there are no required or mandatory uses of NFC). Sure, I would say that more than likely the end effect was that editors wanted to use that logo on those pages and failed to add a new rationale, but that's not a lock-solid assumption compared with, say, a simple misspelling that I would expect Delta to correct. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If these removals are acceptable, then we might as well get a bot to do them all, and save Delta the trouble. The bot could provide a comment on the relevant article talk page, explaining what to do in relation to FUR. Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He had a bot which ran during the period right after the Resolution was passed, doing exactly this, and of course that was killed back when Beta was arbcom'd. Also, as I understand what Delta is doing now, he was working down a list of NFC with the highest reuse count on WP, and validating by hand each use. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether the logo is the correct one for the specific article is up to the editors involved in writing the page. If they added it, you should assume they are correct unless you know otherwise. Thparkth (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Consider also that we're talking about the reuse of the same image more than ten times. I would worry a bit more if there were two uses and only one with a rationale, and the second rationale could possibly be inferred, but when an image is repeated multiple times, that's becoming a violation of WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use. Again, the expectation here cannot be on Delta to correct a more difficult situation than it appears. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't have a upper limit set on the number of times an image is used. 100 times may be the minimum number we need to be used. Perhaps a thousand! It's a single image being used appropriately. Delta removed them all on a technicality without any discussion or any effort to correct the oversight. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation have never required us to abandon common sense. If there is a FUR for "Disney Channel", there is a presumption that the same FUR would apply to "Disney Channel UK". Thparkth (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation expects a unique FUR for each use, there is supposed to be a unique, highly specialized rationale to explain why each use of the image is justified. While logos tend to be a special case where the same language can be used across each, we still cannot assume this to be the case. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can. All we need to do is create a template which adds these to a list of articles for which the logo is acceptable. Are we a bureaucracy? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are in fact two very good reasons why the mass addition of that logo was problematic, and removal may have been appropriate: (1) there's precedent. The last time this came up (some time in 2008 or thereabouts, about some radio station logo), the community decided that a single mother company logo should not be used on dozens of daughter company articles. (2) there's a replaceability issue. Until a few days ago, all these articles had a text-only, copyright-free wordmark logo (File:Disney Channel wordmark.svg) rather than the non-free graphic logo (File:Disney Channel - Blue-Yellow.png). No argument was raised why the free wordmark image was unacceptable or inaccurate and why there was a need to switch to the non-free file. In these circumstances, it was absolutely not obvious if and why the new non-free file must be used on all these articles. If an editor were to make a case for it and explain why, then fine, let them add those rationales. But it's absolutely not something you could just expect somebody else to do for you as a matter of mere formality. Delta acted correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. But it's another, concrete example of how impenetrable this issue is. What it really needs is not for a handful of experts to go around policing everything, but to put a lot of effort into making these issues clearer to the average editor, with specific guidance made clear on different things like that, leaving as little as possible to interpretation and recruiting average editors to fix these problems. Also using automated tools to generate warnings, etc (with links to relevant guidance). I'm sure if Delta and Damiens.rf dropped the policing in favour of pursuing this route to tackling the problem, it would work out better for everyone. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think every time an image patroller sees an inappropriate non-free image uploaded, they should go and patiently and individually explain the policy to the uploader until he actually understands it and is prepared to enforce it himself? Dude, that would make me spend two hours typing for every single time I look over the new uploads log. "Using automated tools to generate warnings etc."? But of course, that's being done all the time. The existing guideline texts and explanations are quite sufficient. But most uploaders never read them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to the point of the image removal. The point is, the images do (did?) not have a proper fair-use rationale for the pages where they were displayed on. In other words, that is a copyright violation. Yes, it is blatantly clear here that it is easy to solve by adapting the image pages properly, but if this involves 10,000 images, where 200-500 are blatantly clear and the rest is not, then dos one really expect an editor to check all 10,000 for how far it is blatantly clear? No, I would not. The removals is not wrong, it is solving a copyright problem in one way. Most of the people who notice the removal of the image there because they have the page on their watchlist are likely more knowledgeable about the image and the page then the one removing the image on the basis of a copyright violation. So the problem is that there were the standard violations (speed limit, incivility), and a perceived other violation, which is now crafted into a new resolution to tie Δ down. I find this expansion absurd, the real problems are with sanctions in place, and without additional problems the sanctions are expanded. NFCC still keeps editors being uncivil against Δ, baiting him over and over. How often do you have to kick a pitbull before it bites back. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, that is a copyright violation. No. At no point was the use of these logos a copyright infraction. Fair use in law does not depend on having a documented fair use rationale, and it certainly doesn't depend on having a separate one for each use in closely-related articles. What this was, "in other words," was a technical infraction of Wikipedia policy with no real-world legal implications, and with an obvious and easy solution that didn't involve removing the images. Let's keep some context here. Thparkth (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As i mentioned downthread, it actually does. Fair Use is an affirmative defense placing the burden of proof on the defendant to show they pass a four-point test. The burden of proof is reversed and infringement is assumed unless you prove it meets the four point fair use standard. This has been set by the supreme court for a while. -- ۩ Mask 11:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Thparkth - but a) the image was tagged as non-free b) there was not a rationale for the display on the image on a certain page -> hence, at that point, the image is according to the state here on Wikipedia in violation of copyright -> hence it should be removed. Now there are several causes of why an image can look like it is in violation of copyright -> a) it does not have a proper fair-use rationale, b) there is overuse, c) it is tagged wrong. It is not up to Delta to guess or solve that, even though it is blatantly simple in this case. What if the case is slightly more complex, and Delta, unknowingly, thinks it is a logo, and changes the tag from non-free to PD (or whatever free format) - if then the image is actually not a logo, but a copyrighted image, it would be a real problem. My point is not that this specific case actually the tag is wrong, the point is, that because of the current (wrong) tagging it looks as a violation of copyright, which should be solved by those knowledgeable in the situation, most of the editors who have the image and/or the page on their watchlist - this specific case does not have real-world legal implications, but why would we need to take the risk? If it is tagged as non-free and there is not a proper fair-use rationale, it goes - whether it is tagged wrongly as non-free, or it really has a wrong fair-use rationale, and it is not up to the remover to repair it, at most to notify interested editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support

(ec x2) I concur that this is certainly an issue prevalent within the NFCC realm. Some people think I've got a bone to pick with delta in particular. I don't. I'm more interested in simply stopping abuse. Reasonable people can disagree about whether an image meets NFCC, but it requires reason. Too many people are treating WP:NFCC like a sledgehammer. "What the...? It doesn't have a completely, properly worded FUR. I'd better delete it as soon as possible!" Deletion is NOT the first option, but should be the last. Discussion should be attempted first. Too many people fire first and ask questions later. There are some clear-cut examples for deletion (i.e. a low-res blur that couldn't possibly be used for anything on WP), but likewise, there are plenty that could be better resolved with a simple conversation:

"Hey I noticed that you uploaded File:XYZABCPDQRSVP1, File:XYZABCPDQRSVP2, File:XYZABCPDQRSVP3, and File:XYZABCPDQRSVP4, but the FUR you provided links to a non-existent website. Since you are the uploader, would you be so kind as to please fix that? If you don't, unfortunately, they may have to be deleted."

Let's stop pretending that WP isn't a bureaucracy when, in fact, it is. This thread alone is a perfect example when we are told "this isn't the proper forum" or "Image XYZ doesn't comply with Rule ABC I'm going to try and get it deleted". When we demand that people comply with our policies, we are indeed a bureaucracy.

Specifically with Delta, he's contributing FAR too much to the NFCC realm. Let's say that 90% of his edits aren't problematic. That means 10% of his contributions ARE problematic. 1 in 10 times he touches the keyboard, a problem is created. That percentage is WAY too high. I've got 18,000 edits and only a single block...which was lifted early when I stated I understood where I went wrong. Delta's been blocked 3 times this month alone! When is enough going to be enough? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NFC and BLP are the only two areas where the Foundation has asked us to be vigilant in removing offending material, and thus are the only "rules" among everything else. Could Delta handle these better? Yes, that's a civility issue. But his actions are in line with the Foundation requirements. We can't add language to our NFC policy that says "if you see a missing rationale, you need to give the editors notice for x days before you remove it" (what you're asking for) because someone can go around it via the Foundation's expectation. He can be a lot more civil with the approach, but the actions are not at fault, save to those that do not appreciate the Foundation's goal. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But we could have a bot which handled the issue, and gave editors notice (to article talk page and/or uploader). Interested editors would probably leave the bot to do that, and maybe focus on helping with the issues the bot would be flagging. Surely this would be a better solution all round. Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, we did have a bot, BetaCommandBot, that did that, but that's long gone. Now, if someone can write a similar bot to do the same, I can agree that that should not be an action that Delta should do any more. But even with a bot and Delta requested not to perform this duty, any other editor can do exactly what Delta did, within the Foundation's requirements, and either no one notices, or we get yet another incident situation here. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your pessimism is noted. Now, if Delta had a satisfactory bot once, maybe we could ask him to turn over the code to someone else to operate it? Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC he did turn over and/or open the code to someone, but that was likely back during the ArbCom case. So it's probably around somewhere. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To summarize: Delta's actions with respect to current NFC policy are not wrong. It would be completely inappropriate to block him from NFCC editing for this action. (Again, civility and edit rates are different issues that he's under community restrictions for). If people want to challenge these, they need to suggest the change at NFCC (though I believe we recently had such a conversation, consensus favoring the current status quo). If that change is made at NFCC and Delta continues in contrary to that, then by all means blocking him from NFCC is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is not just "for this action". It's for the extended role NFCC has played in Delta's long troublesome history. To some extent, the restriction would merely be protecting Delta from himself. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the real problem is Delta himself. While his conflicts often crop up from things related to NFCC, the real problem is that he wasn't taking care with his edits and questioning him or opposing him met with incivility. Were he to stay away from NFCC and get involved in something else, I'm not sure if that would entirely solve the problem. If he just as heavily focused on categorizing things and applied the same mindset to it, we'll probably just be right back here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exchange which should have been on a user talk page in the first place, but user insisted on moving it back here after it was moved away
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RD232, I suggest you just stop trying to help where administration of this user is concerned. You've just proposed a defacto ban of him from Wikipedia, having not one day ago frustrated people's attempts to have a ban discussion on him. You've just blocked him for violating restrictions for a 3rd time in a month, having brushed off the 2nd without even a comment from the user. Your actual knowledge of this user and his long history at AN/ANI is frankly woefully inadequte, certainly for you to be doing anything like making unilateral decisions or closures based on what you think is good for the community or what you think the editor is going to respond to. Nobody by now should be remotely surprised that the way he responds to having a block reduced to time served for breaking restrictions, is to break them again immediately - he rejects them completely, on the same old grounds. He said so barely a month or two ago, weren't any of you watching then? This discussion should be about what to do with a user who has no respect for his restrictions and no intention of following them, not what it's inevitably going to turn into now that you've made another one of the classic mistakes people do when trying to deal with this user and his defenders/enablers. I won't bore you with what it is, I'll let you find out all by yourself, as you've already made it quite clear you'll be taking no lessons from others in this regard, which you arrogantly dismissed as the views from the cheap seats, and which you are even now using your unilateral closure method to ludicrously have the last word on to still argue that his civility restrictions needed to explicitly have a 'no staleness' clause the first time round, which is utterly unbelievable frankly, certainly to all of us who have watched this 'drama' play out for years. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Not for the first time, your precision is lacking in relation to discussing this topic. "You've just proposed a defacto ban of him from Wikipedia" - no, it's a topic ban. "...having not one day ago frustrated people's attempts to have a ban discussion on him..." - no, the door was clearly open for a serious attempt at a site ban discussion, which that ANI subsection was not. (And it amazes me that you don't grasp the obvious point that permitting a lengthy and inevitably unsuccessful site ban discussion there would have been prejudicial to having a serious site ban discussion in the near future.) The "cheap seats" remark at ANI was for those seemingly unable or unwilling to accept that they ought to make their case in a manner that might actually achieve their objectives, and not in a manner which can only lead to needless drama. As for the "no staleness" clause - staleness is normally taken into consideration in civility enforcement, and some argued that in the case of someone under restriction it shouldn't matter. I've no idea why an off-hand suggestion that would clarify that issue if it were done offends you. In sum, the strident tone that you consistently bring to this topic suggests that you should "stop trying to help where administration of this user is concerned." Or perhaps you should start trying to help, since you're generally complaining, not helping (eg by providing relevant evidence). Rd232 talk 17:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with my precision. A topic ban of Delta from NFCC is a defacto site ban. And what is "normally taken into consideration" for other users no longer applies to Delta, and hasn't done ever since he returned from a year long ban. You can carry on suggesting I'm talking crap, but you're the guy who didn't even know he used to operate a bot for christ sake, even though most of what I'm talking about comes from that period. This is GroundHog Day and then some frankly. Your off hand suggestions offend me because they fly in the face of the hard fought conclusions of several terrabytes of discussion at AN/ANI on this user before, which in your complete arrogance you seem to think you have the right to just start all over again from scratch, as if they had never happened. People have made their cases in that regard a hundred times by now, and the user is the same as he ever was. You can spin it however you like, you shut down the ban proposal because you thought it was an over-reaction to a "minor" incident and you wanted to take control yourself. And now you're here proposing a ban, seemingly because it's more serious if he defies you personally, rather than the hundred other admins who came before you. You really don't know what you're doing as regards this user. Not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Comically, your inability to be constructive in relation to Delta now extends to (unintentionally) disrupting discussion of a potential sanction of him with much inaccurate irrelevance about my supposed inadequacies. If you want to pursue this further, you know where my talk page is; and I have no objection to you moving this exchange there, since it should have been there in the first place. If you do that, I will respond in more detail to your latest salvo of inaccuracies. PS why are you worried about Delta's ability to find non-NFCC work to do in the event of this sanction being enacted ("defacto site ban"), when you want him site banned? Rd232 talk 17:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC) I'm supposed to be convinced that by talking to you on your own talk page rather than here, you are going to magically change your perception of what is good advice based on solid past experience, and what is comical disruption grounded in apparent stupidity? No, I'll stop here. Good luck with the proposal, even though it's doomed to failure for the reasons I've already alluded to that you seem determined to learn about all for yourself, even though it's very old ground. The failure of it is not going to address the problem one bit, which I shall remind everyone here, is now 3 nailed on blocks for sanction violations within a month, which were imposed as the last last last last straw for a seriously long term problem user. Still, at least we know that because it's your proposal, it's going to be allowed to go full term, as a serious and well-informed constructive suggestion. Hooray for that! MickMacNee (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think continuing this exchange is going to be helpful. Your strident and aggressive tone, as well as your pervasive cynicism and apparent unwilllingness to listen to me, makes the exchange unpleasant as well as unconstructive. Rd232 talk 18:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC) And your insistence on returning the exchange here, where it doesn't belong, emphasises how unhelpful and unconstructive you're being. By your own lights, the proposal amounts to a site ban, and a site ban is what you'd like to see, yet you're disrupting discussion of it. Rd232 talk 19:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction. As explained above, Delta acted correctly. He understands the rules, his detractors don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • His understanding of the NFCC rules [and that isn't definitive, given differences of interpretation of NFCC criteria and of how to handle problems] can be applied in other ways than going around with AWB removing files without FURs - which carries risks with respecting the speed restriction. He can contribute to managing the issue in other ways, educating users, improving templates (using edit requests on the talk page, userspace drafts etc) and so forth. Also the terms of the proposal would permit him to use AWB to post NFCC-related issues on article talk pages, for others to act on. It's deliberately not a wall-to-wall topic ban. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment. He may understand the rules, but it appears that he failed to abide by them (yes, I'm speaking of the speed limit editing restrictions). To be honest, I'd rather see him working here as well, and I understand his concern in regards to the Foundation's wishes as far as the non-free content is concerned - but he should still have enough sense to abide by what community consensus established. Hey, I was one of his defenders in the "civility" issue, but to come back after his block got reduced and immediately violate a restriction that he was subject to was just outright wrong. Sorry FPaS, but I think you're reaching on that one. — Ched :  ?  18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• comment He might understand the NFCC rules, but he clearly doesn't understand or respect his editing restrictions as terms of his probation. He has clearly violated these terms both repeatedly and flagrantly. It's time to remove him from these nominations/discussions (discussions on image pages or talk pages is fine as it will likely increase the number of images that are improved). I would also support a user-created subpage where he can create lists of images that he feels should be deleted along with reasons. Other people (acting as filters) can then look at that list and make nominations based upon his recommendations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I've been surprised at the latitude the community has granted Betacommand in the past, given his obvious (to me) recidivism. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Beta has displayed an repeated and continuing defiance of the community in this, and its time to take more definitive action. He does have unique positive abilities, but has no right to follow his own wishes in how to use them. I admit to a certain pessimism that he will follow any restriction whatsoever, but the present proposal is at least clean-cut enough to see. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support though I'd prefer an all out ban. On May 10, 13:10-13:19 93 edits, that's over twice the rate permit that he's allowed. Delta has been repeatedly thumbing his nose at the community just as he did before. There is no reason he should be here at all. The community carried on fine without him while he was gone and it will continue to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  To be honest it looks like Delta was gaming his editing restrictions as well. In april a lot of his contribs are: Make 20-25 edits in 2-3 minutes, then stop editing for a short time, come back make 20-25 edits in 2-3 minutes then take a short break. While it doesn't violate his restriction over a 10 minute block, it violates the spirit of his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  The restriction says "Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time." I'm unable to divine any "spirit" of that which would sanction doing less than 40 edits in 10 minutes. PS your "93 edits on 10 May" info is wrong somehow, there were zero edits in that timeframe. [add: for me those edits were 04.10 to 04.19 on 10 May, per Delta's contribs list] Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think there is an issue with one of our time settings, I can clearly see the 93 edits on the 10th, I've linked them to you, perhaps they show a different time on your machine. The sanctions say 4 edits per minutes over 10 minutes. They don't say 40 edits/10 minutes as a flat amount, while that works out to what he's allowed, that is how I tell the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. The intention of those sanctions were to get delta to properly consider his edits before making them and ensure they were technically correct, not just to slow down. By making 8-9 edits per minute over 2-3 minutes then not editing for an hour and doing it again, and again and again, this is violating the spirit of those sanctions. He isn't properly considering edits when he's making them at a rate of twice what he's allowed. The whole point of the "over 10 minutes" was to prevent him from getting nailed for say doing 30 in 10 minutes where he did 4/4/4/5/3/4/6/2 or something like that. Not where he does 8/8/9/stop wait 8/8/9 stop wait, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Remember, the point of the edit limit was to make him review his edits as a human even if he was using an off-line script or other function that helped to make the tools easier to use (eg like AWB), as when he was editing with unrestricted rates, he started to incur a high error rate from his semi-auto bots. 4 per minute (40 in a ten minute period) was agreed on because that seems like a reasonable rate for someone doing an easily evaluated and repeating task to validate the change is doing what it is supposed to do and no immediate harm. If, in Delta's case, this means he is preloading 8-10 changes to run in one batch script, which may take a few minutes to set up and validate for their correctness, then that's still in line of the intent of the editing restriction. He still must throttle them appropriately per the restrictions (he can't load up >40 and run that within a single ten minute period). --MASEM (t) 00:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly, and to be honest, the onus would be on him to prove that he was doing that. The time differentials between these edits was around an hour or two or so. It certainly wasn't taking him an hour to queue up the 20 or so edits he executed in 2-3 minutes.--Crossmr (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is actually better then a ban, since we can track what he's doing this way. (of course, he can still use a sock, but... this way at least he doesn't have to use a sock account)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Were seriously considering topic banning someone because their following the rules correctly? Let me put it simply: If the people incorrectly using these photos solved the problem, Delta wouldnt be doing anything to complain about. It's not our problem some cant figure out how to properly use and upload to the encyclopedia. -- ۩ Mask 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Except he's not following the rules correctly. Delta has rules on his behaviour that limit his edit rate, proposals on big tasks, and his civility, he's followed none of those. What delta is doing to complain about is thumbing his nose at the community which he has been doing for years. His behaviour has shown time and time again that he has no regard for the members of this community. It's not really our problem that Delta can't figure out how to properly edit on wikipedia and work within a community and it's a shame that years later we're still dealing with it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  (after a bunch of ECs) Except that he is following the rules correctly, as regards the project's policies on Non-free images. I don't condone his uncivil comments (and they are uncivil at times) or his violation of the edit throttle established by the Arbitration Committee, but if editors were to properly follow the policies governing the use of non-free images, Δ would neither blow up at clueless users nor spend an inordinate amount of time and effort removing inappropriate uses of images which are copyrighted. Most of the people who are complaining about Δ's editing are those who disagree with WMF's (admittedly conservative) policy towards use of non-free images, and I suspect that many of them could not care less about the civility issues, which are nothing more than a convenient pretext to use against a user who has demonstrated that he does not deal well with others. For those who dislike the whole NFU issue, please take a look at the first section of User:Angr's userpage, which has a parable about free-use vs. fair-use, and which is relevant to this entire discussion. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  So what you're syaing is that Delta is not responsible for his behaviour? Oh yes, we played that arguement for years too until the vast majority of people who used it grew tired of him and switched sides and supported his removal. But if you're honestly telling me that Delta cannot control himself and isn't responsible for his actions because other people make him do it, well a few things should happen. He should be immediately and indefinitely blocked until such a time that he can prove that he can control his actions, and the authorities should be dispatched to his house because obviously there must be someone with a gun to his head making him act this way. Admittedly hyperbole, but your argument is just as ridiculous. Delta is fully responsible for his behaviour, regardless of what other people do, and this whole "people make mistakes and make him angry, or people bait him" argument is honestly garbage. No one forces him to do anything he does here, and he's either responsible for it and rightly staring down a ban/block or he's not responsible and should be banned/blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  But importantly, editing rating restrictions have nothing to do with NFCC. It would be like punishing someone with a DUI for going 5 miles over. Blocking him on violating the community-set editing rate or civility problems is within line, but save for people that feel that NFCC needs to be handled more touchy-feely than the Foundation requires us to do, there's nothing wrong with his NFCC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  This. The proposal has nothing to do with anything Delta is doing wrong. And I'd challenge the whole assessment Delta cant edit as part of the community. He's been block free up for most of a year up until some fool pulled up a days-old borderline uncivil edit and used it to railroad Delta out of, well, non-free enforcement, just like whats being attempted here. -- ۩ Mask 23:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  First of all, he was blocked a few days prior for other violations too. Second, calling me a "fool" isn't exactly civil... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  I wasn't calling you a fool. Well, I may have been if you were the one who dug up that days old diff to make petty attacks, but thats the point many who seem to get fed up with Delta get stuck up on. Civil tells us to comment on contributions, not contributors. If you do an absurdly stupid thing expect for it to be called so. Civil doesnt protect you from criticism, it makes sure criticism is directed at actions people have taken instead of themselves. -- ۩ Mask 01:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Being block free for nearly a year is false. He was blocked last october, thats' only 7 months at best, and honestly his ability to dodge a block and him editing well are two different things. I've found countless violations of his editing restrictions that he wasn't caught on so to be honest that's a pretty weak assessment.--Crossmr (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  I said most of a year. If you would like to contest whether seven months is the larger portion of a year or not, I can only direct you to the Mathematics secion at the Help Desk. -- ۩ Mask 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  I suppose saying "Most of a year" makes it sound like much more than it is, why not just 7 months? Regardless it's false logic since I found violations as far back as December.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  It doesnt make it sound like anything more then it was. Those of us not following Delta's every move couldn't spit out the exact number of months since he was last blocked, but I was aware from the last ANI thread that it was longer then 6 months ago. And if the violations you found werent complained about, they obviously weren't disruptive. -- ۩ Mask 07:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Escaping notice is not evidence of innocence. I also don't follow Delta's every move, it was extremely trivial to check his block log and count to 7. Just because there are tons of disruptive things on wikipedia that don't get noticed right away. Your entire argument is built on some of the flimsiest logic I've ever seen. It's disruptive in that it shows on-going disregard for the community by Delta, exactly what led to his community ban last time.--Crossmr (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Masem, he ongoing problem with Beta's NFCC enforcement is that he seems to be sometimes incapable of effective communication to concerned editors without lashing out. His seeming insitence on making these edits as fast as possible exarcebates the situation. From my observations, yourself, Hammersoft and Dirk Beetstra seem quite capable of making the assessments and edits and explanations yourselves, which you seem to need to do on his behalf with surprising frequency. Beta adds unnecessary friction to this process, for instance lately to the discussions on images in subsidiary and compilation articles, which, let's be honest, are discussable applications of the EDP, not the imminent end of the wiki, and contrary to the assertion above certainly not "copyright violations" if they are properly attributed. Franamax (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  And that's why we have the editing restrictions in place so that he communicates these issues in a civil manner and using human-assisted tools (as I recall, the edit rate restriction was because he was using semi-auto tools without checking if the output was valid, and then having severely faulty outcomes). If we want to add "not treat NFCC violations as the end of the world" to that, then that should be proposed and added (and yes, I do believe that's a realistic solution that would stop 90% of the complaints I see against him on his talk page) , and/or NFC policy changed to make it less drastic. But we're still talking about one of the few editors on this wiki that take NFCC seriously, in fact making it his primary goal on the work as far as I can tell, and the idea of blocking him from NFCC issues would basically be a defacto eviction from the work. That's my concern is that there are editors here with a lot of vitriol for Delta and coming up solutions that don't address the core issues. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  As I noted above, the proposal still allows him to do quite a lot to contribute to NFCC enforcement and improvement. It could be tweaked to allow a little more leeway, eg permit editing of File: namespace for NFCC issues, excluding deletion nominations, that sort of thing. Rd232 ^talk 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  What about 1RR then? After that, talk page or noticeboard? Beta'a focus on NFC is good in a way ('cause of our free mission) and bad in other ways (!). You're right that he's "one of the few" - but there are others to watch and carry things forward. On the easy ones, like NF images on a user page, I can handle that myself, in a forceful way if the other editor has a problem. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, we can easily split Delta's NFC policing into two categories: those clearly defined as inappropriate use (like on user pages), and those that are likely incorrect but may have an intermediate solution. On the former types, he shouldn't be restricted (outside current community restrictions like edit rate) because that's a black and white issue, but for the latter, a 1RR-to-block without seeking talk/nb discussion certainly would be a solution to this above disney logo thing, as an example. If you want it more simply: Delta could be under 1RR editing restrictions for non-free issues within main space as I can't immediately think of any mainspace NFCC issues that require immediate correction. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  "X is restricted to 1 revert per 24 hour period (1RR) per-image-per-article in article space when enforcing NFCC guidelines. After the first reversion, X will engage in talk page discussion in the appropriate space or file at a noticeboard. X is cautioned that although 1RR is a birght-line rule for this purpose, ongoing reversions while discussion is actively taking place will be considered as a bad-faith observance of this restirction and further sanctions will be considered." ? Franamax (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Close enough to start with for me. I think that captures the essence of the core problem of Delta's insistence that he is right (even if he may be) that leads to incivility and the like. I would explicitly mention that this is not enforced in non-main space but all other restrictions still remain. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  The unfortunate problem is the proposal does nothing at all to address Delta. This is a user who is on extensive restrictions for his actions and yet he continues to violate them repeatedly and here you are simply proposing a couple of trivial restrictions. In the last month he's violated his civility restrictions, violated his edit restrictions so many times I gave up counting, and violated his restictions on proposing a task before doing it. Most of those editing violations occurred during the violation of the proposal restrictions. What do you think any more restrictions are going to do at this point? When he violates them, should we just propose a few more tweaked restrictions? and more and more and more? I know his supporters have tried to blame everyone else for his failings, but they are his own and he needs to start bearing responsibility and consequences for his actions.--Crossmr (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  If he has been violating his editing restrictions so many times, why are there only 4 blocks since 2008 on him (at least, as recorded?) [17] And I would think that if there were that many blocks, the community would have thrown up its collective hands and banned him by that point. The point of this 1RR - in addition to the warnings on his page - is that he should continue to recall that he is operating under a microscope from people that rather see him gone from the project. 1RR, as I outline below, helps to keep his temper in check, validate his NFCC actions better and education other users in a manner that is more appropriate for editors in the first place. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Because anyone who watches him too closely is accused of stalking him. When he was first let back in, I caught him going over his limit and was told by numerous people to stuff it. I've only discovered the violations now because his block-free record was put up on some kind of pedestal when really its only a result of him flying under the radar. Even when he is blocked look at the situation we end up in. How many admins really want to rush in and block him, even if he deserves it? May 12th has at least a dozen, probably in the neighbourhood of 2 dozen individual times where he violated his restrictions, and I found violations as far back as Dec 31 (on NFCC stuff no less), before I got busy with something else.--Crossmr (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose He violated his speed limit and was blocked for that, fine with me. I see absolutely no reason to ban him from NFCC. Yoenit (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Rd232, your actions in this have been generally well thought out and applied correctly. This one has not. If you're going to ban him from doing NFCC work for removing images for violations of WP:NFCC #10c, then please ban me from this work as well. I've done literally thousands of these edits. I just did six of them for one logo: [18][19][20][21][22][23]. A better idea; ban anyone from doing it. No, even better; change the policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "...then please ban me from this work as well..." - is the sort of reaction that conflates Delta's specific issues (primarily with NFCC enforcement) with the unsettled policy battles over NFCC enforcement - a common reaction, but not helpful. It's better for Delta to be banned from NFCC than to be site-banned. And the proposal was worded to not exclude all NFCC input, and I'm please there's been further discussion of a sanction that might be more targeted (1RR, below). See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, which I created. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will continue to take this stance as I see necessary. People are claiming that removing files for failing WP:NFCC #10c is disruptive period. Fine. If it is, then prohibit me from doing it too. If Δ doing it is disruptive, then it is so when I do it. There are things that Δ does that are problematic. This is not one of them. 10c compliance enforcement isn't the problem. If it is, then anyone who does it needs to be prevented from doing it. The discussion Masem and I are having may be headed in the right direction. We'll see. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• HS, you and I disagree about some stuff (ok, a lot of stuff), but I think you are missing the distinction between yourself and Δ. He is not disruptive because he removes files for failing WP:NFCC #10c. He is disruptive while he accomplishes these types of removals, not the removals themselves. Everyone admits he has a temper. Everyone admits he has sanctions against him further restricting his actions on WP more so than the average user. What it truly boils down to is whether the community thinks that violations of these restrictions (which are options for an admin to impose, not a requirement) should result in further sanctions. I do (so do others). You don't (so do others). Δ has a past that cannot simply be ignored. These sanctions exist and must be upheld if they are to have any meaning. Δ has repeatedly walked into blocks for stuff he knows he shouldn't do, but did it anyway. In order to make these sanctions meaningful, we need remove Δ from the areas which are causing the problems. This proposal does just that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am also forced to oppose this on the grounds given. Wether we like it or not he is following policy be deleting the images. As for the speed issue. This was submitted because he did 46 edits in 10 minutes which violated his 4 edit a minute restriction. I doubt seriously that we need to be so stringent on the rules that this rates a full blown ANI unless we are looking for a reason to cast him from the hill. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, on a single day, he did that somewhere between a dozen and two dozen times and at one point reached a rate of 93 edits in a 10 minute window. Violations of his editing rate restrictions were found as far back as december, and it has in fact been a constant problem for him since he was reinstated, regardless of whether or not he ended up blocked for it. In addition the day that he violated his editing restrictions countless times, he was also violating his restrictions on starting large tasks without first strating a thread about it. It wasn't until 2 days later that he went ahead and bothered to do that. No one has gone looking for any reason that Delta hasn't freely given them.--Crossmr (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to see any evidence to suggest that where his edit throttle has been exceeded, a problem for the project has been generated. I'm not suggesting that he should glibly ignore his restrictions. My point is; you put restrictions in place to protect the project. Otherwise, what's the point, right? You note (rightfully) that he did not seek approval for a task until his feet were really put to the fire about it. I don't dispute that. But if sanctions are to have meaning, they have to have a continued purpose. If we can go "as far back as December" yet nobody's raised any alarm about it in the half a year since then, what damage was he causing to the project? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Whether his edits were problem free is irrelevant. If you check the restrictions they do not say "You may exceed these restrictions if you make no mistakes". The point of the restrictions was to get Delta to properly focus on his editing, he didn't do that, and thus violated the restrictions. As I've already pointed out many times, what the restrictions violations show is that Delta still refuses to properly work with the community, regardless of whether or not he is "right", The latest outburst further hammers home that disdain and shows that he really hasn't changed at all even after being given more than ample time.--Crossmr (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• May I interpret from this then that you have no evidence to suggest that where his edit throttle was exceeded a problem for the project was generated? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• May I interpret that to mean that you could care less what the community previously decided? A problem being generated is irrelevant, however his removal of images that are still in articles indicates that his edits were probably not right and one could interpret that as a problem. Instead of generating an appropriate fair use rationale and saving everyone the trouble he simply removed them from the article causing further work for editors. And that was done while violating his throttle.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• So if he were to drive off a cliff while not violating his restrictions, that would be ok. His removal of images? Again, what he has done is exactly in line with policy. You want to string him up from the nearest tree for removing images failing WP:NFCC #10c, fine, then string me up too along with several other users that do the same work. That someone fixes the problem and later restores the image doesn't mean that the person that removed it is in error. No, in this cae, it is you who is in error as you are flat wrong about policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Dial back the hyperbole here. Crossmr is not stating things the way you are twisting them. It all boils down to policy and the further restrictions delta has, not one or the other. Delta can do everything correct IAW policy and still violate his sanctions; in such a case he should be blocked for said sanction violations. It doesn't matter in the slightest if a policy was violated or not. The point is that he violated his sanctions...again... Since he keeps violating his sanctions, we can either continue to block him with increasingly longer blocks and/or we can institute further sanctions to remove him from the areas where he is violating these restrictions. I and 6 others opt for the latter. HS and 4 others currently are opting for neither. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think a time limit on this sanction could also be useful, like for 3 months. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support (or permanent ban) This user engages in pointless battles that serve no useful purpose, driving away content producers and debasing the encyclopedia, and is obstructive when challenged about his damaging behaviour. 86.175.61.96 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate 1RR restriction

Hatting for scrollability, last updated 6/1

A different proposal, from discussion above Slightly modified by Franamax.: "User:Δ is further restricted to 1 revert per 24 hour period (1RR) per-image-per-article in article space when enforcing NFCC guidelines. After the first reversion, User:Δ will engage in talk page discussion in the appropriate space or file at a noticeboard. User:Δ is cautioned that although 1RR is a bright-line rule for this purpose, ongoing reversions while discussion is actively taking place will be considered as a bad-faith observance of this restriction and further sanctions will be considered." I can support this as well. Rd232 talk 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Support, as quoted from above in the original, or as per my modification to add links and the "further" clarification in response to Masem above. [24] Franamax (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC) FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. Rd232 talk 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Comment is 1RR shown to be a problem for him? Is there evidence he's been engaging in edit wars beyond the other things he's been doing?--Crossmr (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC) A cycle that often happens is that An editor adds NFC (or has added it) in a manner that is more-than-likely against NFC policy (too many images, in userspace, incorrectly tagged, whatnot) Delta removes said images in line with NFC policy, generally with a terse edit summary. Editor re-adds images for some reason Delta again removes said images, again with a terse message HEre, the cycle may be a slow edit war, but the editor and Delta go back and forth between revisions Editor finally cries out, often insultingly, on Delta's talk page. Delta engages in discussion. His first response is usually a terse polite one, and that often solves the situation. But a good number of times, the editor continues to elevate the argument, to the point where Delta responds in the same. This is caught as an incivility and posted to ANI (what started this whole recent discussion is an example of this). Now, while non-free image work is meant to be exempt from RR, and that the editor readding the material is exceeding 1RR, the fact that Delta lets it get to the last stage where they're are arguments on his talk page because of lack of communication and discussion before, instead fighting it with edits, is why we get ANI reports. Delta could set an example by abiding by 1RR on these edits, taking the high road of being right but letting the editor get his way while the issue is discussed elsewhere. That removes the civility problems in the first place, and addresses the perceived notion that Delta is handling NFCC improperly by making him discuss why things fail in a consensus manner when they are challenged. If you add this 1RR in NFCC mainspace, it may go a long way to showing that he wants to work with the community. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC) If terseness is part of the problem, maybe a suitable warning template (for user talk or article talk) should be used, which explains things a bit more. Does something like that exist? Rd232 talk 11:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm out of town, but basically I support this idea, but before I say too much, I'd rather wait until I get home and can read through it entirely and with full attention to all comments. (user:Ched Davis) 98.27.172.234 (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Again, oppose - say that Δ removes a clear copyright violation, and someone else puts it back in. Then Δ can revert once? Or Δ can not revert? All those copyright violations would then result in Δ having to make a request on a noticeboard for others to look in to while we leave copyright violations stand? And how would it actually help? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC) He can revert once, per WP:1RR. It would help in that if something isn't done about how Delta handles these things, he'll end up sitebanned (again). Then you'll have the moral satisfaction of knowing you always supported strict NFCC enforcement, but there'll be substantially less of it. Rd232 talk 10:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC) The problem here is not Delta handling the things wrongly, it is people continuing reverting Delta on these cases where he is right (and in many cases, the problem is easy to solve, but people instead keep reverting Delta and do not solve the problem). I ask above 'how often do you have to kick a pitbull before it bites back' .. Delta is that pitbull being kicked over and over, while the poor guy there is not doing anything wrong (well, only too fast until that point, maybe) .. Sure, you could restrict Delta on it .. maybe we find someone else taking over - then that abuse will shift from Delta to that someone else - a new pitbull to be kicked, which will, inevitably, result in incivility at some point. I've had several compliments throughout my career here on Wikipedia about being level-headed .. still in a previous situation with Delta I could not control my cynicism and sarcasm - I turned unfriendly, and there is another, similar, situation where I have to be strong to keep my cool. Why, because Delta is simply met first with kicking, people do not even consider anything else. Even when nothing actually goes wrong (yes, speed limits were violated, and that should not happen .. but there has not been a 'hey, Delta, just a heads up, you pass the speed limit, you may want to slow down' .. no .. an immediate kick). To solve the problem of this NFCC is to actually show the editors that when they display an image without a proper fair-use rationale, that we are displaying a copyright violation. And that reinsertion of that is resulting in a re-display of a copyright violation. Put a hard warning on that - if someone thinks that something is a violation of copyright and removes that image, then first convince that editor (or better, the community) that it is NOT, do something about it, properly go there, re-tag the image if it is actually not copyrighted (with proper proof etc.). Note, Delta notifies editors of that, that reinstating it is a blockable offense - but people then start yelling that Delta should not threaten them .. well, sorry, I think it is time that some of our notable administrator corps should stand up, and actually block those editors, no matter how experienced, because of reinstating an (alleged) copyright violation. Solve the problem first, then put the stuff back. I am now at the bottom of this edit window, a couple of millimeters lower I see 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted' .. maybe that sentence should be put into a (bright red?) coloured box, and add that 'knowingly posting content in violation of copyright, or reinstating material that was removed because of (alleged) copyright violations is a blockable offense' .. Sorry, but that is what it is, we have a sentence in place there in our interface (OK, it is our own choice, must be a setting in the MediaWiki namespace), and the person that is actually doing something about it get pushed down, until we get him a site ban. People revert back (alleged) copyright violations, one of the very, very, very few non-negotiable policies of this site, something that is not, in any form, ignorable, and when someone is doing something about that, then thát someone (Delta) is getting sanctioned. No, Rd232, I am against strengthening sanctions against Delta, if anything, put a 1RR site-sanction on reinstating alleged copyright violations, block editors who go over that liberally, and get some more editors in who re-direct editors who yell at Delta because of alleged copyright violations to NFCC talkpages/noticeboards, or who talk with those who feel the need to yell at Delta and get Delta out of that discussion (and I've done that on some cases, and Delta then also nicely stays out of that discussion, and things get resolved without Delta getting the kick that results in (finally) him biting back - because there are enough editors that keep kicking, most even starting with it). Note, in some of those discussions, a reason for a recent block, Delta stayed out, until he got a kick in a place where it really hurt, and he bit back - he should not have bitten, all true, but others should have yelled back at the kicking editor (well, we're still yelling at editors who don't get it, and new ones are appearing every now and then). There are so many other solutions (I've not started about tagging images which are under discussion whether they are actually not under copyright so they are not deleted when they are unused, but giving, say 2-4 weeks time for discussion and resolving the problem before they can be speedied, or tagging images for which overuse is claimed and which are under discussion but at the moment not displayed, again giving e.g. 2-4 weeks more time), but just as always, with Delta everyone is quickly coming with a solution of sanctioning Delta (while most actually know that Delta is doing a lot of good work, the percentage of real mistakes is pretty low, even when he is breaking his previous sanctions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Why do you keep going on about copyright violations? That's not what we're discussing here. Copyright violation is uploading an image you scanned from a magazine and saying "I created this image myself". That gets dealt with swiftly. We are talking about compliance with the EDP, specifically NFCC. Have you never noticed people saying that Wikipedia's NF policy goes significantly beyond fair-use limitations? It is the interpretation and more importantly the communication of that policy which we are discussing, not copyright. Franamax (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Fair Use in US law is an affirmative defense. When employing it in court you concede a copyright violation and argue that your use didn't impact the exercise of protected rights by the rights holder. I dont know where your 'this isnt a copyright violation' comes from, but a simple look at the fair use article with disabuse you of that notion. -- ۩ Mask 11:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) To save you the trouble: "The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc." -- ۩ Mask 11:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, I feel like expanding this because its often missed. A consequence of an affirmative defense is that the burden of proof now rests with the defendant. For every fair use image, if we were sued, the court assumes it is a violation unless YOU (actually the wikimedia foundation, im emphasizing just because its backwards from how it normally works) have to prove its ok, not the plaintiff proving its not ok. Thats part of where rationales come from. If non-free content is going to come in, we need it to come in correctly. If its not, it goes until it's fixed. -- ۩ Mask 11:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (ec) Thank you for the considerate words, Franamax. Yes, displaying a non-free image is a violation of copyright, unless there is a proper fair-use rationale. If that fair-use rationale is not there, is not proper, or there is not a proper reason for overuse, then that is a violation of copyright. And I am fully aware that the Foundation is putting it even stronger, and if we would follow our mission, we should be even more strong, but well, the problem is not Delta trying to enforce that, the problem is, and I hope that was clear, the editors re-instating the images that Delta removes. Not Delta should be under 1RR, those editors should be - do not re-instate works without first solving the fair-use rationale, do not re-instate overuse of non-free images unless you have a proper rationale on it, or make sure that the images are tagged properly when the image is actually free but tagged wrongly - but do the latter with caution .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC) This is simply wrong. The law does not know or care whether the Wikipedia image description page contains a valid FUR template for each use of a non-free image. Please stop telling people that not having a documented fair use rationale constitutes a copyright violation, because it is factually untrue. The purpose of documenting a FUR is to demonstrate that a credible fair use defense could probably be made in court - it doesn't have any magical legal function in its own right. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Well, the Foundation requires us to have that fair-use rationale in place, just in case that we need to demonstrate that. When it is not there, it should either be provided, or whatever problem there is (miss-tagged image), it should be solved. Leaving the image there without rationale could, as you imply, result in that that credible fair use defense can not be made for that page. And then, what if the Foundation can not defend its fair use on such an image, where 'we' did not provide one? No matter how we turn it, not having the fair use rationale only makes the chances of legal consequences bigger. And if I were the Foundation, I would then even be worried for images which actually have a fair-use rationale .. and certainly not be less worried about those which do not have one... I would certainly not say, as you seem to imply (correct me if I am wrong): 'the image X does not have a fair-use rationale for use on page Y, but that does not matter, that fair-use rationale is legally useless anyway' --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose as well. None of these proposals address any issue Delta has. Editwarring isnt a problem with it, and NFCC is exempt from 3rr. This proposal curtails activity thats quite simply a sideshow since his opponents cant get consensus to actually change the rules. -- ۩ Mask 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Wait, so Masem is one of Beta's opponents who is just frustrated they can't get the rules changed to allow all editors to run wild with image use? That's news to me, they've sure been hiding it well. At least read the editor's talk page before you comment, there are significant issues with repeated reversions in questionable cases. The RR exemption is for clear-cut cases, not for picking whichever article tops the non-free image count and attacking it relentlessly. We have a discussion process to resolve such issues. Franamax (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Franamax, if a rationale gets challenged, it is by definition not a questionable case, it is unquestionably challenged. First satisfy the concerns, then revert the image back in. It may very well be that Delta is wrong on some cases where he removes the image, but if he is not, you re-instate an image in violation of the works copyright. That is a copyright violation, Franamax, not negotiable. That is indeed exempt of RR, do not display works in violation of copyright unless it is unquestionably not a violation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC) As I've said before, either it's a crisis or it isn't. If it is, use a bot to remove every image failing NFCC in a Big Bang, with a note on the talk page. Wikipedia will talk about nothing but NFC for a week, but it'll get the job done. If it isn't, then there's scope for discussing each case appropriately in the normal way, and not letting one person saying "OMG it's a copyright violation" trump normal consensus-building, when the determination of a violation often has a strong subjective element. Rd232 talk 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Thats a logical fallacy. Specifically the false dichotomy. There are demonstrably more choices on 'level of problem' then zero and crisis, to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. -- ۩ Mask 11:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Either it's a crisis or not. "Not" does not equal no problem, which is why I didn't suggest doing nothing. Brush up your logic. Rd232 talk 12:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Touche. You're right, I misinterpreted your comment, and apologize. Thats not anything to do with logic though, thats just me being wrong ;) -- ۩ Mask 12:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)- Well, Rd232, that is the best reason to lift the speed sanction on Delta's account that I have read. Remove all in one big bang. Rd232, keeping the image there is NOT an option, we do not build consensus to remove (that does not work, in one case a wikiproject was notified, weeks later nothing happened until Delta started removing them), and it is, plainly, a violation of copyright. The images have to go when a violation of copyright is found, and can be re-instated when the problem is solved - yes 'OMG it's a copyright violation' trumps consensus building, the Foundation is breaking the law if they would keep the image there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC) There are some cases of highly subjective judgements about infringements, and allowing one person to come along and declare an infringement and have that trump all is like allowing people to come along and say "this article subject is not notable" and delete it. Where there is subjectivity, discussion is required. Time limits can be used, so if discussion gets no input from others, one editor can do as they see fit. Rd232 talk 12:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC) 'Some cases of highly subjective judgements' .. so because some cases are highly subjective (but these can not be identified without discussion) you leave also the clear-cut cases stand, because they may also be highly subjective. I would here, with the legal implications, choose for the 'remove for now, discuss for a week, and see if it is not a problem'-approach, not for the 'leave for now, maybe we forget, maybe no-one knows or cares, and if in the end it was a clear-cut copyright violation, well .. so be it'-approach. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I didn't think it would be difficult to identify cases where subjectivity places a substantial role, and if necessary a little guidance could clarify what qualifies and what doesn't. For example, NFCC#8 has a subjective element, NFCC#9 does not. But let's move this to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement#Require_prior_discussion_attempt_for_cases_with_subjective_element. Rd232 talk 12:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not going to take a view here on whether or not there's value in limiting Beta to 1RR, but what I think does have value is the language at WP:3RRNO, concerning the limits on exemptions from WP:3RR: * Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. (Emphases as in the original). The principle here is that with anything controversial or open to interpretation, it is not appropriate for an editor to be judge, jury and executioner in their own cause. If there is sustained disagreement about some images, the way we do things is to send the lot to WP:FFD so the community can decide -- that way in a week there will be a decision, and it will be the decision of the community. What is not acceptable is for a single editor to say "I don't think this is acceptable", and to impose their own will by reverting the article to remove it until after a week the file or files get deleted as orphans. For clear immediate problems there are CSDs; for borderline cases there is FFD. Those are the ways things should be done. We don't sanction revert warring, except, as WP:3RRNO makes clear, for unquestionable contraventions, because it is poisonous to the wiki-environment. People who claim that all NFC work is exempt from RR need to be aware that that is not what the policy says. Jheald (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) The point IMHO is in 'What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first'. If the thing is controversial, it should be considered a violation, and hence removed and re-insertion should be discussed. Note, we are not talking about deletion directly, we are talking about removal from display. The foundation asks for clear rationales of fair use for every use of an image. If that rationale is not there, or not enough, then that display is controversial under NFCC and should be seen as a violation. IMHO, that would make these removals (from display) exempt of 3RR. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Two things are being mixed together in your comment. If an image has no written rationale for use in a particular article, then it is clearly not in conformance with NFCC, so the RR exemption applies (though even then that may not be the best way to proceed...) On the other hand, if there is a rationale there, the view that it is "not enough", or that the argument made is inappropriate, tends to be a personal, subjective call. That might make its status under NFCC "controversial", which presumably is the view of the would-be deleter; but the line WP:3RRNO is clearly setting down is that that in itself is not enough to make it an "unquestionable" violation, so in such circumstances trying to win the field by revert-pushing is not the right way to go forward. Jheald (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC) But then, it is defined as '.. should be established as a violation first' - so if 3RR is not to apply to that, then we leave the violation stand? If it is controversial, it should be treated as a violation, even if it is not an unquestionable violation. Otherwise the whole statement does not make sense. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC) 3RRNO is quite clear. It says that you need to establish that something is a violation in the eyes of the community (i.e. through a community process) -- not might be a violation, before you can claim an exemption from the RR restrictions. Otherwise use a different procedure, like FFD. Jheald (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) In most cases, Delta's work is going on with stuff that has been present in WP for weeks, months, etc, as opposed to new images. Yes, once discovered, there does need to be some urgency to comply with the Resolution, but from a legal standpoint we're already in the hot water. So spending the short time to discuss to make sure it is clear why the images are being removed and offering alternative solutions is in line with making Delta a more approachable editor to ask about NFC stuff. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Technically, as a service provider under the DMCA the Foundation is only in "hot water" when it is put on notice by the copyright holder, and then only if it does not respond appropriately. Also, many of these images will still be fair use (particularly in use by WP), even if they're held not to pass our NFC policy. Of course, what is important is not just technicalities, but WP's reputation for taking pains that everything is above board. But there's no need to be alarmist. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC) As I state elsewhere, it would make it to me even more important to have at least all images properly tagged, and a proper rationale, however trivial, for all non-free of them. And if there is in any form a possibility to question a rationale, it should be made so that it can not be challenged as such. Not just leaving images without a rationale on display, waiting for someone to come along to tag them properly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Which is why there are bots that do this, and remove an image without a rationale from the article. Not particularly controversial, I would have thought. The issues I see here are (i) repeated removal of material where the issue of compliance is not so clear-cut; and (ii) that Delta has a track record of being a terrible communicator, which Masem thinks a period of operating under a 1RR restriction might help him with, so that he has to operate by persuading and explaining to people, rather than his habitual "shoot first, talk later - if at all" stance. For the record, where the resolution says "subject to deletion if they lack an appropriate rationale", it's not clear that the Foundation was actually laying down a requirement for obligatory pre-existence of a written rationale, which was a comparatively recent development on en-wiki at the time. The Foundation language is also consistent with the previous system, where such pre-written rationales were not required, but a non-free image could be challenged at FFD and would be deleted if there was consensus that no appropriate reasoning to keep it had been brought forward then. Jheald (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Hmm .. bots .. we tried that. I think most cases still need a human eye to see whether the rationale is sufficient or not. Sorry, I was referring only to the case where there was no rationale at all. If the discussion is about whether the rationale is sufficient, and those who uphold it maintain that it is, then ultimately that's one that needs to go to FFD. Jheald (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC) FDD - no, I would suggest to discuss it on the talkpage of the image ór on the talkpage of the page it is displayed on, and then adapt the rationale - note, often it is a case, that these images have a proper fair-use rationale for a page, and are then also displayed somewhere else (e.g. in a list) where the rationale is deemed not sufficient. FDD is nowhere in sight for those. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) And Delta a terrible communicator, maybe, but that also goes for all the people who force the images back in where there is not a sufficient rationale (or at least, most are terrible listeners). And the "shoot first, talk later - if at all" is also exactly what is applied to Delta, so well. As I said earlier, how often do you have to kick a pitbull before it bites back. Putting Delta on 1RR may 'solve' problems with Delta, it does a) not solve the problems with images, nor b) the problems with all the editors baiting and kicking Delta (and all the others who are doing this type of work). People will revert back to versions with non-free images, see Template:Politics of South Africa or List of Governors General of Canada, putting Delta on 1RR is just going to leave all the problems - one should make the editors understand that they first have to write a rationale, thén revert. And if the image is mislabeled as non-free, then first solve that, and then revert (or first write a fair use rationale, then revert, and then tag it properly). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm one of Delta's opponents? This is news to me... --MASEM (t) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose Δ's actions may not be in accordance with how some people wish him to act on NFCC enforcement, but they are in accordance with policy. There are far too many people who are quite happy to edit war until the cows come home, all the while violating NFCC. Δ isn't the problem here. Focus on the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm trying to be completely fair to Delta here: for all technical purposes, the "problem" is the large number of editors that don't understand or don't agree with NFCC policy (and proceed to do nothing to try to change it), and thus get all up in arms when Delta does actions that are within the lines of the NFCC. We're going to be able to do anything about the masses, but if Delta is going to want to deal in NFCC, he needs to know how how to handle the complaints of the masses that any other editor should be expected to, on a civil basis without edit warring even if he is assured he's correct. Otherwise you just have a cycle of editing warring, incivility, blocking, and denouement over and over. The 1RR restriction is meant to guide Delta to talk pages to preemptively discussion issues before editors launch complaints against him on his talk page. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I still disagree, and maintain my stance from the prior section; if you're going to restrict him, restrict me too, and in fact restrict anyone. Edit warring in violation of NFCC is reality. There are frequent times when discussion can not and does not work. Case point; I've been dealing with a roving IP editor who insists on placing copyrighted party logos into tables of Italian election results (Example). This has been an edit war that has extended for months now. I had the affected pages protected for a month from late February, but it had no effect. The IP keeps dancing, and there's no apparent way of communicating. The dancing IP is now referring to my edits as vandalism [25]. Indefinite protection of the page isn't an option. Communication can't work. The only option left is to edit war, to be just as stubborn as dancing IP. Eventually, they will give up. Take that tool away, and you disarm me from my last option in this case. This isn't isolated. Again, the problem here isn't Δ in regards to enforcement. While there may be an issue with communication, the edits are in line with policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Let me describe a hypothetical that I can see working in the spirit of the proposed restriction but not in the words of it yet: IP adds copyrighted logos to a table, Delta removes them, IP (likely same person but different address) adds them back in. At this point, under 1RR, Delta leaves a message on the article talk page saying that the logos violate NFCC and explains why. Say, 24hrs pass and no one replies; then this is presumption that Delta is correct, and thus he may then revert as necessary (outside 1RR, outside 3RR) against the roving IP that refuses to acknowledge this. Now, similar situation but now that IP is an editor. Get to 1RR, Delta posts on talk page. Then discussion ensues (ideally between more than just the editor and Delta, maybe there's a need to gain third-party opinions to help out here) to evaluate the images. If the consensus closes with agreement that the images are a problem, but this editor continues to edit war against them, Delta would still be in the right to remove them beyond 1RR/3RR as NFCC-related issues. What this is coming down to, and the difference between you and Delta, is communication. You at least communicate "hey these are a problem for reasons X, so I removed them", if asked; getting Delta to communicate in the same manner is difficult, and what leads to incivility and holier-than-thou attitude that got the community blocks in place to start with. Writing this, there is an alternate way to do this, and that is that to require Delta to initiate discussion somewhere about image removal on a related page before making the 2nd revert - which he would be allowed to do as well as the third, but should not exceed 3RR until the discussion has closed in consensus for his actions. That way - he still has his tools, but editwarring without discussion is specifically called out. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Tweaking; "...in consensus AGAINST his actions". I can't tell you how many times I've seen people revert him, me, and anyone else enforcing NFCC claiming there's no consensus for the actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC) It's about learning to talk the high road (which I've come to learn to do myself) and know when to back off to engage in better discussion. You may be 100% right on a subjective NFCC issue, the reverter being completely wrong, but the point is not to edit war or descend into incivility about it. Initiating communications to point to policy and established cases can be more valuable than simply rereverting and insisting that you are right. If the person trying to add it back in is just being a jerk and refusing to acknowledge NFCC or the discussion, there's avenues then to stop that (like ANI). If instead it is because there is a lack of clarity on the matter, policy can be improved to address that point, and prevent similar issues from happening again. You still end up being 100% right, but now in a matter that works better for everyone. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm just objecting to the "consensus for" language. The reality is that there is NO consensus on NFCC even existing, much less being enforced. Looking at this RfC is depressing; there are so many people who just don't get the reason why Wikipedia even exists. Consensus is a powerful, highly useful tool. There are times when it's catastrophically weak. With regards to NFCC, it's failed over and over and over again. If you include language that there must be consensus FOR removal, you empower NFCC violators. NFCC violations will become entrenched, and there will be no means to stop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I completely agree that consensus is generally weak when it comes to resolving NFCC issues because of the value people place in visual representation of an image verses the free content mission (for example, the entire thing with cover images). The problem is that the Foundation in their Resolution and (lack of) followup discussion hasn't given us much more teeth to work at to enforce a stronger notion of NFCC compared to the general consensus. I would love to see what the Foundation explicitly meant by "minimal" for example. Unfortunately, our hands our tied towards trying to guess that, and the best we can do is establish how to strive towards minimal. The types of weak consensus you are talking about are all ones that do fit into the Foundation's resolution, just not necessarily our desired reading of it. So we have to work within that. That said, I'm sure there are cases where Delta's removal of images is with the backing of established consensus but the editor that adds them back in challenges that (which of course is not appropriate if that consensus is established). That's a case we need to consider how best to handle, and this is where the idea of taking such discussions to where non-free image content is already a primary purpose is needed, so that the editor that is challenging the consensus can be shown consensus does exist by more than just Delta (and likely more than just me and you and others backing him up on his talk page). FFD and NFCR are well suited to this purpose. But when it is just left to Delta and one editor, that's where the civility problems start to arise. That's the type of actions we need to get Delta to avoid, and thus opening the discussion on why images were removed in proper viewers before he starts getting into reversion wars even if he is 100% correct. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) One thing is for sure, is that a big part of the problem with all of this is the idea expressed here that "there are so many people who just don't get the reason why Wikipedia even exists.", which just shows me how most of you who have chosen to spend your on-Wikipedia time policing the File namespace seem to have lost perspective. Our non free content criteria is important, but having a few thousand non-free media files among 10+ million freely usable files, and spread out around more than 3.5 million articles, is hardly ruinous to the encyclopedia. Especially considering the fact that the use of non-free files is tightly controlled through technological means now (properly tagged images only show up when and where they're allowed, after all). I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to police files, especially to ensure that non-free media is properly tagged at such, but this running around trying to get rid of as much non-free media as possible is... I don't know. It seems misplaced, to me. I understand that there's an ideological issue here, but... well, I guess that your ideology just isn't that important to me, when you get right down to it. I'd also like to note here that the Foundation has never said that non-free content is forbidden on Wikipedia, so the "it's supported by policy" argument is only partially true in my view (I'd actually characterize it to be a self-serving argument, to be honest). Anyway, I agree with Masem's take on this. The problems here have less to do with the question of whether the actions that delta (or damiens, hammersoft, or anyone else) is taking are correct or not. The problem is that there's apparently a culture that has developed where a few users feel that they're on a policy backed crusade to save the encyclopedia, and that their going to be cowboys and take care of the problem all by themselves as quickly as possible. That's my perception of what's occurring here, at least. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC) " a few users feel that they're on a policy backed crusade to save the encyclopedia" - yes. Same as with the unsourced WP:BLP saga. Rd232 talk 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC) @V = IR: A few thousand non-free media files? Try 400,000. That's one for every 9 articles on the project. It's not a tiny figure. It's fine that your ideology doesn't track with keeping non-free media to a minimum. But, that is our mission here. That can't be ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC) The basic concept behind Wikipedia, even more important than making an encyclopedia,is being engaged in a collaborative process. Just as working in a hierarchical environment is only suited for those willing to follow the general conventions of such environments regardless of what the kind of work may be, so with the environment here. There is no shame at all to being unable to work in a conventional business or academic environment--I think many of us might regard that as a badge of honour. similarly, there is no shame at being unable to work in our sort of group that depends on mutual tolerance. I have noticed over the years that those who push the limits of this in order to include material--even acceptable material-- in ways that make collaboration difficult are not permitted to continue, an just the same should apply to those who do the same with removal--even removal of unacceptable material. There are various degrees of importance, first we're a group, then group making an encyclopedia , then a group making a free comprehensive encyclopedia . There is possibly some room for discussion about the relative importance of free and comprehensive, and about their exact meaning, but to regard the value of enforcing a particular view of NFCC and that of working collaboratively as equal is perverse and destructive. And to those who say that as long as her follows the rule of NFCC he can do nothing wrong, I remind you that, first, it has been abundantly shown he does not follow the rules of NFCC as the consensus understands it, and second, that such a level of permissiveness is the sort of anarchy that leads to mutual destruction. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, those who defend him claiming he is "right" are in themselves "wrong". The end does not justify the means and we all have to work together. Those who have shown over a period of years that they cannot work with others really should be shown the door at that point.These 1RR discussions and talk about NFCC are irrelevant to the main issue here. The main issue is Delta and his behaviour, nothing else. If there are issues with various other things, those are entirely other discussions, and really only detract from the communities ability to deal with him here and now. Other people are perfectly capable of working within these systems without causing the issues he causes. If he cannot do it, and he's had ample time to prove he can, then he shouldn't be in that system.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC) So, umm, gee golly. DGG and Crossmr, do you want to indicate specific preferences related to the title of this sub-thread? I think it was "Alternate 1RR restriction". Neither of you seems to have been definitive on the specific proposal yet. Franamax (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I'd been clear in this discussion what I thought an appropriate resolution is. Simply enough, this proposal doesn't go far enough to solve the Delta issue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another alternate 1RR restriction

Hatting for scrollability, last updated 6/1

Just below this edit window, we see 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted' (Likely a setting in the mediawiki-namespace). I propose that we change that sentence to: Knowingly posting content in violation of copyright, or reinstating material that was removed because of (alleged) copyright violations is a blockable offense - reinstating material which is challenged for copyright status (e.g. violating WP:COPYRIGHT or WP:NFCC/overuse of non-free images) is currently under an 1RR restriction, keeping the material out until properly proven otherwise. And colour it in a bright colour. (this may need rewording to get it into a proper enforceable situation). This keeps the load of of Delta, and should 'encourage' editors to first solve the problem in stead of kicking and hence giving less reason for Delta to bite back. Though, it still should be accompanied by editors keeping an eye on discussions on Delta's talkpage which may get heated, and taking over the discussion (and Delta is encouraged not to react when that happens). As a side-suggestion - make tags available which keep challenged non-free images which are under discussion from being deleted for e.g. 2 weeks from the moment of first tagging as being under discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose. There are many editors who are ideologically opposed to any use of non-free content, and this is an invitation for them to game the system. Even in NFC, many issues are highly subjective, and many questions cannot be "proven". For example, how do you "prove" that an article needs two non-free content items instead of one? Or "prove" the contextual significance of a famous newspaper cover? Thparkth (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Well, I could turn that around - there are many editors who are ideologically opposed to removal of non-free content (as, to them, apparently the fair-use is clear, no need to write it out properly in the rationale), and they also game the system ('yes, it's obvious that we need to show these 40+ images on these pages, why do I have to write a rationale for it, it is obvious fair-use'). You imply above, that the fair-use rationale is only there so it can be used to aid in case the Foundation gets sued for having work in violation of copyright, and that the rationale is then used to help to show that it is actually fair use. It implies to me, that even when that fair-use rationale is there, the Foundation may face cases where they get sued and they may have problems defending it - let alone on cases where there is not a proper fair-use rationale. To me, that sounds like even more reason to make sure that at least we have all images tagged correctly, and for the non-free set of them, have all rationales properly in place - at least we made sure we did our best. The issues may be highly subjective, the problem is, that there are issues - properly making the case, especially for the subjective ones, that helps in making the case in court, if ever there is the need. If having a rationale may not even be enough, then that is even more reason to make sure that at least we do have a rationale for those which at the moment don't have one - however subjective that part may be (if we can question it in a subjective way .. then surely a legal specialist can do the same or worse - the more reason for us to first explain how parts are subjective and properly write a rationale for it, before including it!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose The proper policy is the current one, that this only applies to unquestionable copyright violations. Dirk, I am among the editors who would prefer a policy of using all fair use content that has a direct relation to our encyclopedic purpose. I know this is not the consensus at present, and I may mention it in a general way from time to time, but I won't try to prevent the action of the actual consensus by by challenging every file put up for deletion, or appealing as many deletions as I can to deletion review. Similarly, a policy of not using fair use content is not the present policy. Anyone who thinks it ought to be is welcome to advocate for that, but is not entitled to try to game it by deleting as many fair use files as he can get away with. If Beta had a way of perfectly selecting every file according to what the consensus would accept, which he does not, he still has to submit them in a way that consensus can fairly consider. He has been acting in a way that would only be justified if he made the rules to suit himself and were responsible to nobody for any mistakes he might make. We must defend ourselves against such editing. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Nowhere I suggest that we should delete as many fair-use images as possible, the point is, we currently have a policy, indeed DGG, which is unenforced. My point is, "if a rationale is not sufficient, then repair the rationale - do not revert back in without repairing the rationale first" - if an image does not have a rationale for a specific page, then, per policy, it should have the rationale. What is the problem with first putting that rationale, often it is so simple to do it? If someone claims overuse, and removes them all, then what is the problem with adapting the rationale on each image to explain that this image is also needed next to the other ones (if you need 10 images of each banknote while all 10 are practically similar, then explain in the rationale of number 1 why number 1 is needed next to 2-10, and in the rationale of number 2 why number 2 is needed next to 1,3-10, etc. - or put back one/two with a proper rationale - no, people yell, kick, complain, editwar until time is up and all 10 are deleted, and then yell, kick, complain more - and ask for bans). Well, with as proof all the edit wars that Delta and others get into, people simply refuse to do that. They prefer to complain, yell, kick, &c. While it is required per policy. (more answer will come below, section 'Double standards?'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Oh my, I think I'm about to bury my but into a huge mess. I think it's about time to take this up another level. Perhaps something should be presented to Arbcom, NOT in the sense of any individual editors, but more in the "Where does the foundation stand", and what should we be doing sense. "Fair use" and the "Not Free" issues are an extremely important issue. Perhaps it's time to stop pointing fingers, and to establish what is and what is not the proper way to deal with these issues. As I am soooooooo short on time at the moment, it may take a day or two to draft something up, and I'd certainly welcome someone else doing the work. Either way, I wish all well. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Would be good, indeed. Because I am afraid that we have two big camps on non-free image use which both read the policies and guidelines in different ways - looks like we will never find a middle way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC) There never has been a happy middle ground, and there never will be. It's been a contentious issue all alone. It will NEVER resolve while we retain a minimum of non-free media usage. If we had either absolute, (1) no non-free media or (2) as much as legally allowed, the arguments would evaporate. Anything in between, and these arguments will never end. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC) The problem though is that "as much as legally allowed" is subject both to interpretation and a general trend towards "less and less" in both law and jurisprudence. MLauba (Talk) 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC) But we would have counsel to turn to for expert support. There is no 'expert' support in regards to Wikipedia policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Sure you can ask ArbCom, but I predict they will be no better at explaining what the Foundation wants. The Foundation is quite artful at pushing individual decisions down to the volunteers, that's how they keep their shield from prosecution. They published a vague resolution and left us to figure it out. Some parts are pretty clear, such as requiring some form of FUR in machine-readable format, i.e. via template. Minimal usage has (IMO) been deliberately left unclear, and I doubt you'll ever get the WMF to clarify it any more. I think we're supposed to work it out ourselves. Franamax (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Double standards?

Hatting for scrollability, last updated 6/1

I am afraid that many here are having double standards (sorry, if this seems bad faith on those mentioned .. but it is a bit a feeling I get here) - we continuously remove material which (possibly) fails our guidelines or policies (random set of editors in random order: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff - all remove 'violations' I did not check properly if some of these example diffs were actually discussed on talkpages before or after, it is just that the edit summary does not suggest it, also, some are plain vandalism-reverts) - but if someone removes en masse images which may fail a policy with legal implications, then editors go into edit wars. I am sorry, maybe I don't understand (well, I do .. because this involves long-standing editors, not new, unexperienced editors, who you can 'accuse' of spamming, vandalism, etc. etc.), but no-one is edit warring with me when I remove a massive amount of links which I deem to be spammed, while my main reason generally is 'fails our external links guideline' or 'spam', maybe 'fails 'What Wikipedia is not' policy'. And there is no legal problem with linking on all pages about cars to a list of car dealers around the world, that is something WE decided that we are not willing to have here. If I remove youtube video's on sight if they seem remotely copyvio (wow - we even have a bot who removes them if they are added by new users/IPs - it does not even check whether the youtube video is actually copyvio and/or fails other parts of guidelines which discourage the use of youtube video's) - we should NOT link to material which is in violation of copyright - except for the alleged spammers themselves, people reverting me generally explain (I've been reverted on a blogspot once by an admin, I reverted back, stating it was copyvio - we started a discussion, we figured out that it was a copyvio, we solved it). And here we are talking about a policy with legal implications, something that the Foundation has made statements about - write proper rationales, make minimal use of non-free images - and where are we? People keeping the material in while someone is saying that it fails thát policy (removal - back - removal - back - removal - note, at the beginning this image was tagged as non-free, and it did not have a rationale for the page it was displayed on (which is anyway impossible, it is a template, you can't display non-free images on a template where you can't control where it is transcluded - note, it may have been mis-tagged, but that is not the issue, the issue is that in the beginning it was tagged non-free, and the problem was not solved (note: I know, now I get to hear, but the editor removing it could also solve the problem instead of removing the image from display - NO, re-tagging is only possible for the utmost simple cases (and what if the editor deems a case simple, and mistags an image .. ), all others need study, the editors knowledgeable on the subject are the ones who know best what to do)). If the edit war is on images where the violation is questionable .. OK, I can see that that may need more clarification or discussion .. but many, if not most, of these edit wars are plainly about images which unquestionable fail this policy. What is the friggin' problem here now? Why can't people solve the problem (even if the violation is questionable!), or satisfy the concerns before re-inserting the image. If a non-free image becomes unused, tag it, wait, say, 7 days for editors to solve the problem, then allow for immediate deletion. One has then 7 days to solve the problem. Keeping these images there, warning editors about it, and wait until someone solves it is certainly not going to solve it (tried that, got a T-shirt, and that was for suggested improvements, not even for possible guideline violations, not even for possible policy violations (well, also know cases of these two which were never solved by those who would be the best to do it), let alone for a possible violation of a policy with legal implications. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bringing this back around

We're getting too lost on NFC policy here, and forgetting that we're trying to resolve how Delta is expecting to interact with users on NFC issues. I realize that some of this is how NFC that fails policy is expected to be dealt with, but I would encourage those that want to discuss that more to take it to WT:NFC or more specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement that resulted from this discussion.

The question here at AN on the table is: what can we do via either existing or new community restrictions to prevent Delta's name from being a weekly reappearance at AN when it comes to his NFC actions?

To me, reading the responses above, this is about the vigilante style of editing that Delta imposes - he may be absolutely correct in his determination in NFC issues, but the methods to do so are what causes distaste to others. Edit warring is never a solution, even if dealing with a persistent user that edit wars right back. But there are cases where Delta has the strength of policy and consensus on his side (eg obvious copyvios, non-mainspace NFC) but has to deal with users that refuse to accept that. As this makes it difficult for 1RR-type enforcement, I will suggest another possible one:

When either removing or reverting the addition of non-free content from an article, Delta must inform either the talk page of the article, the image, or the image's uploader of the reason for removal (templated/canned messages are appropriate). Delta must not engage user(s) in edit warring over NFC, but instead call for discussion of the images' use at an appropriate message or noticeboard (such as WP:NFCR) to affirm that removal is appropriate.

(I'm not eloquent with the wording, feel free to offer better) This really is what I think most editors expect to see, akin to WP:BEFORE, where discussion of the merits of images is approached before removal is performed. It requires Delta to engage in at least some type of fleshed out discussion before he re-reverts the additions from stubborn users, and brings such issues to a larger audience should it get into a 3RR type situation. This removes the vigilante-style approach in adoption for something more akin to consensus. Mind you, we still need to be fully aware of NFC issues and do our best to meet the Foundation's resolution, so "consensus" here is skewed towards what NFC policy already is, but I'm sure there are fringe cases that merit better discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is closer. Perhaps some more honing is needed though. I do a lot of the same work. Here's a worst case scenario of how this can play out when I'm doing it (minus arm flapping histronics endemic to such issues):

1. Remove NFCC violating content, using edit summary to inform as to why it was removed (Δ does this)
2. It gets reverted by someone wanting to keep it
3. (in most cases) I remove it again, and leave a message for the editor (if not a dancing IP) (Δ doesn't often do this) or on the article's talk page (Δ does this more now in overuse situations; I developed User:Hammersoft/3 as a notice to be used in such cases, and he uses it).
4. Editor reverts again.
5. Depending on the situation, I'll escalate warning tags if its a blatant violation and continue reverting (Δ does this, just not in the same way). Alternatively, I'll take it to a noticeboard for assistance (Δ doesn't often do this, but does on occasion).

I think where we face the most problems in Δ's edits are in communication. He is usually very accurate in his edits. His error rate is actually quite low, probably a lot lower than mine or any other average editor on the project. So, I think rewording to provide a more clear structure; (1) remove, (2) if reverted, communicate to editor/talk page and revert, (3) if reverted again go to noticeboard do NOT revert (leave it for someone else). I don't know if that's a 1RR or 2RR (only one revert, two edits). Whatever you want to call it, it stops reversions and starts discussion and leaves the problem for someone else. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the language I proposed is not meant to be final, but I think the concept (and this is after reading Delta's response below) is that when these discussions after the 2nd or 3rd revert take place in Delta's talk page isolation, it feels like one user is acting as judge, jury, and executioner to the process. By having the discussion move to a wider venue, you get more eyes on it and people affirming Delta's assessments as correct. This also helps towards the whole civility thing - when discussion is in a wider venue, people tend to respond better. In essence, I am likely proposing that while under restriction, Delta be required to follow the accepted process of dispute resolution, as a means of preventing situations of incivility.

And on the mention of incivility, as Delta points out below, we can't just be accusing Delta of this and not looking at the editors he's responding to. Knowing Delta's behavior long enough, he doesn't become uncivil until pushed that way, so there's likely a similar violation in such conversations that should also be dealt with. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• To incivility; the WP:NPA policy is effectively void. It isn't enforced, and has no bearing anymore. Occasionally, you might see something happen, but such actions are outnumbered 1000:1 with the incidents of incivility all across the project. Nobody really cares about civility requirements anymore. It's seriously a whopping big joke. How it is normally invoked is as in this case; as a bludgeoning tool so that the horribly wrong and out of line editors can find something, ANYthing with which to get back at the people they disagree with. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like what I was attempting to have happen from the get go.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least partially. The mass nomination issue still appears to be outstanding. If there's an identifiable class of files that need to be dealt with, what say we have a central discussion about that and deal with the class at once, rather then the current situation where we have this slow motion process where clumps of FFD nominations are sprung on the community when one user or another decides that it's time to take care of some files.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? That's really conflating issues. "Mass nomination" issues haven't been a part of this. Since July of last year, Δ's edited WP:FFD a grand total of 7 times. He's barely involved in FFD. Further, every time someone tries to come up with some throttle to stop people from nominating too many images at once, it fails. There's a message in there. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yea, it's conflating issues, but that conflation was done a few days ago. This section is specifically about delta, but the two threads are seriously intertwined already, here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's no reason to continue it. Δ hasn't been involved in mass nominations. It has no relevance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the triple reply, but here's a thought: I've seen a lot of "well then, change the policy" and "don't shoot the messenger" sort of talk. I think that it's important to point out that, from the end of the dispute that I'm standing on, a big problem here is that I don't have confidence in your guy's (those of you who police files) judgement on the basic question here. That has very little to do with statistics though, which is why the repeated claims of "{User x's} error rate is very low" just doesn't seem to have any traction. The issue here is somewhat ideological. It's obvious to me that myself and (for example) hammersoft have slightly different interpretations of "the free encyclopedia" and/or the foundations non-free content resolution. I seem to be slightly more permissive than those of you who regularly work at FFD. However, that doesn't mean that there's no commonality here. The reason that I suggest having a central discussion about this is so that all of us have the leisure to examine the motivations and reasoning behind the potential action of removing a bunch of content from the encyclopedia. Without clarifying exactly what is and is not permissible, and identifying the characteristics that make files permissible, this issue will remain unresolved.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't just somewhat ideological. It's precisely ideological. There are those that believe in it, and those that don't. It's even called a "movement"; see Free culture movement. Yes, there's considerable overlap in people's tolerance levels. But, there is considerable disparity too. We routinely get NFCC arguments because of the attempt to stand a middle ground that ultimately is indefensible in any clear terms. We've been whacking away at this for years, and despite the best efforts of every concerned party in all that time, we're still left with the mess we have. It isn't going to get any better. It will not resolve. Count on it. The only way to resolve it is to be very clear about what is and is not acceptable. The only way to achieve that is do not allow any non-free content or allow it to the maximum of fair use law. The middle ground will never, ever, achieve what you hope. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  so... basically, do nothing? If we're not going to say all-or-nothing, then we should just forget about trying to resolve anything?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

we're trying to resolve how Delta is expecting to interact with users on NFC issues. actually I think we're here to resolved how Delta acts all the time, everywhere, and to that end, I think nothing short of a full ban will fix it. His continued disregard for the community shows that he really hasn't changed at all. If he'd been caught violating his editing restrictions once and shown remorse, it'd be one thing, but he's been caught violating them since he's returned and he just continues to do it over and over and over again showing a total lack of respect for the community and it's decisions. He's shown that he cares only for the end and that the means are irrelevant to him because as always "He's right!", and of course there is no shortage of people who will come along and enable him.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked him? There are people in this discussion that want to vilify the editor and see him gone from WP for good because of past actions. They assume there's no reason, just that Delta wants to flaunt the restrictions as much as possible. Maybe he is and if you ask him why he violated the edit rate limit and he refuses to respond or provide any reason and only snub the response, there's possibly some legs to calling for a ban on the editor. But what if he goes "oh, sorry, I didn't notice, I had gotten caught up in a series of repeated edits." and apologies for it, that's a different story. But no one asks him this, and instead points the finger of blame there. His restrictions are community enforced restrictions, and are only enforced as good as the community enforces them. If he went over those edit rates several times and no one noticed or mentioned it until logs were reviewed, well, then how has that harmed WP?. If no one noticed and didn't point these out to Delta, how would he know that there was a problem?

The goal of the current restrictions and any future ones is to bring Delta back to being a productive editor, not to chase him off the project. Those trying to reach the latter goals should consider how much time and effort they are doing towards that instead of improving the work themselves. I'm not saying Delta doesn't have problems to still overcoming to gain the community's trust again, but there are editors that seem to want to allow this possibility to happen. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And all of that would be grounds for his removal. If he said "Oh I didn't notice" it would clearly violate his restrictions and he should be removed. The entire point of the restrictions was to get him to notice what he was doing. There is no defence for his actions. If he did it intentionally, he's thumbing his nose at the community and if he did it unintentionally he's not paying attention to his editing which is the entire point and he should be banned. He's been reminded of his editing restrictions from day 1. It's his responsibility to pay attention to his edits and make sure he stays within the community sanctions, there is zero good reason for him to ignore them, zero. There is absolutely nothing he must edit, and there is nothing that couldn't wait or be passed off to someone else, and it's clear what he was doing wasn't an emergency. As for his reasoning, he gave it on his page Yes I fucked up here and exceeded my edit throttle and will quietly take my lumps for that, because I was not paying close enough attention to the clock. Yes I find the throttle really annoying but I should have been paying closer attention to the clock.. This alone should nail the coffin shut. He's been blocked for it, he's been warned for it, he's had it held constantly over his head, and he still can't pay attention? The reason his past actions are brought up is because they're still going on. Years later and he still can't pay attention, for hours on end. He's basically saying that he wasn't paying full attention to what he was doing for hours and hours on-end while he was editing. The restrictions have failed. Delta simply cannot comply with how the community wants him to act, and he's shown that time and time again. We survived and flourished while he was gone and we will continue to do so when he is gone again. He would have to the most productive model of an editor ever for years on end to even remotely have a shot at hitting net positive again, and so far he's shown no indication he can do that.--Crossmr (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• We survived and flourished for 20,000 edits of his with hardly a peep of trouble until just recently, and still nobody has produced any evidence that the violation of the edit throttle caused any actual damage to the project. We're not here to hang his head on a pike. Any editor who can perform 20,000 edits without causing problems deserves our praise. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• And you still haven't shown me where in the restrictions that is relevant. And it seems he has caused problems, or else we woudln't be here. Several of the images he's removed simply needed a fixed/added rationale, rather than removal. He violated his editing throttle removing those images--Crossmr (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• @Masem; Δ did acknowledge his error in going over the edit throttle. "yeah, I fucked up there and I am quietly taking my lumps for going over the throttle". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly, which shows he's communicating and still trying to work within the bounds. But here's a claim that he's overthrottled before but was never accounted/admonished for that, and so people want to throw a ban hammer at him without asking why (much less showing exactly where). --MASEM (t) 13:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've shown exactly where. May 12, all day long, and while he's communicating, that communication is telling us that he's not doing what was required of him per his restrictions. He's not paying attention. And the blocking admin User_talk:CBM#Curiosity, has stated that he did not take into account the numerous times he violated it on the 12th. As for earlier, may 10th, I could provide you with 93 individual links for the 10 minute period:

over double the restricted rate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
13:19, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fédération des Scouts de la République démocratique du Congo ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:19, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Federación Española de Guidismo ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:19, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fear Itself (TV series) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FCM Dorohoi ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fate (magazine) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fat Cat Records ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Scouting in Alaska ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fantasy Springs Resort Casino ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fantasia (video game) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fanny and Alexander ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Family Affair (Mary J. Blige song) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fallen Angels (Myers novel) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fa Mulan ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FL Studio ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:18, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Tauras Tauragė ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Rudar Prijedor ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Radnički Stobex ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Mornar ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Atletas Kaunas ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Kruoja Pakruojis ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Budućnost Valjevo ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FK Banga Gargždai ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FIFA Street ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m International Federation of Sports Chiropractic ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:17, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FEU Tamaraws ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:16, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/State of the Union (Four Freedoms) (January 6, 1941) Franklin Delano Roosevelt ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:16, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FC Tampa Bay ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:16, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Traditional derby ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:16, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m FC Ljubljana ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:16, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Extraordinary Machine ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:16, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Explorer Scouts (The Scout Association) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Explorer Belt ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Rover Scouts (Scouting Ireland) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Venture Scouts (Scouting Ireland) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Exclusive Audio Footage ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Evolution: The Game of Intelligent Life ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m (Everyday Is) Halloween ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Federación Española de Guidismo ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m European Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eurema nicippe ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Pieridae ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eurasian Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:15, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eugene J. Giannini ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eternal Summer ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Et j'attends ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m União dos Escoteiros do Brasil ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m União dos Escoteiros do Brasil ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Federación Española de Guidismo ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m User:Shapman88 ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eraserheads: The Reunion Concert 08.30.08 ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m User:Ambuj.Saxena/IITD ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Hans Purrmann ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m I Like It (Enrique Iglesias song) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m England, Their England ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m A. G. Macdonell ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Girlguiding London and South East England ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:14, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Enemy Zero ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Arts on the Line ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Without You (Empire of the Sun song) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Wrath of the Tyrant ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Emirates Scout Association ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Emirates Scout Association ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Not Afraid ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Greatest Hits 1970–2002 ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Stay (Elisa song) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m The Elephant 6 Recording Company ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Strange Magic: The Best of Electric Light Orchestra ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:13, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eklavya: The Royal Guard ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m The Eight Doctors ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Edward Lawry Norton ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Real (Ednita Nazario album) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eddie Vedder ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eclaireuses et Eclaireurs israélites de France ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Ebara Soroku ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:12, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Lou Beale ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m User:Epson291 ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Fairfax Eagles ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m I Can't Tell You Why ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Hazen A. Dean ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m EUDO ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m ETC (TV channel) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Radio Philippines Network ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Eastern Junior Hockey League ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:11, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Edu Tech ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Camp Edwards ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Albrecht Dürer ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Denver Dynamite (soccer) ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Decalogue V ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Durango Mountain Resort ‎ (adjusting filename after rename) (top) 13:10, May 10, 2011 (diff | hist) m Dunlap High School ‎ (adjusting filename after rename)

• Dec 31, relating directly to NFCC work:

49 in 10
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
15:29, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m WOCN (AM) ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) 15:29, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m WKCE ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) (top) 15:29, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Ukrainian derby ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Dkyiv.png using AWB) 15:29, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m SKY (universities) ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:29, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KWOD ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:29, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KWNX ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) (top) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University School of Medicine ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University Law School ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University Division of International Studies ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) (top) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University College of Science ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University College of Political Science and Economics ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:28, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University College of Liberal Arts ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University College of Education ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m Korea University Business School ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:KoreaUniversityIntlShield.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KLZS ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KKSN (AM) ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KHRO ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KGST ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) 15:27, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KENO ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) 15:26, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m KBMB ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:ESPN Deportes Radio New.png using AWB) (top) 15:26, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m French Football Federation ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:26, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France women's national football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:25, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national youth football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:25, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national under-21 football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:25, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national under-20 football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:24, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national under-19 football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:24, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national under-18 football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:24, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national under-17 football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:24, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m France national under-16 football team ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Le nouveau logo FFF.png using AWB) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Udon Thani ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Surat Thani ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) (top) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Ramindra ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) (top) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Rama III ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Rama II ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Pinklao ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Khon Kaen ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:23, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Chonburi ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:22, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Chaengwattana ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:22, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m CentralPlaza Bangna ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:LogoPlaza.gif using AWB) 15:22, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 2007 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Dkyiv.png using AWB) (top) 15:22, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 2006 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage, , removed File:Dkyiv.png using AWB) 15:22, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 2005 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:22, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 2003 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:21, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 2000 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:21, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 1999 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:21, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 1998 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:21, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) m 1996 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎ (image does not have a rationale for this usage using AWB) 15:20, December 31, 2010 (diff | hist) 1993 Ukrainian Cup Final ‎

• And in fact several of these were problems, they were appropriate for the article and just needed fair use rationales added. A discussion above seems to indicate Delta shouldn't be making these kinds of edits in the first place and yet here he is making them and violating the restrictions while doing it. Yes no problems at all.--Crossmr (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. So, it's a problem that he's removing non-free images from articles because the images lack a rationale for that use? You do understand this is policy, yes? How is it a problem that he enforces policy? Is it also a problem that I do exactly the same thing (in fact more than 2000 times)? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• When he could just as easily fix the rationale and save work for the enyclopedia rather than add to it? Yes. And this discussion has been had above and several people feel he shouldn't be making these kinds of edits. The policy is not that they be removed. The policy is that appropriate rationales be present if required, if they can't be provided they should be removed. It's funny how you'll try to bend every edit to Delta's favor rather than let them stand on their own. If you want to take a hard line on removing images rather than simply providing a missing rationale (and of the few random ones I checked all the images are still there, and rationales have just ben added), then I hardly see how you can support trying to wiggle out of his constant editing violations by claiming he caused no problems. I could simply ask you the sam,e were any problems caused while these images were in the articles without rationales?--Crossmr (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• double standard, Crossmr. Delta is here enforcing a policy with legal implications, in the edit by you that I cite, you, without ANY discussion remove a set of external links from an article. That is just a guideline. So the question remains .. except going over the threshold, and hence breaking a restriction applied by this community (which he indeed should not have done), did anything go wrong? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's already been pointed out that the legal risks are highly over-exaggerated, and it's not a double standard at all. There is very little opposition from anyone but spammers and self-promoters when the external links are cleaned up on articles. I've in fact never had an issue removing excessive ELs from any article where they were inappropriate. In this case the images WERE appropriate for the article, Delta just chose to remove them rather than add a missing rationale, this added work to the encyclopedia and isn't remotely the same as cleaning up a link directory (which is also policy, btw covered under WP:NOT.)--Crossmr (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Policy requires a proper rationale - For some cases writing one is simple, for others it is not. It is up to the person wanting to include it to write a proper rationale, not Delta, me, or whoever finds an image without rationale. And the legal implications were already discussed above - having a rationale is apparently not always enough, so not having a rationale is certainly not enough - it is our task to make sure that everything has a proper rationale. In stead of shooting the messenger, one could also start writing rationales before the messenger removes them from display, apparently some people think that is is so simple ... until that time, removing them from display because they do not comply with a rationale is nothing different then removing external links or removing unreferenced material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• One more reply to Beetstra: No, nothing much did go wrong, but that is beside the point. The point is that he DID violate his restrictions and has done so either knowingly or out of sheer indifference 3 times in may alone (for which he recieved blocks for all of them). Furthermore, he needs to show that he can follow the rules like the rest of us. Since he has demonstrated that he cannot do this, we are left with three options: 1) Hope he's learned his lesson and just let it go. Given that he's violated his restrictions 2 times immediately after being unblocked, I and others find this doubtful. 2) Implement further restrictions on his actions since it does not appear he has learned his lesson thereby preventing his ability to cause said problems. 3) Block him for a longer length of time (the last lengthy block was a year...and it was violated too). Option 2 seems to have the most community consensus (7v5). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, nothing went wrong, I have seen no complaints where Delta made an error in editing - in 20k edits, and he even received praise for the edits. There may have been an error here or there (an edit mistake - but we make them all, there may even have been one or two cases where he was patently wrong in removing an image, but I have not seen any complaint about that). Most of the complaints were of the order 'why did you remove the image, you could have written a fair-use rationale' - that is not Delta's task, sure, it is very, very simple in some cases, in others it is not, and sometimes it is unclear - and if Delta (or I .. or whoever does this work) would repair those which are unclear in a wrong way, then for sure you would have reason to expand his restrictions) - or complaints where he removed a fair-use image, which actually after inspection was not non-free but public domain - again, it is not Delta's, or my, task to understand and figure out whether an image is mistagged as non-free, if I would think that something is public domain and I would tag it as such while actually for some reason it is not, I would put a copyright violation there. For all of these, it is the task of the ones who include the image, or upload the image, or those who want to re-include the image to make sure that the rationales or tagging is correct - non-free images need a proper rationale - and note that the Foundation is putting stronger restrictions than the law - it may be that there will never be legal consequences - but that reasoning is the same as saying 'I can kill whoever I want as long as the police is not doing anything about it'.
• But you are right, that is all besides the point - still, practically all of you complain about mistakes, that it should not be done at all, whatever. The only reason you all have, is that he violated his community restrictions. Plain and simple. All the rest is circumstantial, or plainly untrue - Delta did not make any mistakes except for breaking the restrictions. So .., and that is what happened, block him for breaking the restrictions. Why are we here expanding violations, putting violations on things he is doing only good with (as no-one here can show any substantial errors - show me more than 20 individual (which is 1 in 1000 .. a low error-rate), or 3 where he made more than 3 consequtive errors), edits for which he is even praised, and which are done by a handful of other editors in exactly the same way). And much of consensus to expand the restrictions I don't read - it appears pretty vague what is wanted or needed. Truth is, that if Delta would not have broken his restrictions for another 80.000 edits, but carried on with this work, you would still have considered this extra restriction, as it is clear that the only reason we want to restrict him is because we don't like him doing what he is doing (while others are doing the same ..), and another truth is, that if Delta would not have broken his restrictions for another 80.000 edits, no-one would still consider to lift the restrictions, because he is doing something that editors don't like, and most in favour of the restrictions are sure that if he is allowed to edit faster again, that he will go wrong, and yet another truth, editors who are not in favour of Delta, do not assume good faith anymore with him, he is being bashed around, the first thing those editors do is have the banhammer ready, and other continue to yell beyond any form of decency waiting for him to bite back .. again I ask - how often do you have to kick a pitbull before it bites. This one took 20.000 edits, I know one who saw one violation of a restriction and bit immediately. It is pathetic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Δ

I find the fact that many people are seeking more restrictions on me asinine. Other than the one outburst I have remained very civil. If you don't like policy get it changed, don't shoot the messenger. Here is a counter proposal, people want me to communicate more, when I do communicate people don't listen, take for example the issue with currency recently, there where countless notification across multiple talk pages and wikiprojects. The users dont give a fuck until me and Hammersoft actually start removing the overuse (after a month of attempted discussions). Also take a look at Template:Politics of South Africa I left a explicitly clear reason for the edit twice and was reverted both times because of WP:ILIKEIT completely ignoring the core policy which is non-negotiable about NFC in userspace/templates. Here is my proposal create standard set of templates (the uw style works well) about incorrect usage of NFC, add it to twinkle and stress that files must be left out until the issues are resolved with them. If the issues are not resolved and the users insist on ignoring policy, admins must be willing to step in, and either protect the image free article, delete said files, or block the user until they get the point. I often try to explain NFC but too many users refuse to listen. Adding more restrictions on me will not solve the problem, we need a wider community push to get files in line with policy. This worked fairly well back in 2007-2008 with both the TV episode image removal and the push to ensure that all files have at least one rationale. Another request that should be made, (and Ive asked for this for years and have been ignored) is that admins who monitor both my talk page and the discussions I'm in would actually do something about the personal attacks directed towards me, instead of ignoring them, we could avoid situations like what recently happened when I was insulted and attacked one too many times by the same user. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

copied on behalf of Δ - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK .. first, apologies if this belongs in one of the other sections above, I've never been good at jumping inbetween as far as cronological posts go .. anyone is free to move to the proper section. OK, couple things here. In large I agree with Horologium, Dirk, and Rd232 (and others). Delta is trying very hard to achieve a resolution to legal issues that extend to the very core of the "Foundation". To those seeking this witch-hunt "ban him", I say this. What happened in the past was addressed, he ran afoul of many, was banned for a year, and lost his admin. bit. time served, and end of. Delta made one post that wp:bite someone .. 4 days later, he got blocked (48 hours commuted to 24). He came back and exceeded his "speed limit" .. blocked. Again, time served (or rather serving) and should be "end of". We're not here to "punish" editors, and once something has been addressed, it should be considered over. I don't see a disclaimer at WP:AGF that says "except anyone who has been sanctioned in the past". To those who say we shouldn't be discussing the NFCC/non-free/fair use issue, just Delta ... I say that is just SO wrong. If you resolve the root of the problems in regards to the confusion revolving around this "non-free" problem. A problem that is so concerning in legal ramifications that the "Foundation" itself has voiced concerns about it, then you resolve the problems for everyone. I might add, that were this at Arbcom in this fashion, Delta would not be the only one that was being discussed as far as bans go. Copyright and non-free issues are HUGE, and in the real world, if you don't find a way to comply with the laws, you will suffer the consequences eventually. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just on the issue of "we shouldn't be discussing NFC" issue - the point is that we shouldn't be discussing that issue here at WP:AN, because admins have nothing (directly) to do with it. Instead there's an RFC that is proposing ideas to improve NFC matters open to all. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"and once something has been addressed, it should be considered over." And yet, here we are, FOUR years later, discussing the same behaviours from the same editor. Over indeed. Resolute 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You agree with Horologium who essentially said above that Delta is not responsible for his behaviour and shouldn't be held accountable for it because everyone else makes him the things he does? Delta made 1 post that bit someone, he also violated his editing restrictions so many times I gave up counting, he also did this while violating his restrictions regarding proposing large tasks, he's violated his restrictions as far back as December, showing continued on-going issues.--Crossmr (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish people would back off a bit from this OMG legal issues tack. Take a look at WP:CP or WP:CCI to see where the real problem with copyright violations is. But nothing of what we're discussing here is even remotely litigable, we are so far on the good side of fair-use that even the cloudy cases are easily defensible in court. And the WMF isn't at legal risk anyway, the editors are. The Foundation made a resolution, and at the discovery phase they can deliver up several gigabytes worth of documents showing due diligence on the part of the volunteers (and of OTRS and OFFICE, assuming anyone has ever even once complained about their copyright image being used in two articles instead of just one). I can go out right now and buy a book with images of every stamp or coin or banknote ever made through history, they are NOT full of copyright violations. And neither is showing each different banknote in a list article. That may or may not violate our own resolution on minimal use, but it's not remotely something that anyone will be getting sued over. Yes, it's important we get it right but lets ease up a tad on the deeply-furrowed brows and talk in the spirit that we're all going to get there if we keep at it. Franamax (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to comment. I'm not sure that Horologium was implying that Delta was not responsible for his actions, but if he was then I certainly would disagree with that part of it. I'll try to find that RFC, and follow along there. I'll also certainly accept any consensus the community comes to as that's simply the way it works here. If I am overly concerned with "legal" issues, then I apologize to taking up your time. I admit that I oppose any ban being piled on top of Delta's block. He has been helpful to me personally in the past with advice, and I think much of his work here benefits the project. I understand that some folks have issues with Delt/Beta, and I even understand why. That being said, thank you all again for your insightful comments, and have a good day/night. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Horologium wasn't implying that at all. Horologium was stating that while Delta has some issues with dealing with other users (particularly those who personally attack him, those who bring up issues from 2008, and those who disagree with the project's current position on fair-use images), he is properly upholding the policy as written. Most of the complaints here are squawking about him exceeding his throttle, with no examples of this being problematic; and that blowup was an understandable, frustrated response to a sustained and incorrect campaign against him while he was operating within policy (it had nothing to do with his editing speed, only with the edits themselves, which are justified, and the editor attacked him for deleting the images, which he cannot do, because he is not an administrator). As for the throttle, it is unlikely that the anti-BC cabal will ever allow for a consensus to be reached about suspending it, although I think it's a bit too tight. (I have been known to edit that quickly when I am doing a repetitive task, and I don't use any form of automated assistance for anything other than initiating XfDs or reverting some forms of vandalism.) Tagging images is unappreciated and thankless, but without it, the foundation's policy on image use would be totally unenforceable. That's not Delta's fault; it's the fault of admins who don't stand behind the policies that they are supposed to be upholding, or even (gasp!) actually FIXING the problems, such as adding FUR or copyright tags, or adding rationales for additional pages on which the image is displayed. If every active admin did just one problem per week, there would be 753 fewer images tagged each week, and some of our newer editors might learn how to handle it without getting bitten by an automated process. I did one earlier this week, and the newbie editor thanked me (and likely took note of what I did to prevent it from occurring again). And for those of you who are not admins, you can do the same thing; adding the relevant templates does not require the admin tools. Horologium (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because here is what you wrote: but if editors were to properly follow the policies governing the use of non-free images, Δ would neither blow up at clueless users nor spend an inordinate amount of time and effort removing inappropriate uses of images which are copyrighted. You place the blame for his behaviour squarely on others. Delta is responsible. What others do is utterly irrelevant. His blow-up isn't remotely understandable, he can walk away any time, and he does not need to be here, and if he can't be here and not blow up at people, he certainly doesn't need to be here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I re-engaged in this thread is because my initial comment was being used as a club by you (repeatedly), just as Delta's previous behavior was being used (repeatedly, and equally incorrectly) by a clueless user who clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Like Delta, I have an issue with my words and actions being used (inaccurately) as a weapon by those who are opposed to my position on an issue. Unlike Delta, I have not waded into an area which is desperately in need of users who are willing to deal with the nonsense generated by the hordes of "anything goes" editors who want untrammeled use of unfree images to decorate, illustrate, and otherwise adorn their creations, mostly of pop-culture nonsense which is in no way encyclopedic and shouldn't even have a single article on Wikipedia, let alone dozens of articles, sub-articles, lists, and so forth. I applaud Delta for going where angels fear to tread, and wish him the best, because a dedicated knot of users want to do everything in their power to drive him from the project, because nobody else is willing to tackle the nonsense which "fair use" images engenders. You may have the last word, because I'll not say anything more about this topic, except to oppose any topic or site ban proposals against Delta for enforcing the project's image policies. Horologium (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Right at the beginning of this topic, it was noted that this is not to do with Fair Use compliance but Δ's inability/refusal to comply with the communities requirements for him to conduct himself within acceptable community practices of conduct when dealing with issues arising from application of Fair Use policy - and to stay within the community set bounds to try and ensure his compliance - and yet here we are again with the usual suspects exhorting their stance on Fair Use criteria. It does not matter if Fair Use is a legal requirement and it does not matter if Fair Use or Copyright is some variation of "property is theft" (I believe that is the anti capitalist mantra, or was). What is at issue here is that we have an editor who is disruptive in the manner of their contributing (or at least that is a consensus for some of the interactions resulting from same) and has been allowed to continue to edit providing they do so under strict adherence to some agreed provisions and limitations - and this editor has breached those limits in several instances, and is presently giving no indication that they feel they need to be constrained by them in the future. The community should be deciding if they are content to allow the restrictions to be dropped, to be modified, or to be enforced, but all we seem to be doing is talking shit about Fair Use criteria - and how hard it is to get anyone but a rude fucker with contempt for the majorities concerns over his conduct to deal with it. If Δ gets banned again, now or in the future, and fails to get the community to overturn the sanction and then persuades ArbCom (or Jimbo) to allow him back (and never mind what conditions may be agreed this time) I am going to indef every involved person for disruption. So help me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• 20,000 edits without any complaints about rudeness, then he gets pushed and pushed until he breaks (I say again: 'how often do you have to kick a pitbull before it bites?') - calling Delta here a 'rude fucker', LessHeard vanU is a patent personal attack, which Delta did not deserve here. That is yet another example of double standard, LessHeard vanU. You now have a carte blanche to call Delta a 'rude fucker' as he can not respond with similar, or even less rudeness to this. So, similar to you, I am going to indef every editor who addresses such personal attacks at Delta, especially if such personal attacks result in Delta having to bite back. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yay, dueling indef threats over trivialities? This can only end well. Tarc (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yay, throwing personal attacks at others, and no-one reacting -- no, this will never end well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No one has to respond to "aggravation" (i.e. questions regarding actions taken, clarification sought) with incivility and personal attacks - but it is certainly being suggested above that Δ should be given leeway as regards compliance with such policy (and never mind the undertakings that allowed him to return to editing following his last ban) when no such flexibility is being demonstrated in regard to observance to others. That is a double standard being advocated in these discussions, for someone who apparently believes that "abuse" is an neutral language variation of "policy violation". What issue do you have with my descriptive term, the adjective or the amplifier or both? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, LessHeard vanU .. This is not 'No one has to respond to "aggravation" (i.e. questions regarding actions taken, clarification sought) with incivility and personal attacks', this is 'No one has to respond to "aggravation" (i.e. continuous personal attacks, incivility, insults &c.) with incivility and personal attacks. There is no suggestion that Delta should be given leeway on the former, but the only outburst in 20,000 edits to a person, which is the incivility by Delta that is being discussed here, and for which he got blocked, is in response to such personal attacks, incivility and insults. Still, that is the attitude that many, many editors display towards Delta. It may be that his language is not to everyones liking, it may be even be rude or incivil or however you see certain remarks, but it certainly does not help if editors feel that they can use incivility towards Delta in return. If we expect Delta to behave, then also behave yourself - and I do ask administrators not to think along lines of 'Delta is incivil, so who cares about others being editors being uncivil against Delta' and leaving those things be. Maybe it is time to also tone done those editors who are incivil against Delta (and no, that does NOT mean that I argue that Delta can be incivil, this means that I expect everybody to be civil). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I have stated I am not asking for special treatment, We have WP:NPA (policy) in place for a reason, I just want to see it apply to all editors calling me a rude fucker is about the worst personal attack that I have seen in ages. Yet because its directed at me, no less than 6 administrators that I have quietly asked to take a look have refused to do anything. And it looks like nothing will happen. I just want to see NPA/CIVIL apply to both sides, not just used as a club to harass me. As it stands the historical pattern is that you can call me what ever insult that comes to mind, and if after a while I get pissed of and lash back, I get blocked without as much as a second glance at those who pushed me to the point where I snapped. When I snap its never after just one or two comments, its after repeated attacks and insults, but most admins do not have the backbones to enforce NPA equally. If I had called anyone rude, or a fucker without a doubt I would be looking at a month block, LessHeard vanU sinks to a level where he calls me both and what happens....... Nothing. THIS IS THE SAME FUCKING CYCLE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR FOUR YEARS, ANY ATTACKS DIRECTED AT ME ARE IGNORED. This needs to stop. I'm tempted to send a note to Jimbo and see how long LessHeard vanU keeps his administrator privileges after such a crude and rude personal attack is brought to his attention. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We could escalate this, or we could all draw a deep breath try and draw a line under it and vow to be nicer to each other in future. Let's try the latter. Rd232 ^talk 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Reporting abusive allegations of vandalism and abusive generalised 'warning' threat

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF have been breached by the other party to a disagreement arising from redundant POVFORKing of Last surviving veteran of World War I — Preceding unsigned comment added by FascistCommandantToBeLookedUpTo (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I sense a boomerang coming here. The username is unacceptable, and looking through this user's edits there are some obvious concerns. → ROUX ₪ 20:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

An article that has been here for years is a POV Fork of a redirect that *you* just created? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user as a sockpuppet of banned User:SuperblySpiffingPerson. Hut 8.5 20:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Had to be him, I guess, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Has now been confirmed by checkuser. Hut 8.5 23:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War I has been full-protected 24 hours as a result; the article should immediately go back to semi-protection once that expires. –MuZemike 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And as soon as it was changed back to semi, he was back with another newly-confirmed sock - it's fully protected for a month now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?

I'm a little too adult to be baited here. However, I would not be overly susprised to find a connection between this user and the one mentioned in the last post on my talkpage. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time hearing much over all the quacking coming from there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[Special:Contributions/Misericord]] Seems to be blocked. Dlohcierekim 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 LBC United Football League

Resolved

 – deleted pages restored. talk page notices placed. Dlohcierekim 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a dumb question, but do we not put the old afd notice on the talk pages of surviving pages of a group afd? Dlohcierekim 15:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Even dumber question, why are the team pages being deleted as "A7:does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", when they survived a group AfD as a notable team? --64.85.216.36 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the ones that were deleted, and have tagged each Talk page with AfD "keep" notices -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because they were shortened. I narrowly missed deleting one and only checked the history belatedly. All good now. Dlohcierekim 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 24#Riscos.info and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27#Slammiversary IX

Resolved

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 24#Riscos.info and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27#Slammiversary IX? The first discussion is about to fall off the DRV log. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The latter might need discussion; give me a shout if I can help (obv, I am 'involved' to say the least)  Chzz  ►  22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Both closed now. --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, RL0919, for closing the two DRV discussions. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

" "  Chzz  ►  22:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocking users

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

Tech stuff is tech stuff; no admin action needed  Chzz  ►  22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

Is anyone else having issues with blocking users or IPs? After two or so attempts, my browser just keeps waiting on the page to respond. So I refresh and try again, but then I just get a Database error. KiloT 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue, thought Kingpin13 managed to block a user at 14:17 (UTC). NW (Talk) 14:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a database error the first few tries too, though. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Same here... —GFOLEY FOUR— 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Happens every now and then; usually only lasts 10 minutes or so. Seems to be okay now. Kuru (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut out the edit ping pong folks. This is marked resolved - no more posts or reversions of any kind needed here. Move along, nothing to see.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

How can I view this?

I'm concerned about a possible pattern of editing and want to view the rev/del'd edit of the deleted article Lee Munson and can't figure out how to do it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't -- the edits have been oversighted, not revdeleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks. I was wondering if that might be the case. If I'd checked who had done it I would have known! Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Community ban discussion for Maheshkumaryadav

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

---

User links: Maheshkumaryadav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Maheshkumaryadav was the subject of discussion in a few prior WP:ANI threads; most notable are Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#User:Maheshkumaryadav and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles. In the latter, he was indefinitely blocked for about 4 hours because he was not listening to the emerging community consensus that he was creating new articles improperly (issues which were first addressed at length on xyr talk page). After being unblocked upon a promise to listen to the community, the article creation topic ban was formally enacted. Less than a day later, Mahesh tried to get the article creation ban removed, despite showing no understanding of what the underlying problem was, basically including the fact that xe was 1) creating stubs with no usable information and no verification, 2) that method xe was using to do splits was violating our licensing agreements, and 3) the splitting was never discussed and turned out to be against community consensus. After that, the community moved to enact a full ban on Mahesh, because xe clearly seemed to be not understanding key Wikipedia policies and was showing a continuing unwillingness to respond to community concerns (basically, a "My way is right, you all must be wrong or not understanding me" approach). That discussion appeared to be heading towards consensus. During it, I stepped in and offered to mentor Mahesh; my belief at the time was that he clearly has a passion for adding information to the encyclopedia, and he's working in an area (coverage of India) that we currently don't do a great job in covering (it's one of the most obvious cases of Wikipedia's systemic bias, that the largest English speaking country in the world is so relatively under-covered). I offered a strict set of guidelines that would enable Mahesh to start learning about Wikipedia, working first out of sandboxes and gradually moving back to regular editing. Mahesh accepted these guidelines, with the specific understanding that violating them would result in the original ban proposal likely being returned to and confirmed.

For a week or so, things seemed to be improving. At the suggestion of User:Anna Frodesiak, Mahesh began work on expanding our coverage of dowries in India, and Mahesh was working on a draft in xyr userspace to that regard, which I was giving feedback on. Through the end of May, his editing was trickling off; in response, he stated at one point that he was "getting less spare time", but that would continue to work on the userspace draft. Mahesh's last edit was on 31 May.

On June 1, a new user, Creatingabetterworld (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia. Xe very soon began making edits in the same topic area and of the same style as Mahesh (note, in particular, the creation of multiple highly improbable redirects for the new articles he created). User:Sitush opened an SPI on June 2; on June 4 a checkuser found that the possibility of the two accounts being the same person was  Likely. Same dynamic ISP, and same UA's. As such, Mahesh and the sock were both indefinitely blocked. Since then, Mahesh has made no edits to xyr talkpage to explain what happened.

I believe that we have no choice but to follow through with the originally promised ban. Mahesh was given a final chance with clear conditions and a clear explanation of what the consequences would be for not following those conditions, and xe went ahead and broke them anyway. Perhaps some day in the future Mahesh will be able to demonstrate that xe has learned how Wikipedia works, that it is not a platform for advocacy, and that, fundamentally, it requires a collaborative approach. For now, the behavior is too disruptive (if you want an idea of how disruptive, please read this section of xyr talk page, which i a copy of a document that Anna Frodesiak, Sitush, and myself worked on containing the massive number of articles, splits, etc. that Mahesh created that required us to spend dozens of hours trying to fix, some of which is still not done).

I will go notify Mahesh (et al); I will let Mahesh know that if xe has any comments xe wishes to make regarding this discussion, I will copy them from xyr talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - User doesn't get it, and refuses to listen. Socking to get around the restrictions is completely unacceptable. However. Just to be sure that we are only dealing with competence issues, has an editor who has a native language in common with Mahesh (as I presume from his writing that English is a second language) spoken to him in that language in an attempt to resolve any communication difficulties? If not, I suggest we pursue that option before enacting a full ban. And should a full ban be enacted, that someone with a native language in common explain in that language exactly what the ban means. → ROUX ₪ 02:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: As far as I know, his actual native language is unknown to users here on Wikipedia, since we were never informed on such details. Someone correct me if I am wrong. India (assuming that is where he is from) is home to many different languages, and it would be difficult to assume or guess which one. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Per here, Standard Hindi or Bengali would be the best bets, depending on exactly where Mahesh's IP geolocates to. Could someone from WP:INDIA help out perhaps? I wish to note that I really don't think there's a communication barrier here; it's merely intransigence. But a community ban is a fairly nuclear option, so we should at least double-check to be 100% (as opposed to 99.99999... %) sure it is not a communication issue. → ROUX ₪ 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban as I did before but with more understanding and resolve now. Clearly the editor's attitude towards the project has gotten the best of them. I had hope the mentoring would work out but it didn't.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I am not familiar with this editor, if there is a chance of a communication gap then this avenue should be exhausted first, provided we can determine what language Mahesh is more comfortable with. On the other hand the act of Sock puppetry has the same intent regardless of language and the CheckUser information has been verified by Courcelles, couple that with the initial agreement I see no other recourse than to enforce that agreement.
  Mlpearc powwow 04:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• I've asked this editor if there is another language that we can communicate in. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor has stated that Hindi is their mother tongue. I think it is worth an attempt to communitcate in Hindi, so that the editor can have no doubt what policies they need to adhere to etc. The editor is also asking about a clean start. Whilst not elibigle as blocked, is there a way around this in the medium term? Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There's a Hindi Wikipedia. If the editor can address the concerns raised in this ban discussion and not violate copyright, then a clean start may be a possibility. Support ban. MER-C 13:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. I'm familiar with the issue, which I followed at AN/I. I applaud the efforts of several editors first to channel Mahesh's enthusiasm and then to try and control it when it became disruptive.; it was a good example of the community showing exemplary patience rather than reaching for an immediate banhammer. Sadly Mahesh has not proven receptive and I don't think it's a language issue (hir posts and edits were always in reasonable English) and more of an attitude one. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. This is not a communications issue. Indeed, his command of English puts to shame quite a few native English speakers whom I have come across. The user has time and again attempted to subvert Wikipedia processes, taking a half-step back and then lunging forward over the line once more. He simply does not get it. The community has wasted far, far too much time trying to deal with this and has explored every other option that I can think of. I personally am absolutely exhausted with it all, and disappointed for all of those who put the hours in trying to resolve this. Even now, in the message to which Roux links above, he is not in the slightest apologetic. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support of a ban. He has no excuse. Not language, not misunderstanding policy, not even competency. Nothing. Any claim that the aforementioned disabilities are a factor, can be sharply refuted by edits that he's made that favour his position. There is overwhelming evidence that he is selectively obtuse, and uses that to get his way. This editor has caused more damage to this project than any other I have seen. On top of all that, he has betrayed our trust. A third chance? I think not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• I was hoping that more rehabilitation would work, even if it required more topic bans and short term blocks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support If you sock to avoid a restriction placed on you by the community, you just lost your editing privilages. The fact that they were told in no uncertain terms multiple times about their creation of articles gives creedance to the community blocking. They've somewhat used their standard offer by socking after the previous Indef to do the exact same thing they were blocked for. Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support The restrictions were clear and there is no question that the editor had clearly understood both the restrictions themselves as well as the reasons behind them. Socking to create a slew of articles to get around an article creation ban is about as egregious as it gets. --rgpk (comment) 13:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, however sadly. Lots of editors spent a tremendous amount of time trying to help this individual to no avail. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Several admirably patient efforts to resolve the issues with this user have failed. A ban is the only remaining alternative. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support OP makes a good case; due process had happened with attempts to resolve. Enough is enough.  Chzz  ►  22:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Good effort, Qwyrxian, but as expected it didn't work out the way we all hoped. Mahesh has thoroughly exhausted his welcome on Wikipedia, and should not be offered any standard offer, imo. If he wants to appeal, he can go to ArbCom. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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

History of video game consoles (Eighth generation)

has been recreated. It was previously deleted and salted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (5th nomination). The latest creator captialized the Eight and got around protection. I believe it is substantially improved, but is was salted. Not sure how to proceed at this point. The easiest course would be to delete and take my chances at WP:DRV. Would like some advice. I will notify the creator of this post. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 02:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Final reminder: Arbitration policy update and ratification

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. The policy has been extensively reviewed over the last two years, with a series of wide-ranging community consultations, to bring the written document up to date. The proposed update is posted and is undergoing community ratification, which is due to close on 13 June 2011. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the ratification process.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

A blocking note, with a WMF question

Hello all--rookie here comes to you with a question. I'll copy a suggestion place on my talk page and my response, and would like to ask you to weigh in. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your block here

Hi Drmies,

Of course, I support this block, and who wouldn't? Thanks for taking care of it. I just wonder if it's enough... for instance, the typical process is to release a block after disavowal of the legal threats, but his personal attacks were so vile that I don't think that should happen here. Do you think it makes sense to alter the block to reflect that second reason? I'd rather not do it myself, because I don't want it to look like a WMF ban... (it's not, if you or the community decide I'm crazy or over-reacting on this, do as you will with my blessing!). Thanks for everything that you do. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Philippe: I have to tell you, I'm new on the job here, and have yet to deal with an unblock request according to the process you describe above. From what I've seen at ANI, such disavowing isn't that frequent--I've never seen such editors return--but I'm sure it has happened or can happen. I made an extra note in my block summary, "Besides disruptive editing, spam, foul language, and bad manners," and I assume that an admin who would consider unblocking would take that as a prompt to look more carefully into the content of the edits, which were, indeed, pretty vile. But for me, the primary reason was the legal threat, so I'm a bit hesitant to change that in hindsight, even though your argument makes sense. How about this: I will place a notice on AN, to call on the collective wisdom of those who've been in this situation, and we'll see what they say. Thank you for your kind words, and for your interest in the matter. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

• If they withdraw their legal threat - I hope that they don't, because I want to see their lawyer attempt to argue that WP has deformed their client - then they can be advised that they are no longer blocked per WP:NLT, and that their continued block is in respect of WP:NPA regarding the comments regarding Wikipedia volunteers and WP:DISRUPT in relation to their language. I think it does not matter under what rationale a sanction was initially or specifically made under, other violations of policy may come into play was the primary issue has been resolved. Under the circumstances, I support that the block not be lifted should the legal threat be withdrawn since other violations remain that are also worthy of an indefinite tariff. If they are also to remove those remarks and acknowledge the impropriety of same, then they may be considered for unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Generic WP:VSCA, generic threat to head for Trenton, NJ. Really, there's nothing to see here; there are three good reasons for blocking (NLT, spamming and personal abuse), any of which would be sufficient in itself. A classic case of "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out". Guy (Help!) 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Even if he retracted the legal threat, I still would not unblock unless he addresses his childlike potty-mouth and blatant attacks at others. –MuZemike 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Well, thank you all for responding--you said pretty much what I had thought (and hoped) you'd say. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Practical suggestion on tabloids

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Practical suggestion on tabloids? The discussion was archived from Template:Centralized discussion on 4 June 2011. No discussion has occurred in a week. Cunard (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron32, for closing and summarizing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Athens Metro

Resolved

 – No administrator intervention needed. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I want to report a problem, about the article Athens Metro. Well actually the main problem is with User:Sv1xv. Although I understand that he has a great contribution in Wikipedia, he seems a little bit of stubborn about the specific article, or I should say, he believes that he owns it. If me, or anyone else, changes something there, even a "dot", he is going to revert it because he doesn't like it. For example, in my last edit, I updated the Athens Metro Map (by adding 3 new stations) so i changed also the text below the map [it was : A map of rapid transit systems in Athens, showing ISAP (green line)
and Attiko Metro (red and blue lines), in 2007 ] to the new text: A map of rapid transit systems in Athens. Meaning that it is up-to-date, and the word rapid transit includes both ISAP and Attiko Metro lines... But he reverted again, using as excuse: "The regular sneaky POV edits".

Well I think that someone should stop that! Really I appreciate his contribution, but he can not do anything he want! And also by his meaning "regula sneaky" he means that the kind of changes (which refer to ISAP and Attiko metro) are regular because many try to change the article, but he reverts it again. What I mean is that if you check Athens Metro in all other languages, you will find out that there are 3 rapid transit lines in Athens. The line 1 (operated by ISAP SA) and lines 2 & 3 (operated by AMEL SA). So many other try to put in the article information about all three lines. User Sv1xv, insists that line 1 is not a metro line, because it is operated by other company (ISAP) and is not actualy underground. If we keep believing in his opinion, then actually we should change the article to: Attiko Metro (operation company) SA and not "Athens Metro",since it refers only to lines 2 & 3!

Finally in Greece there is not a clear dinstiction between what metro and what is not. ISAP means electrical railways of Athens-Piraeus. Metro is also electrical railways in Athens Metropolitan area. And the reason that AMEL lines are numbered 2 & 3, means that there is another line before them (ie ISAP line 1)..

Can we open a discusion please about that?

--Skgxt2 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin Help You don't appear to be an administrator, Sv1xv doesn't appear to be an administrator. What administrative notice are you looking for? Of note you should consider opening a discussion on their talk page or at the article's talk page. To be edit waring over the caption of a image seems lame. Finally, you did not notify Sv1xv of this discussion, I have done this for you. Hasteur (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The hard fact is that currently there are two rapid transit systems in Athens, Athens-Piraeus Electric Railways )owned by OASA) and Athens Metro (owned by Attiko Metro and operated by AMEL). For whatever reasons, up to now these two systems are completely separate operations (you may check their respective web sites), although there is an effort to merge them in a new company. Both systems are well covered in articles ISAP and Athens Metro respectively, and there is a reasonable level of cross reference. User:Skgxt2 and a few IP addresses try for a long time to change Athens Metro to include ISAP in Athens Metro so it covers the whole rapid transit system. They try to enforce their POV approach by sneakily modifying parts of the articles, especially Athens Metro (changing the number of the stations, modifying isolated phrases and legends etc). I believe that this discussion does not belong here, but was forced to post it here by unjustified actions of User:Skgxt2. SV1XV (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is not an issue requiring administrator intervention. Try dispute resolution. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Block request

Resolved

 – Already blocked ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please block Deleon98 (talk · contribs) indefinitely? I reported him to AIV half an hour ago, but he has not been blocked. He has been adding factual errors, BLP issues and vandalizing page, thank you. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog appears to have been reduced. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please stop by WP:AIV? Several reports have been sitting for several hours without action. ElKevbo (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And now the Account Creation tests are live

It's with no small amount of pride that I can tell you: The tests of the new account creation processes that I have told you about previously are now launched.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&action=submitlogin&type=signup&campaign=ACP1
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&action=submitlogin&type=signup&campaign=ACP2

They are not perfect, but they are something that we can work from. I know that at least I will tweak them during the next week to get the most out of them. And although the main goal is to make it easier and more inspiring for the newcomers, the community is of course invited to speak your mind about good and bad aspects of this.

As there have been some confusion over this point previously: this is not a top-down process where I (or someone from the Wikimedia Foundation) decides "how it's going be" without regards to what the community think. I'm very much a Wikipedian and long for collaborations with others. For instance, I have re-written the form after your suggestions, and will continue to ask for your input and help. Thanks to everybody who have commented and helped out so far.

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty puzzled by the Reason box, but it seems this only displays to logged-in users, and the three check boxes below for bypassing the blacklist etc., but they only show wto an admin user. (or I suppose anyone with account-creator). DGG (alternate account) (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you'll want to be logged out to ensure you get the standard form layout.--Eloquence* 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When I looked, there was a box at the bottom which included "By adding what you know...". I understand that the aim is to get people started without a bunch of bureaucracy, but that wording needs reworking because any addition of "what you know" to an article is going to be reverted as unsourced (i.e. the new user is inadvertently led into a trap). Or, is there something to clarify that later in the process? Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it. The new screen makes you expect to be led through a three-step process, but once you're at step 2, you're basically just in the normal Wikipedia working environment. How do you ever get to step three? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorrry for the delay in responding. Thanks for your comments and your kind tone.

First, let me recommend two things. A) check out Category:New Wikipedians 2011-06. They are coming from one of the new account creation processes. Some of them have only clicked save, without changing the text, and some of them have written about themselves. Please talk to them. Ask the former group to write about themselves, and recommend the other group some articles to work on. I will do that, starting tomorrow. B) people from the other process have been seeing one of thirty lists of suggestions for articles to work on, based on their skills and interests. Those lists are going to get out of date soon, so please help updating them with new things to do. You can find them on my user page, with the names like this one: MediaWiki:Customusertemplate-ACP2-Be_a_part_of_Wikipedia_(History,_Research_&_Writing).

Second, do any of you have a suggestion for new wording of the phrase that presently says "what you know" that includes something about sources? As a non-native speaker, it's hard for me to find a phrase that sounds good there.

Third, the third step is the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner, but I guess it could be made to look more like the rest of the progress bar. Let me look into changing it, or you can do it if you have some design skills.

Again, thanks for the comments and the pleasant tone. I will let you know as soon as I have stats about how successful they were compared to the old one.//Hannibal (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Change Title Request

Resolved

 – Page moved. –xeno^talk 14:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could an administrator please change a title for me? Current title: (5 quote marks)IEEE Magnetics Letters(5 quote markes). New title: IEEE Magnetics Letters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalmagnetism (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

need neutral admin to close discussion

I think the discussion is obvious. But then, it's the spin off of another discussion that I thought was obvious that provoked a lot of contentious comments from a single editor. I would prefer it someone neutral and uninvolved make the call, so that I don't have to Here's the discussion involved. [26]

Thanks in advance. This should be easy. Really. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a consensus in that discussion whether to merge the content or simply redirect. Is there a reason you want the discussion closed now instead of waiting the normal 30 days for RfCs to close? -Atmoz (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A redirect would be tantamount to deleting it, as the content would be lost, but deletion of the article did not get a consensus at AfD, so the only options really available to the participants is to keep it as is, or to merge the content to another article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting is not deletion, and a no consensus close means no action pending additional discussion, not a consensus to keep. I left a longer reply at Talk:Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series#RfC: merging as outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(moved my response, originally posted here, to the RfC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User pages deletion request

Is there a good way that I can request a mass deletion of user pages in my own user space (aside form tagging them all individually, of course)? I created them all, and am the only contributor, so they easily fall under CSD-U1.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A list on your talkpage with {{adminhelp}} attached usually does the trick. Since you've already gone and started a thread here though, you might as well list them below and bored admins should pick them off before long. Skomorokh 16:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Done - the list of a user's subpages is linked from their contributions, so that was simple enough. I dearly hope that this is not prelude to retiring or anything silly like that, Ohms law, as I would miss seeing you around. I left the *.css and *.js pages on the off chance that you might want them, just give the word here or {{db-user}} them if you want them gone. I also left your BotNotice page, as it has a fair number of transclusions. Go ahead and request deletion of that too if it is not going to bork anything. Anyone can, of course, go to my log to see what was deleted; undeletion should be uncontroversial if you decide there was something you would like kept. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Skomorokh. I pinged you on your talk page 2over0. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion rather thin on admins

Can we get some more admin eyes in this discussion before it becomes the Haymaker and Lionelt's Amazing Double Act echo chamber? I don't spend hours compiling diffs for my own personal enjoyment... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tis a long time since anyone referred to me as thin... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hee! (Mind you, I'm certainly glad you responded - I've seen more than one ANI close inconclusively after being totally swamped by the parties involved and by their friends, with little to no admin intervention, so it's good to see that you've got a handle on it.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

problem

hello, guys,

i am cyperus and i am writer on wikipedia since many time now. i am kickboxing write, i update stats and events.

an user is laughing of my work, this is not possible. i will not write anymore on wikipedia because of him! :((

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperKombat_World_Grand_Prix_I (here is the article; viewed by many, sourced and notable, one of the biggest promotions or second from Europe after It's Showtime)

and this is the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbb23

please help me! he doesnt respect my work! i am so sad... thank you! ps. sorry for writing here

You need to realize that you don't own what you write here on Wikipedia. It says right next to the "Save page" button about agreeing to release your contributions under our free content licenses, allowing others to add, modify, or delete as deemed fit. See our "you do not own articles" policy regarding this. This goes to everybody else, as well; if you cannot understand that your contributions can be mercilessly edited at will by others, then you are going to have problems here. –MuZemike 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Even though cyperus is writing here about me, I doubt it's necessary for me to respond, but here it is anyway.

The best spin I can put on cyperus's conduct with respect to the SuperKombat article is he doesn't understand Wikipedia policies, what other editors tell him, and doesn't take the time to read the AfD tag I put on the article. It says clearly it shouldn't be removed. Yet, he removed it. In restoring the tag, I told him, both in the edit summary and on his Talk page (he removes material from his Talk page he doesn't like) that AfD tags cannot be removed. Another editor also did the same thing, but cyperus persisted until he was finally blocked. His behavior certainly seems willful on the surface, but I suppose it's possible it's not. Certainly, I am not "laughing" at or disrespecting his contributions. Like many other articles I look at on Wikipedia, I don't have any real knowledge of the subject, in this case kickboxing, but that, of course, doesn't prevent me from applying Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as neutrally and objectively as I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page#Formal proposal to put Featured Lists on the main page from 13 June

Would an admin close Talk:Main Page#Formal proposal to put Featured Lists on the main page from 13 June? The poll was set to close on "23:59 UTC on Saturday, 11 June". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MuZemike (talk · contribs), for closing the proposal. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Abd

Given EnergyNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) following on from an unsuccessful appeal of the topic ban re Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I am assuming that Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now considered banned? It's probably best if someone else tags the user page and links to the various sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 02:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He's under an indefinite block and a cold fusion ban, but I don't think he's site-banned...yet. T. Canens (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say that sockpuppetry to evade ArbCom sanctions is pretty much a slam dunk for a siteban, wouldn't you? He's topic banned from cold fusion, appealed the topic ban, was declined, registered a sock pretending not to be Abd, was rumbled and permanently blocked. Sockpuppetry to evade a topic ban leading to an indefinite block - who's going to lift that block? Especially given that the whole problem with Abd has always been an inability to accept that he is anything other than 100% right? Guy (Help!) 19:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He's been documenting his evasion of his block at Wikiversity [27]. Given that he's turning topic ban evasion into a research project I think a siteban is more than called for. Hut 8.5 23:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, given that, I wonder if it's possible to arrange a *global* ban from all WMF projects, because I can't see how it could possibly be appropriate to allow him to edit on ANY Foundation page, as he'll clearly use it as a way to try to further push his cold fusion POV. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Given that Abd is already permanently banned from editing the english Wikipedia, and further given his use of Wikiversity to document his disruption of Wikipedia, the topic of discussion here should be if and how to impose a ban on him on all WMF projects. The best venue to do it, I think, would be to work through it with the Office people. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling for a global ban is a bad idea. Partially for the reasons listed below (tl:dr LBJ's comments on J. Edgar Hoover: "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in".) but also because the absolute last thing you give to someone who loves nothing more than spinning tales of persecution is a good reason to keep going. Seems fairly harmless to have him writing to himself on wikiversity until the folks over there decide otherwise. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to be implied here that Wikiversity somehow cares about someone being banned on the English Wikipedia. Trying to go to the Office to get a global ban instated seems like a method of avoiding having to say that, if Wikiversity didn't want him, then they would ban him themselves. Since they haven't, they obviously don't care about his actions on English Wikipedia (nor should they, since his actions aren't vandalism, they're just the cold fusion topic area). Silverseren^C 19:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WMF projects don't have to "care" about each other, per se, but they do have a responsibility not to aid and abet people causing damage to other WMF projects. if Wikiversity didn't want him, then they would ban him themselves. - That would be true if they had competent administration. They do not, as was illustrated the last time a Wikipedia-banned user went to WV and tried to conduct a "research project" into distrupting editing, with tacit approval of the WV administrators. (That ended when Jimbo stepped in and shut it down, to the gnashing of teeth of the WV administrators who had until then stood idly by). Since they haven't, they obviously don't care about his actions on English Wikipedia - Agreed, this is obviously true. nor should they, since his actions aren't vandalism, - Wrong. He disrupted Wikipedia for years on numerous topics, wasted the time and energy of innumerable users, and to this day has yet to make a single useful edit. After he was deservedly community banned, he came back to sockpuppet, causing yet more disruption. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If Abd's socks come to attention here, they'll be blocked. If he's quietly editing some non-cold-fusion-related topic with socks, then what's the harm? I don't think we have any jurisdiction over Wikiversity. I agree that they've made some really self-destructive decisions, but if they want to position themselves as a less interesting and more self-deluded version of Wikipedia Review, it's on them.

      Abd clearly has a great deal of prose of which he needs to unburden himself on a daily basis, and it doesn't seem to matter to him whether anyone is actually listening. So Wikiversity is actually sort of a good fit. At some point, the site will have to decide whether it wants to be an echo chamber for boring Wikipedia vendettas or whether it wants to be taken seriously, but I don't think we as Wikipedians can force that decision. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Two problems with Abd's involvement at Wikiversity: the tendency of a small cabal there to abuse WMF resources to refight battles they lost on Wikipedia; and the attempt to set up in competition to enWP as an information resource on topics where he is banned here. I think we know enough by now to be certain that Abd lacks self-criticism and is unable to distinguish between MPOV and NPOV. That said, I was actually questioning whether he should be considered formally banned from enWP at this point (and hence subject to WP:RBI and the game of whack-a-mole). Guy (Help!) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Although uninvolved throughout, I'm not particularly active lately, so take this as you will:

• Abd has created a wonderful garden over at WV, with at least one mainspace? page bearing a prominent notice with a link advertising their COI, which link leads to their commercial website that sells cold-fusion test kits. Well OK, they don't actually have the kit available yet, apparently there is some problem with finalizing the actual working model, but still, you can buy all the components and try it yourself. Just one link away from a WMF wiki, but Abd is careful to stress that it's all quite hypothetical.
• So yes, WV seems quite willing to tolerate the promotion, and they also seem willing to tolerate maintenance of pages which will apparently be used some day as data points in a study of alternate approaches to editing whilst banned from a WMF wiki, which wiki happens to be this one. Interesting air of clinical detachment there, more power to them I guess.
• With respect to documenting "experiments" with the Wikipedia society (which is one interpretation of the entries in Abd's WV userspace) I would point the community attention to the case of User:Roadcreature (GdB), who discussed a somewhat similar experiment and was summarily banned (per my proposal, also uninvolved).
• Further, although it seems obvious that a de facto ban exists, in that no admin in their right mind will ever unblock, there is a big loophole in the chain of policy/guideline if there is no one single ban discussion to point to. If you're an admin, you can block away for "block evasion" or "sockpuppet" or even "disruptive editing" - BUT you can't actually revert the edits more than once, else you risk running afoul of EW and eventually 3RR. The situation is much worse for actual editors (those without the sysop bit, 'wut edit the actual artikles).
• Considering the above, and having watched this operator from back in the delegable-proxy days, I see a net negative and would support a community ban for Abd. They have consitently contributed large amounts of material discussing what Abd thinks about everything at all. Most compellingly for me, they have consistently and extensively discussed, here and elsewhere, why they (and they alone) have the key insights to divine the true nature of this wiki, and it would seem, reality. I've never seen that sort of editor work out, ever even once, Support community ban. Franamax (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  Abd is already (permanently) community banned. If he wants back, he can appeal to the arbcom, which (given how GoRight's appeal proceeding) seems highly unlikely to approve. Raul654 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Could you link to the community ban discussion? It would be helpful to put it at the top of this thread to help clarify a rather muddled discussion. Skomorokh 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, since I am not aware of it. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain also that he was community banned, but that was never the purpose of this discussion. Jzg Some users above are trying to force him to be banned from all of the other Wiki projects, essentially a global site ban. However, that is something that is not under our jurisdiction, nor anyone in this community, nor even the entire English Wikipedia community as a whole. We have no authority over the other projects and rightfully so. If they (Wikiversity specifically) decide that they don't want to ban him, then that is their prerogative and we have no right to try and force them to. English Wikipedia is not in charge of the other projects and if you try to say that it is, i'm quite sure you're going to have a lot of pissed off responses from people. Silverseren^C 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What a curious interpretation. Guy is asking here for confirmation of a community ban, not "fairly certain". Is or is not Abd banned? If so, where is the discussion? And Guy has not suggested a WMF-wide ban, even once, as he is quite likely aware that indeed en:wiki doesn't run the entire project. Such discussions belong at Meta, not here. We are talking about a ban from English Wikipedia. Do you support or oppose such a ban? Franamax (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I apologize. I misread the discussion above. The users supporting a global ban were Rdfox and Raul, not Jzg. Stricken from my comment above. I'm rather neutral on a community ban, as I don't feel that Abd is really to that extent compared to the usual criteria we hold for community bans. On the other hand, he has very clearly been disruptive and is fully deserving of the indefinite block. So i'm kinda in the middle there. Silverseren^C 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Abd from English Wikipedia

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

In balancing any discussion, the closers job is to assess consensus. What we have here is strong support for a community ban of Abd, with opposition that varies from informative commentary, to some actual opposition to the ban, to opposition of the time this ban discussion consumed, to a desire for ArbCom to handle this user. Opposing a discussion's burden of time is not taken as opposition to the action proposed. We, as a community, hold the power to ban users, and I place little weight, correspondingly, in a desire to have the Arbitration Committee handle this, a course of action that will, without doubt, consume even more time of users and Arbitrators. Even if I wasn't willing to partially discount some comments here, we remain with a strong consensus that Abd should be banned from the English Wikipedia indefinitely, that only becomes stronger when the strength of arguments is considered. Therefore, Abd is banned from the English Wikipedia by a consensus of the editing community. Courcelles 06:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Abd (talk · contribs)

Abd has been a disruptive presence on this wiki for several years now. This disruption is characterized by attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes (e.g. delegable-proxy, self-reversion whilst blocked/banned, placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes which "you don't have to read" but will be referred to nevertheless as being accepted if not read, maintaining unacceptable pages in userspace on the claim they constitute "evidence" in arbitration cases); a latter fixation on the topic of cold fusion, including promotion of copyright-violating external links and support for other site-banned editors; and sockpuppetry in the support of that same cause. An aggravating factor is Abd's participation at external and sister-project sites where they pursue the same agenda, and COI pursuit of commercial interests in cold fusion.

Abd is currently blocked indefinitely and subject to ArbCom sanctions, however it appears that no formal community discussion has ever taken place on the topic of a ban from this wiki. Thus I propose a community ban for Abd. I have deliberately not included links or diffs in the above, as many editors will be well aware of this history. However if such links are requested, I will try to supply them, and anyone else can feel free to do so also within or immediately below this preamble. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few links for those who want them. Abd was topic banned from cold fusion-related articles by ArbCom for a year as a result of a pattern of disruptive editing (including, but certainly not limited to, his communication style). When this sanction expired Abd continued the pattern of disruptive edits that got the ban imposed in the first place, with the result that the sanction was reimposed as a community sanction. This topic ban is still in effect, and Abd has absolutely no intention of abiding by it. Abd was indefinitely blocked a few months ago and has since made numerous edits to Wikipedia in violation of that block and his topic ban, evidence of which is at Wikiversity.[28] He seems to have got it into his head that it's acceptable to violate the ban provided the edit is reverted immediately afterwards, though consensus is against the idea (as Abd knows). The fact that Abd is participating at Wikiversity isn't a reason for a ban, of course, but the fact that he's engaging in repeated sockpuppetry on this wiki and shows no signs of stopping is. Abd's talk page at the time of his block contains numerous statements of intention to engage in disruptive behaviour, if you're prepared to read it: With due process exhausted, my compliance becomes no longer a matter of obligation... Wikipedia has not seen what would happen were I to treat it as a battleground... At the end of the road, however, there is no road, no confining path, I can move in any direction, unconstrained by expectations... I know what it takes to truly stop an editor. It's impossible, in fact. You can just revert the edits and apply range blocks, and even then it doesn't work, it just causes collateral damage... Sorry, but with your third block of me (one admin against the Powers of Evil!), you destroyed my will to cooperate, so, unless something changes, I'm not cooperating any more, period. Hut 8.5 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Raul654 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - massive timesink, massive communicative issues, one of en.wiki's preeminent experts in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATese, perhaps the single most concentrated example of WP:RANDY, bad-faith edits to Cold fusion and related articles, attracts and feeds off of fellow timesink editors like flies to a lightbulb made of pure honey, a manipulative wiki-lawyer and process wonk when it suits him, and did I mention the communicative issues? Net negative. Badger Drink (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Franamax summarizes my feelings quite well as does Badger Drink. My first experience of Abd was at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd_2. I remember the games playing all too well. That he has continued such behaviors on and off Wikipedia for so long only underscores the patience the community is willing to extend its members. It's time for his departure to become permanent. Dlohcierekim 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Some people know they are right, and a ban is the best way for the rest of us to handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support long history of disruptive editing, problematic behaviour and a refusal to abide by community sanctions or modify their behaviour. Hut 8.5 08:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Apart from policy &c, Abd's participation is a large net negative for the project, wasting a lot of other contributors' time and goodwill. bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, given the socking and obvious disdain for community processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Advocating COI material and blatant ignorance of anti-socking policy is inexcusable...and that guy had the nerve to seek adminship? No. and I tend to agree with those who correctly state that he is using Wikiversity to refight old vendettas, sound like beating dead horses.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in principle. Let the ArbComm do what it's supposed to do. This "community ban" process is like a high-school clique ganging up on a classmate. The classmate may have even deserved it, but it doesn't make the whole process any less disgusting. Lack of effective ArbComm enforcement is no excuse.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 13:51 (UTC)

I think this is a matter the community can handle. Dlohcierekim 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, dear Sir. I didn't realize this thread is strictly for the members of the clique "community" who cast only the "support" votes... But it seems to be more than three of y'all, no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 14:01 (UTC)

• Support Resolute 14:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• support, shown that they are not going to be constructive, by the socking and documenting it on wikiversity ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Long overdue. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems necessary here due to many past editing problems noted by various editors above. Captain panda 17:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, totally in agreement with Ëzhiki -- this is a disgusting spectacle. The accused "attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes." Was that lifted from a political "trial" in Maoist China? Go, team! Writegeist (talk)
• Oppose Not only for my basic belief that draconian solutions do not work, but for the idea that somehow not giving any diffs makes a case of some sort. I also regard participation in external sites to be an invalid rationale for such a ban. Lastly, "unpopularity contests" form an exceedingly bad means of governance for any organization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I wasn't going to vote, but I was just sitting here watching the ridiculous support reasons pile up and decided enough was enough. Dlohcierekim bogus support reason and then the inappropriate response to Ezhiki was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I still don't comprehend how referencing an RfA that ended with nearly 50% support is somehow a negative thing toward Abd. Unbelievable. Silverseren^C 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Collect; the lack of diffs in the discussion of a community ban for an editor who contributed mostly productively since February 2005 is off-putting, and two of the rationales for a community ban ("placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes" and participation on external sites) seem invalid reasons for a community ban. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ëzhiki; this is indeed an unsavoury spectacle. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see how a community ban will make any difference on how Abd is being dealt with presently - per the indef block and ArbCom sanctions - so I therefore see no need for one. At best such a ban is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to the issue, and at worse may simply generate a list of people who wish to flag the fact that they don't like Abd. I am in no mood to join in or endorse such an exercise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  The rationale for enacting a formal ban, as I mentioned in the thread above, is that it enables the formal 3RR shield for reversions. Abd has made clear they intend to keep editing regardless of blocks or bans. All this does is remove the possibility of them tripping someone up on an en edit-warring block. It seems a bad recipe if you can report an editor to be blocked, but you have to let their edit stand. Even with the very recent change at WP:EW (where you commented), the requirement is still for a "tagged" sockpuppet, which does add an extra layer of bureaucracy and/or guarantees that an edit must stand for some period of time. Don't get me wrong, I like the added wording there, I just think it could be tweeaked. Franamax (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, although my opposition still stands. Rather than "tweaking" the wording at WP:EW further, defining the new wording by deed would be my preferred course of action - and it would not be an issue if it were edits by Abd, or that I reverted them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ëzhiki and Silver seren. I was also unaware, per Firsfron's obeservation, that we now apparently censor what editors (if their off-Wiki personas are known) may do outside of Wikipedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to sanction Abd for off-wiki behaviour but for on-wiki behaviour that happens to be documented on an external wiki. Hut 8.5 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Please note that Abd POV-pushed in Cold fusion until he was banned, flooding the talk page with walls of text and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. That was his almost only activity in wikipedia during the last 2 years. Then he attempted several times to game his topic ban from cold fusion. Arbcom also banned him from entering disputes from where he was not one of the originators of the dispute here, due to he troubles he causes, and he also tried to game that. If you agree with him, then he is a reasonable editor. But, if you disagree with him, then he winds up insulting you, hand-waving away all arguments that you present, and flooding you with walls of text where one a couple of sentences are relevant to the question you asked. I'm tired of showing him a dozen of RS only to have him discarding all of them because they don't fit his personal opinion.

This is not a diff-less unfair ban of a poor innocent editor, this is the ban of a guy who has been wasting the time and patience of many editors with his relentless POV pushing. I already looked for dozens of diffs in the arb case. Anyways, in the last comments of Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_39#Banned_user he repeats the same behaviours: he hand waves all the sources and policies that I present to him, and at the end he insists again in making a biased POV-pushing edit to misrepresent the mainstream opinion of scientists. In other words, he is still pulling the same POV-pushing that he was pushing before being topic banned. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And he's now indef-blocked. I see no reason to do a community ban at this point, other than trying to point a finger and laugh at him. A community ban at this point is not preventative at all, but absolutely punitive. Silverseren^C 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is your proposition we should never community-ban indeffed users? That's......interesting. T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're very good at taking words out of context. You must practice a lot. Abd has had a single sock that was pointed out above and it was blocked and that's that. We generally save community bans for cases where you have extensive sock masters or extreme disruption and vandalism. I do not consider POV-warring and a single sock something that requires community banning, something that should be done seldomly as it is. Silverseren^C 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what you said. You said "And he's now indef-blocked. I see no reason to do a community ban at this point, other than trying to point a finger and laugh at him. A community ban at this point is not preventative at all, but absolutely punitive." The only apparent justification for your conclusion that "a community ban at this point is not preventative at all, but absolutely punitive" is "he's now indef-blocked". So, do tell, where did I take words out of context? T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be entirely in keeping with the common convention that administrators who go AWOL when the shit hits the fan are not sanctioned unless and until they return. Why should the rules of engagement be any different in this case? Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Because he didn't go AWOL and in fact returned? T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But is he around now? I could name several administrators whose modus operandi is to lie low for a while and then creep back when the flak has cleared. In what way is this case different? Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Abd's WV page, June 3, which is pretty close to now. That is a unified account, so within the limits of MW software, it is the same person. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He's providing blow-by-blow commentary on this thread on Wikipedia Review so I don't think he can be fairly described as inactive. If he has another sock which we haven't spotted then he could be editing right now. Hut 8.5 08:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, we are discussing that he should be banned because he is reading this stuff and then writing about it? Can I make a suggestion? Don't read Abd's comments on WR... (and just remember that not too many years ago, admitting to reading WR was grounds to having your WP activities scrutinised). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, Stephen Bain decided to take the drivel spouted on Wikipedia Review into account when drafting the proposed decision for the Abd-WMC ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not suggesting he be banned because he is posting on WR, I'm just trying to counter the idea that Abd is blissfully unaware of these proceedings. Hut 8.5 14:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Ezhiki and Silver seren. One sock is not a reason to community ban a user, this matter would be better handled by ArbCom. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ezhiki and others. I find no pleasure in kicking a person when they are down. We should try to reach out to Abd and see if he can be mentored, not pile more @$#% on him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This isn't a case of one sock: it's chronic editing through IP accounts, practicing block evasion on Wikipedia as a "research project". —Kww(talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support a community ban per Enric Naval's links. Community members - especially certain arbitrators - who have abetted Abd's years of obnoxious filibustering need to reconsider the effect their refusal to sanction disruptive behavior has on the editors who actually have to deal with said disruption, and on article content. To those who are claiming that there has been only one sock, Abd has engaged in extensive IP editing before and after his block. Skinwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I see no substantial difference between "many socks" and "one sock and many IPs". The claim that "it's only one sock" is plainly untrue, as Abd himself helpfully documented in Kww's link above. The standard justification for a community ban for a user in the present situation is that reverts of their edits made in violation of the ban will be exempt from xRR rules, which do appear to be needed given the persistent evasion. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTTHERAPY. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support As a community member as and custodian at Wikiversity as well as a wikipedian. Abd's "experiment" on the wikipedia community causes disruption here, has been attracting vandals at WV. He is damaging both communities, and severing the cord completely seems the most likely way to get him to move on. In his WikipediaReview posts about EnergyNeutral being blocked, Abd states that none of his other socks have been blocked. (The posting makes it sound as if the others are avoiding Cold Fusion). He finds playing whack-a-mole "soooo much fun". But most importantly, he literally delights in the collateral damage attempts to block him cause innocent editors because it proves he is right. Thenub314 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support De facto banned already, let's make it official per Franamax's cogent argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Manifesto on his talk page is antithetic to the concepts of Wikipedia. --WGFinley (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Yes, its high time. Abd is wasting the time of other users and we need to make our disapproval explicit. I'm astonished by how many people find his behaviour acceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Abd has made clear his intention to subvert this encyclopedia. In early 2010 Abd and GoRight wasted time on arbitration noticeboards in attempts to have GoRight act as Abd's official mentor (e.g. see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Abd, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53#Abd). With Abd's very recent sockpuppet account EnergyNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked a week ago by Coren,[29] walls of text continuing elsewhere and Lomax cold fusion kits now advertised on the web, there is no evidence that Abd is "down". Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Thenub314. We cannot afford to bury our collective heads in the sand and play "deaf" to what is going on around us. Moreover, this is our mess, and it should be we, not ArbCom, who need to make the efforts to clean it up. –MuZemike 06:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I don't remember why I don't like him. But I will still hold my pitchfork high based on the AA stuff that used to be on his user page. Rabble rabble. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a particularly helpful comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. If Abd is ignoring sanctions descended from ArbCom remedies, then ArbCom can ban him directly, without all this drama. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Abd's ban was reinstated via discretionary sanctions, then upheld in ANI here, he then appealed to Arbcom, and Arbcom saw no reason to lift the ban here. Arbcom doesn't intervene in cases where the community can already handle itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't worth the hassle and it improves nothing --Guerillero | My Talk 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a highly disruptive presence. As for the "disgusting spectacle", I'm sure he'll get over it. Why would this ban discussion be different from any other ban discussion (of which there have been many)? Why is this one "kicking when he's down" or "ganging up" or any other such hyperbole? Night Ranger (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As per proposer. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Santorum (neologism) RfC

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated at this RfC: Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure request for ArbPol ratification

Would someone who has been uninvolved in this at all (the process first started in April 2009), please close the Arbitration policy update ratification? It's due to be closed today.[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] The criteria are self-explanatory.

Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 23:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Content RFC closure

Hello. Would an admin uninvolved in the ARBPIA topic area please review and close the discussion at Talk:Gaza War#RFC? Thank you. nableezy - 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC

We could use an uninvolved admin to close a contentious RfC at September 11 attacks about whether there's consensus to re-add a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories to the article. The discussion is in two places. It begins here[35] and then resumes in a new thread here.[36] I know we don't need an admin to close an RfC but considering how contentious the issue is, I think it's best that an admin do it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a closeable RfC here. There's no {{rfctag}} and (at least in the second part) no real structure, just the usual pointless tangled thread of people not listening to each other and digressing at length. There's also no obvious consensus. I recommend starting over with a standard RfC tag and some structure to help find consensus.  Sandstein  21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: there is something resembling structured discussion here, but it hasn't run for 30 days yet. Maybe put an RfC tag on that, improve the header to make it more understable to people who are new to the discussion, and wait 30 days?  Sandstein  21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a {rfctag} but a bot removed it after the RfC expired.[37] I'm sorry about the tangled web of text. Like I said, the issue is contentious. I'd rather not open another RfC because that would make it our third one on the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(Probable) returned sock of indefblocked user

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked as the result of a discussion here, largely due to intransigence over refusing to abide by policy and/or consensus. He has since socked at least once. He was given a list of conditions he would be required to follow in order to become unblocked, has never requested an unblock from his real account.

He is probably socking again (CU results were stale; edits coming from the same ISP as previously). The new user, Dave Pritchard (talk · contribs) is uploading images by Xanderliptak (talk · contribs), from the latter's blog, to a large number of articles which Xanderliptak also edited. The licencing requirements for these images are contrary to Wikipedia policy (especially WP:WATERMARK, which was one of his major refusal to understand issues). Accordingly I have nominated them for deletion.

Anyway, the sound of ducks is deafening at this point; honestly it looks like Xanderliptak still doesn't understand how licencing works on Wikipedia and is trying to end-run around policy again. So what do we do at this point?

1. Do we community-ban him, allowing all uploads and edits to be reverted on sight?
2. Do we ban the new and to me obvious sock?
3. Something else I haven't thought of?

→ ROUX ₪ 20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not as yet notified the user in question of this discussion, for what I hope are obvious reasons. → ROUX ₪ 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Xanderliptak filed a DMCA takedown notice with the WMF so all of his uploads could be deleted. Although the takedown request was really quite rubbish to me, I don't know which images were affected (nor can I be arsed to find the original request, it's on the wmf wiki or meta or somewhere), but likely, all of the images created by Xanderliptak should be re-deleted. Also, agree with Dave Pritchard being a DUCK sock. If Pritchard doesn't come up with a good explanation as to why he's uploading these files, I say a block is fine. Not sure about the community ban, although there may be legal issues involved with this (if you file a takedown request of your own work and then re-upload your work again, is the original request still valid? etc.) and so I think at least the images can be deleted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Creative Commons issue. I don't think there was a takedown request unless it that came after. –xeno^talk 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC) (amended for accuracy per MRG) 23:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he filed one. :/ See Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/01#DMCA Takedown demand and Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19#User:Alexander Liptak and User:Xanderliptak. If this is block evasion, it's block evasion, and he should be indeffed for it. He can work with the community or not at all. If it's not Xander (as unlikely as that may be), we should take down all the images because Xander Liptak demanded that we do so (see wmf:File:DMCA LIPTAK.pdf), including some of these specific images. If Xander Liptak has changed his mind, he can explain to the Wikimedia Foundation that he has reconsidered rescinding his license; we don't accept non-free content from contributors. (BTW, I won't take administrative action here either with the user or with his images, because I filed the RfC. He thought I was involved last time, when all I had done was comment on an ANI thread. :) I am of the opinion that given the DMCA these images should be speedily deleted.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the artwork by "Alexander" from all the articles I found them in, as the work is clearly by Xanderliptak (the style is unmistakable), and is therefore still subject to the DMCA takedown order he filed. I agree that they should be speedily deleted.

Strangely enough, I am far from certain, however, that Dave Pritchard is a Xanderliptak sock. Pritchard added other artists' heraldry to some articles, and has made some gnomish edits as well, things that I don't recall X doing in the past. In any case I'm not certain, while the question of the artwork is clear. I left a note on DP's talk page, requesting that he not re-add the images. I imagine that his response might tell us a great deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Pritchard is a sock, but I've deleted all the Alexander uploads as having a license incompatible with Wikipedia, per http://heraldist.blogspot.com/2011/05/permission-licensing-agreement.html. There's very little we would actually need to use a file for with conditions as restrictive as he's placing there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, someone blocked the user. He, intriguingly, has not asked for an unblock nor has he actually stated he's not Xander, choosing to play wordgames instead. Which is pretty much par for the course. Ah well. → ROUX ₪ 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Parents & Abducted Children Together

This page is continually updated and vandalised as is the one on "Catherine Meyer".

This is a charity that has been investigated by the Daily Telegraph's Richard Eden and The Independent on Sunday's Matthew Bell. Other articles have been written on the subject by Janet Street-Porter and countless letter writers.

Here is the relevant passage that is continually removed:

"In May 2011 the finances of Parents & Abducted Children Together were called into question. May 11, 0211 and , May 15, 2011."

Wikipedia should include criticism as well as positive commentary otherwise it will just be a PR machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

...and so, um, what are you looking for from Administrators when it comes to a content dispute? page protection from anonymous editors? Verifying consensus? Taking a hard look at undue weight? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't allow cited sources to be removed just because they are negative. The Daily Telegraph and the Independent on Sunday are respected sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We do, but look at the 3 links to policy that I provided in my first message, then take the discussion to the talkpage of the article - there's nothing an administrator needs to do in this case (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fix

Can someone, please fix coords in The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick article? I am trying for quite some time, but nothing! :( --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Simply a directional error of "S" for "N" by someone. In the future, you can put the {{geodata-check}} template (with explanation) on articles' talk pages for such things. It puts an article into a category that is watched by coordinate fans. Deor (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooo, thanks! Such a stupid thing, just one letter... :) I was searching for hour... All best, thanks for {{geodata-check}}, i didn't know that. Be good! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Isarig and RTV

In early 2008, at the beginning of the ARBPIA case, Isarig (talk · contribs) had his account "vanished" to Former user 2 (talk · contribs). His talk page was deleted and it was assumed that the user would no longer edit Wikipedia. That has not been the case, with a number of sockpuppets made prior to his vanishing remaining active, and, later, a much larger number of accounts continuing to edit since those had been blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive, additional evidence linking Isarig to these users is available). As Isarig has not lived up to his end of the vanishing, I request that the edits by Former user 2 be moved back to Isarig and that his talk page be restored. nableezy - 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we have confirmation that the RTV has been abused - not evidence, just an independent party able to confirm so? Upon confirmation, I would support having the former identity restored and pages tagged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

As per the consensus gained at the Village pump, I have created a new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Part of the purpose of the board is to shift disputes that don't belong on AN and ANI (content and minor conduct issues) to the new noticeboard. While part of it comes down to the best forum for resolving the issues at hand, part comes from the thought that people can take disputes to ANI and get a quick fix. Things like edit warring, block evasion, severe conduct issues, sure. But there are often disputes filed at AN and ANI that don't belong there, and part of these changes would be that disputes like these (at the discretion of admins and those watching AN and ANI) to close the threads and directing them to the new noticeboard. It's designed to have ANI used for what it's actually designed for, and reduce the clogging up of these boards, instead directing the issues to a more focused board which can address the issues there. I realise that this isn't a change that will take place overnight, and will take a lot of hard work, but is definitely worth a shot. I've posted a notice to the top of this noticeboard with info about the changes. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Claritas/Anthem of Joy

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

---

Claritas was blocked indefinitely last year for inappropriate use of alternate accounts, per WP:SOCK. Using another account to continue editing as User:Blest Withouten Match, he was blocked again for block evasion. Just yesterday, he was found to be editing again under User:Anthem of joy and blocked again; two requests for unblock were denied, and he then came clean about what he was doing on his talk page. He claims that there was "never any real community consensus to block Claritas in the first place" and that he should be allowed to continue editing per WP:IAR. I'd like to determine if there is consensus to keep this user blocked, or if he should be allowed to continue to edit. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - as for me, I feel this young user is not ready to come back. If he wants to take another 6-12 months off the project, and then approach an admin or ArbCom to be allowed to come back the right way with a new account or take over one of his old ones, that seems reasonable. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - I had expressed reservations about even a standard offer back when the matter of User:Claritas' socking came up before (Sep 2010). Their unblock request at the time was mostly a screed on how the man was keeping them down. Now we have two denied unblocks, and a new unblock where they say they want to come clean. The problem with this: with a history of deception, saying that you have ceased all deception is a very very hard thing to believe. Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban The unblock request still seems to be deceptive. For example, it says "I started off editing from Claritas" but, if you review Claritas' first day of editing, it is apparent that this person is already an experienced editor with a good understanding of terms like "red link" or "non-notable" and a ready facility with processes like speedy deletion, vandalism warning and AFD. This latest account claims to have edited productively but, after a brief show of editing a Shakespearean article, the editor has been engaging in blatant grudge-settling, harassment and disruption. My impression is that they are another manifestation of the Torkmann, Dalejenkins, Drawn_Some sock-master who is already banned. Warden (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the additional material below to improve readability. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

You might have a point. Focusing specifically on AfDs and an RfA, these turn up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (Transformers) - User:Donald Schroeder JWH018, User:Claritas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimlet (Transformers) - User:Donald Schroeder JWH018, User:Blest Withouten Match Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icebird (Transformers) - User:Donald Schroeder JWH018, User:Blest Withouten Match Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 - User:Melanesian obsession, User:Claritas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa Strix - User:Gattosby, User:Claritas (Claritas "disagrees" with Gattosby) Based on the editing patterns I saw from the known Claritas socks while checking into the behaviour of User:Anthem of joy, I have a feeling there are more socks, including another account I connected with the Claritas socks behaviourally which I suspect may be the master. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Given that, is there any merit to this? BOZ (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC) There really doesn't look to be enough there to go on. All of these AfDs were edited by both User:Anthem of joy and User:Sergeant Cribb but a detailed comparison of both accounts' speech patterns and phrasing would be a better comparison. Also see the wikistalk.py results. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers) (Anthem of joy - Delete, Sergeant Cribb - Redirect) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage Guidance Counsellor (Anthem of joy - Merge, Sergeant Cribb - Merge+Rename+Redirect) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (both "Delete") Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ix (Dune) (Anthem of joy - Merge, Sergeant Cribb - Delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human (Star Trek) (2nd nomination) (both "Delete") Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (both "Delete") Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloysius Spotiswoode (both "Delete") Based on time of day: Claritas, Anthem of joy (known related accounts for a baseline) Claritas, Sergeant Cribb Anthem of joy, Sergeant Cribb I can't tell if they are related behaviourally without a detailed comparison of their speech patterns and phrasing, although they did edit some of the same AfDs. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - If this is a Torkmann sock then block on sight. Drawn Some should also be blocked as a suspected sock. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - I'm sorry but, this editor has no sympathy for Sockpuppets. Mlpearc powwow 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Q: Why can't I find the relevant information on socks and CU evidence etc.? The only thing I could find is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claritas/Archive, and that is hardly informative. I ask, because I am personally inclined to leniency, having seen good work from this editor--to which I should hasten to add that I had never looked at their other edits besides Adamah. I was a bit shocked when I saw on the DYK page that the thing was pulled, and am curious to see how that came about and what evidence (quacking, CU, etc) was turned up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like the investigation may have been performed from email sent to Muzemike from Tothwolf, based on the timing of the YGM template on Muzemike's talk page and subsequent discussion. So, to answer it looks like a reasonable concern re quacking was brought up to a checkuser. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Syrthiss is correct, I emailed the material I had to MuZemike and he did a CU. Apparently, there was an exact match. Past CU results for Claritas socks can be found in the AN/I archives here. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support continuing block. Two separate instances of deception are prejudicial to good faith, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support continuing block, and also ban. The user's line is essentially "I did some bad things in the past, but I have reformed, and all my recent activity has been good". However, the user has continued to lie about their history [38], the latest example being 22 minutes before making that"I've reformed" claim: [39]. I see no reason to suppose that we can trust this person. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note: [40] User left a note on his talk page. BOZ (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• And a followup note: [41] - I'd have to say, given that, it would be good to keep this user (and any known and future sockpuppets) blocked for a good long time. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the email Anthem of joy sent he claims "You'll never find your coveted "master"." and he lists the usernames "Sergeant Cribb", "HominidMachinae" and another third account which I won't name here which I suspect is the master. I don't really have a strong opinion on the "Sergeant Cribb" account, but the account I suspect is the master has a large number of behavioural connections and similarities to the Claritas/Anthem of joy socks. That said, I want to be careful of confirmation bias here too.

  In the comment Anthem of joy made on his talk page, he claims "If tothwolf's wondering about the e-mail I sent him, it was deliberately trying to be annoying and unclear." [42] and in his first unblock request he also claimed "I am unrelated to Claritas." [43] so why should we believe anything he says anyway? Based on behavioural patterns alone, as of this moment I would have to say Anthem of joy is most likely unconnected with "Sergeant Cribb", possible for "HominidMachinae" (which itself has strong connections to the third account I won't name here) and highly likely for the third account which I suspect may be the master. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support block given the links provided by BOZ. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly, thank you to CBD for informing me that I have been dragged into this. Secondly, I am not User:Claritas or connected with them in any way. I acknowledged my previous account name here and here. Thirdly, I felt, and feel, that the AFD discussions started by User:Anthem of joy were quite sensible in themselves and no good purpose would be served by cancelling them. Fourthly, I edit from a fairly stable IP address at which I am the only current WP editor so that checkuser will quickly demonstrate the truth of what I say. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in the editing of Sergeant Cribbs to indicate that he is not in perfect good faith; and so I wonder why the sockpuppet named him. Conceivably to confuse the issue? DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As Sergeant Cribb states "checkuser will quickly demonstrate the truth of what I say" what does the CU information show ? DGG there could be information that Admin's can not access. Mlpearc powwow 05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. I was not aware that I had been named, but if so, that would simply be a lie by Claritas, presumably to create further disruption. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Anthem of joy mentioned your username because you had been mentioned on MuZemike's talk page and here on AN. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks for making that clear. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment My take on Claritas's "confession" is that it is more along the likes of "I'm sorry that I got caught". It has no sincerity in it at all. The editor has been descriptive from the beginning and only "comes clean" when he is caught with his hands in the cookie jar and cannot convince anyone that he never had his hands anywhere near the jar. There is no indication that the editor will not repeat this same pattern in the future. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - the user unfortunately shows no sincerity for using sockpuppets. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support- and revisit in 12 months if Claritas wants to come back and hasn't misbehaved between now and then. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Threatening notice sent to me via e-mail

This came from somebody who was the subject of an article I apparently deleted.

"... you have treated me with gross unfairness by not contacting me about what amounts to your arbitrary and capricious personal action and decision. This is a personally damaging and totally unstudied decision by you without any obvious research.

Many of my lesser known associates are on Wikipedia and were also appalled by your untimely action. I am about to file a legal action that should make more international news than the battle over the Howard Hughes estate and therefore don't need a small hill legal battle at this time with you and or Wikipedia BUT, am well prepared to do so in a professional manner you won't appreciate.

...We duly await a timely business response as we are prepared to defend or civilly prosecute over much of Wikipedia's original bios material."

Where do I go from here? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(non admin). Jail? <g> Do you even know what article they are referring to? - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd ignore it. If you wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill, you could indef them, or if you like wasting your time talking to someone who clearly sees you as something on which to vent his frustration, you could write back and discuss the article with him. But that means giving him your email address... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than ignoring it and blocking the sender from your personal email, and obviously getting someone to block the account (as I assume they sent it via WP email) you mean....? Sounds like someone is upset they don't have an article on themselves. Bully for them - self evidently as a private website we can carry whatever information we like (or don't). You coulod pass to the WMF I guess. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Sitush, what was the BLP? Per HJ, are you prepared to allow them to know your email address (although you could always respond via a secondary addy)? If you can determine the article, you can always tell them why it was deleted - which would obviously be because of some violation of WP's policies. Sometimes articles on clearly notable people are deleted because there are no decent sources or other issues and there is no good version to revert to. It happens. Let them know that any deletion was in regard to the article and was not intended to reflect upon the subject. However, my advice is the same as HJ's; ignore it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This was sent directly to my real-world primary e-mail address, NOT via WP e-mail; so I'm assuming that he's ungently hinting that he has no intention of abiding by our rules here, and implies that he's prepared to drag me into real-life courts. The sender purports to be Gordon Novel, a shadowy figure with ties to everything (supposedly) from UFOs to the Kennedy Assassination to Watergate. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate - this is a privately owned website - he has no legal recourse in respect of us not having an article on him. End of story. Hand waving bullshit claiming they have a lawsuit bigger than Howard Hughes' estate just goes to proove they clearly haven't a clue about the law. Block the email address from your incoming personal mail and ignore. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to also forward it to OTRS for the records as Pedro mentioned above. If you'd like to do that, Mike, you can mail it to info-enwikimedia.org. Or you can send it to me at liaisonwikimedia.org, and I'll make sure it's logged. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article wasn't even deleted by Orange Mike, it was deleted by User:Salvio giuliano. So what is this guy on about? Are you sure you're not being trolled? Night Ranger (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was quite low quality cited and a few paragraphs and a user came along and stripped it out and OrangeMike deleted it. I was a little involved in trying to resist the stubbing back and asked Mike to userfy it for me which he happily did and said he would like to see it replaced to article space - I had some little look and with such low quality sources I never replaced it and when I cleared a few not being worked on user pages I tagged it as user requests deletion. I thought he was more or less noteworthy but what I had left would not have survived AFD. Salvio just housekeep deleted my userfied version of the deleted article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case it's a shame that the subject of the deleted article seems to be resorting to real-life threats. If he's potentially notable I would ordinarily consider digging up sources and improving the article. But I'm not interested in helping bellicose people who threaten others when their ego is wounded. Night Ranger (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well said. Off2riorob (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if he did file a lawsuit, then it would very likely make a big splash in the news, and then we could write an article about him suing WMF because he feels entitled to free publicity on a privately owned website. I don't think that the author of this e-mail message (which may or may not be the person he purports to be) has thought through the difference between "publicity" and "desirable publicity". I do hope that he shows that e-mail message to his lawyer, though. Then he can pay someone to explain the basic concept of property rights to him (specifically, that he doesn't own Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just a troll. I guarantee these threats will go nowhere. When I was more active on RCP and New Page Patrol I got this kind of email on a semi-weekly basis. Ignore it and move on. --causa sui (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Another list out of control: List of LDAP software

List of LDAP software is nothing but a collection of links. Surely many of the entries are notable software by notable companies, and many are outright NN spamlinks. IMO any list - of anything - should consist of links to Wikipedia articles, who by design have to have asserted notability. A collection of external links violates WP:ELNO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY among others. I believe a massive cleanup should be done here. Consensus? -- Alexf^(talk) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not obvious why you posted this here, since cleaning up a list is not something that needs help from admins.

You will want to read the actual guideline on lists, paying careful attention to the fact that there are three typical options for list selection criteria. Only one of the three valid models complies with your preferred "only links to Wikipedia articles" idea. The two-thirds of the list that were deleted recently might be entirely appropriate, even if no one has written the articles yet (or might not: you make this decision by discussing the options on the list's talk page, and making a decision by consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I see now it might not be obvious. I was looking for consensus from fellow admins instead of being bold. Never mind. I got the idea now. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram NHRP stubs

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

This sprawling mess of a discussion may illustrate why sometimes things never gets sorted out at ANI. Despite the length of the whole discussion, however, I find the four specific subsections are relatively straightforward, so I'll keep the summary short. Having read the whole thing through, I find the consensus to be as follows:

1. There is no consensus for Roux's specific proposed restrictions on Doncram (#Proposal). This is not to be taken as consensus against any restrictions on Doncram.
2. There is a consensus that Doncram's creation of the stubs at issue, and similar stubs, is disruptive (#Consensus). These creations have been characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information.
3. There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality).
4. Although the question is slightly closer, due to the relative fewer number of participants, there is a consensus for Orlady's proposed resolution (#Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)), which I will quote below:

Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.

The remainder of the discussion consists primarily of various tangents with little relevance to the topic of this thread, and so I have excluded them from this summary. I'll add that I find no obviously discernible consensus in any of them, or any concerns that require immediate admin action.

In closing, I should note that while no editor-specific sanction is imposed on Doncram at this time, given the conclusion reached in this thread concerning the acceptability of these stubs, if Doncram continues to create similarly styled stubs after their block ends, they would be liable to be blocked for disruptive editing. T. Canens (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Last month, we had a very long discussion regarding the NRHP stubs created by User:Doncram: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs. It didn't really end with any firm conclusion, due in part to the promise by doncram to no longer create such stubs (template-like stubs with statements like "It was built or has other significance in c.1817 and c.1855.". However, it appears that no change in actual behaviour has happened, with again many articles being created with the same annoying words and structure, e.g. Joseph Elliston House, Douglass-Reams House, Dortch Stove Works, Jacob Critz House and Robert Hodge House. Perhaps it's time to revisit the previous proposal and/or work out some other means of putting a stop to this? One can also wonder whether a supporting article like Central hall plan architecture isn't awfully close to a copyright violation, when 90% of the article is an attributed quote to a copyrighted text, and the rest is filled with meaningless stuff like "[...]as opposed to having another layout." But that is a different discussion. Fram (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. Editors are more willing to edit an article once its created than they are of creating the whole article from scratch. Additionally, many of these link to lists that cannot be built up or submitted to FL until all or at least most of the red links have articles created on them. I admit that he could probably make them a little longer and add some more detail but I don't see the problem here. --Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have heard the "first create it, then people will edit" song many times, but in reality many such articles lay around for years and years. And creating poor stubs because some list has to become a FL is a very poor reason. But the main problem is that he already promised to improve them, but that he hasn't done this (or reverted back to his old system). Fram (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I don't like the wording or shortness of them either however I am of the school of thought that if we have a small amount of information on a subject its better than nothing. Your also right that many lay around for years, many do not however and some eventually get to FA. We have to have faith in the system. These stubs Doncram is creating at least have some structure with an an infobox, a template and inline citations which is more than I can say for a lot of the geographical ones that are one line of less than ten words. As for the comment about the FL argument being a poor reason. That may be your opinion and your entitled to that however the rules clearly state that red links on FL's should be minimal if there are any at all. Additionally, the Wikipedia rules clearly allow the creation of stubs. So if people have problems with folks creating stubby articles then they should first change the rules allowing them to be created in the first place. I am not trying to play devils advocate here but after reading the very lengthy string you linked to above from last month I didn't see anyone post anything resembling a policy violation other than comments like "articles like this damage wikipedias reputation", "I don't like them", etc. --Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the Archive223 discussion recently. The major commitment that I made there in response to one editor's specific request was that I would, in a future NRHP article drive, set up a /batch system that would support editors editing in Talk-space draft articles, before copying them over to mainspace. That would provide facilitation for local or otherwise interested editors to develop articles in non-mainspace, while giving them many of the considerable benefits of my first batch drafts. I look forward to doing that.

In the Archive223 discussion, several editors were concerned about specific new articles linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. Some took combative-seeming-to-me steps of moving mainspace articles to userspace unnecessarily, or opening AFDs. All the AFDs closed Keep. All the articles specifically discussed were moved back to mainspace and were improved, in either order.

I don't think there is any problem requiring ANI attention here. There will be future discussion at the NRHP wikiproject, I am sure, which I will open myself, when I do open a new article drive using a batch supporting system as discussed. --doncram 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is and was horribly inappropriate to seriously consider banning statements like "It was designed and/or built by" a person, when the statement is sourced and accurate. I have been developing a system that suggests accurate statements like that, which is better than the most commonly used NRHP article generation system supported off-line by another editor, which provides flat assertions that the person was an architect and designed the building. The other system's assertions are false about 5-10% of the time, and are often not questioned by editors relying upon them. That's the scandal, if there is one. The accurately ambiguous statements, on the other hand, obviously do provide a prompt to an editor to find out the facts more specifically, which is good. By the way, towards providing a further significant refinement to my system, I have been doing the work to identify what is the actual status of the most frequently named architects or builders of NRHP-listed places. Namely by creating articles about the most frequently named ones, and sorting out whether they are a covered bridge builder in Indiana or a "master builder" or what, rather than being an architect. I plan to use this more specific information in the generation of future batches of /draft articles. --doncram 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I find Nathan Vaught particularly interesting. Why is it you have to dump random assertions into mainspace and then clean up your mess later? Why not just do the research and get it right the first time? Then there's the "Possibly related" section... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go again, posting link to a first-draft article, which in this case already clearly established notability, that was subsequently improved. You can cause a lot of misunderstanding and unnecessary concern that way. I also take minor offense at your unnecessarily inflammatory language. --doncram 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You're not properly seeing the merit of getting the articles created, and sorting out correct information. The problem can be viewed as being the fact we didn't start all these articles long ago, and get all the imprecise information sorted out by now. Consider the Elm Springs (Tennessee) article, which since 2007 has included infobox assertion that Nathan Vaught was the architect of that building. That assertion appears now to be false. I should be clear: that article and the articles generated by the main provider of draft NRHP articles, does not contain a text statement. The assertion is in the infobox description of the person as "architect", which is bad enough. In many articles, further, editors have stated the person was an architect based upon the infobox assertion. --doncram 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if what an article contains can be listed in {{Infobox building}} and an embeded {{infobox NRHP}} do we also need to repeat that in the article? Should that article exist if everything can be in infoboxes? I'll note that this is not the only user creating short stubs or area where we have short stubs. The geography stubs have similar problems, but they are being created by more editors. Is there a perfect solution? No. Is there a solution? I don't know. If anyone wants to look at the other end of the spectrum, cleaning up some of the long stubs might be a nice break. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

These articles are meant to include more information than is included in an infobox. Any one can be considerably developed if an editor collects the NRHP nomination document (as I have for some sites in the county). Fram picked out ones where I could not easily find any online sources to use immediately in the article. Roper's Knob Fortifications is another recent Williamson County article i started on the same basis, where i found an online Tennessee Archaeology journal article, which provides a lot more. Andrew C. Vaughn House is another without a lot more information, but happens to be a bit more satisfying I think, for connecting to the other similar houses in the same county. For one of the ones Fram picks to comment upon, I had noticed substantial coverage in The Tennesseean newspaper about the place, but could not access it behind a paywall, so the current article is indeed minimal. I left a note at Talk:Robert Hodge House, hoping for a local with access to Tennesseean archives will be able to develop the article. That's how it is supposed to work. Before starting an article, it is not clear what is going to be found. It's great if an editor starting an article does find additional sources and develops it right away. But if additional sources are not easily findable, it is still a contribution to give basic facts about the historic site, and to connect to appropriate architecture articles and categories and so on, and to facilitate other editors developing it more later (or not, which is not a tragedy either). --doncram 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity, here is a summary:

• Doncram was doing something many editors found objectionable
• Doncram promised to stop doing this thing
• Donram is doing the same thing again

We are humouring this because..? → ROUX ₪ 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are being glib for effect. But in the previous discussion I agreed to do something which I still agree to do. There are no promises broken. What Fram picks up upon is that I created several more articles in an already ongoing article drive, for Williamson County, Tennessee articles. I happen to have taken some more care to avoid "stilted" language or whatever in these, which was a concern for some editors previously. I don't think i am in violation of anything and I am not "doing the same thing" exactly, either, though I don't suppose you'd actually care to really look at the details to see that. --doncram 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He does not belong to the Alpha Command structure? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an Alpha Command structure? Is the Cabal aware of this? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he knows he can get away with it, being that he isn't strictly violating any Wikipedia policies. Also, because anyone who criticizes Doncram's work more than a few times will eventually be labeled as a stalker and a harasser. Doncram will never change the way he operates, so we're going to be stuck with hundreds or thousands of crappy stubs that are just barely informative for the actual reader of Wikipedia. Debating this is just becoming useless, so my reaction is to simply give up and avoid participating in the project. Luckily, nobody gives a flying flip if I write articles about historic places in Minnesota or not. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the thing is, he promised something and failed to abide by it. That usually results in sanctions. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What precisely did he promise to do, and how has he failed at that? I think I agreed to set up a future article drive differently, and I plan to do that. --doncram 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• User:Doncram is banned from creating these or similar stubs in the mainspace.
• He may create as many as he likes in his userspace
• Before moving them to mainspace, must gain consensus for each one at WP:NRHP, and may nominate batches of no more than ten at a time in order to minimise the project being bombarded. One batch may be nominated at a time
• In six months, should a supermajority (70%+) of these stubs have been approved for use in the mainspace, these restrictions are lifted.

• Support - as proposer → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, requirement to get consensus at NRHP is not reasonable, in my opinion, and neither is requiring 70%+ "approval". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• NRHP are the subject matter experts here. 70% seems completely reasonable to me; either doncram will learn to make articles which are useful or he won't. → ROUX ₪ 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. --doncram 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there's a problem with these articles as a general rule, start an RfC on the notability of things listed on the NRHP. But making what should be a policy discussion into a referendum on an editor is never a good idea. -- ۩ Mask 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since, ironically, the NRHP project's genesis was due to me creating a bunch of crappy stubs for Florida in the first place. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ebyabe, you may think your stubs were "crappy," but your creations (example) did not contain blanks to be filled in later (such as the date "19__"), embroideries on the lack of information like "was designed and/or built by", or meaningless statements like "the listing is for less than one acre and, when listed, included one contributing site." --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I forget to mention unforgettable items like "Dinnie Block is or was a property in Grand Forks, North Dakota." --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, Ebyabe, it wasn't the "crappy stubs" that got WP:NRHP started -- it was the classification of NRHP sites as being Protected areas, when they weren't officially protected. That situation led to Wikipedia's recognition that stuff on the National Register needed its own categories and infoboxes, instead of being lumped in with protected areas, and that was a good thing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I agree that these "articles" are irritating and little more than transposition of the NRIS database, but I also agree that the consensus requirements are unreasonable. Something should be done, but it shouldn't be this. PhantomPlugger (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. I know that Doncram is fully capable of writing decent stubs that are not padded with empty blanks waiting to be filled in, placeholder language, non-information (like saying that the article topic "is described in" a cited reference), or deliberately vague language like "is or was a building", "designed and/or built by", and "has some significance in c.1880, c.1910, and 1952". However, he is continuing to create this kind of noncontent, and until he voluntarily stops putting his rough-draft articles in article space, some sort of ban is needed. His reaction to the admonitory note I put on his talk page 5 days ago clearly indicates that he fully intends to continue doing things his way, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  To anyone not aware, Orlady has stalked my edits for years and it amounts to wp:wikihounding. In these diffs which i accumulated and posted in the last AN discussion, it is documented that Orlady states she personally dislikes me, and I repeatedly requested she stop posting to my Talk page and engaging in other harassment.

  1. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#it's harassment. Please stop.
  2. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#Old Town Bridge
  3. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#Moved to this page from User talk:Doncram who added the title "counting"
  4. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#causing drama by wikihounding, again
  5. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#your following me on Confederate Monument
  6. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#Butting in on yet another case, Veterans Administration Hospital
  7. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#hey what's going on, again

  She has also repeatedly expressed scorn and dislike for historic sites, for NRHP, for architecture, and in the last AN discussion she explained she maintains membership in WikiProject NRHP in order to have standing as a critic. Orlady has repeatedly refused mediation or other dispute resolution. I do object to her posting anything at my Talk page, to her using Administrative tools to insult me by userifying pages she does not like and block their return to mainspace, and in general to her inflammatory, nasty-spirited participation among what is largely a community of history-interested writers in NRHP. Some, including Elkman further above, have accused me of accusing any critic of wikistalking. No, I only accuse her. I will say that at times I have been frustrated by different others following my edits, who at times seeming to me to be interfering unproductively. But in general I do welcome others following, in general I do learn from others' edits and comments. For no other editor in Wikipedia have I ever sensed anything like pure nastiness and evil in their motivations. I think Orlady's hatred of me overrides her probably-usually-good judgement, and then she comes up with obtuse and totally unproductive positions. I have pointed out her outright lying on multiple occasions (and if I recall correctly she never disagreed that she was lying), and at this point I do not respect her opinions. If she says X, i expect it is motivated towards causing contention and causing discomfort for me, and is counter to the purposes and values of Wikipedia, while I am sure I would interpret someone else saying the same X quite differently. I tend to believe what Orlady states is not even her true belief, what she would say about another's editing. So, yes, I deleted her latest threat at my Talk page. I think it is not a matter for wp:AN, but it is probably a matter for Arbitration to address the personal conflict, personal insults, and vast, poisonous negativity. That's all for now. --doncram 22:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | My Talk 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is inappropriate as a referendum on an editor. The proper venue is multiple-related article nomination on AfD or the Arbitration Committee, not an ad hoc group of editors here at the noticeboard. Also, surely some of the less notable NRHP sites can be merged/redirected into state or topical lists, right? Neutrality^talk 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We need to think of our readers. This sort of template-driven stub is a plague. Creating rafts of essentially blank pages like this is not helpful to our readers. They would get more out of a consolidated table. TCO (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a number of editors have stated above, this is neither the right method nor the right place for this sort of thing. My suggestion: merge the stubs into the lists by state, redirect each stub accordingly, and then pp-protect each redirect. If an editor wants to make one of them an article with actual content, he/she can request unprotection. Rennell435 (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe doncram's work is entirely beneficial to the Encyclopedia, as it relates to what is being discussed here. I will relate my personal experience: I stumbled upon several NRHP stubs that had been created in National Register of Historic Places listings in southern Puerto Rico, a listing that was created by doncram HERE. As I was familiar with the area, I filled in as many of the stubs as I could, approximately 33. See HERE to see how the Ponce, Puerto Rico, listing looked when I first got to it, and HERE to see how it looks today. I also ended up either expanding the individual stub articles out of their stub class or creating them altogether if they did not exist at that point. Had doncram not done his initial stub work that some here find objectionable, I wouldn't have had the basis for continuing his work, and the southern Puerto Rico NRHP stubs would not be where they are today. BTW, at least one of those articles (this one HERE) even made it to GA status. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
• Oppose. Feedback and support from doncram, often for work building off his stubs, was a big part of what got me involved in editing NRHP articles. His stubs are an invitation to contribute more information. I'm always suspicious about motives that prioritize removing constructive content over adding additional constructive content. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

goals

There was a comment by editor Choess in the previous discussion, that "I can't help but think, in looking over this, that part of the problem is that people's implicit goals seem to be quite different, and exposing some of those goals and assumptions to fresh air might improve understanding on both sides." I don't think ANI is the best place to discuss it, but Choess was right, there must be different implicit goals between camps of various NRHP editors and various outside critics. I don't understand what Elkman's bigger goals are, at all. My goals include sharing out information in accessible form to readers around the U.S., who would like to have a clue about their local historic sites, and to provide useful links between them (via geographic list-articles, via categories, via informative architect/builder articles that list the places the architect/builder's works). Some info, within a good structure of these lists and all that, is a good start. Then a local person might have a chance to add further context from old clippings and such available at a local library. Some editors would withhold any info, and not develop the supporting structure, to "save" the topic for themselves to develop in some future year and to grab DYK glory, perhaps, I dunno? Or is it a goal to "protect" readers from imprecise, not super-detailed information? Or to keep readers from becoming editors, because they might not be qualified in some way? --doncram 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Picking up on one point you make above: "Some editors would withhold any info, and not develop the supporting structure, to "save" the topic for themselves to develop in some future year and to grab DYK glory, perhaps, I dunno?" I used to create short stubs, but was not really satisfied with them and noticed that they weren't being developed by others as much as I thought they would be (to be fair, that might be due to other reasons, such as not filling in back-links from other articles). I now try and create longer stubs, tending more towards start-level articles, and do a fair amount of research before creating a new article. Certainly that satisfies DYK criteria, but more importantly I think it provides the reader with a better article. And one of the points made above was that some of these stubs are being created to fill out red-links in various list articles. I strongly disagree with this, ever since a list I had been carefully nurturing and making plans to create the articles to fill in the red-links, got taken to featured article status and I watched in horror as the nominator rattled off about 20 stubs (some were sub-stubs and only 1 or 2 lines) in one evening to "fill in the red-links" and satisfy the featured list (FL) criteria. So your comment about 'DYK glory' should probably be balanced by 'FL glory'. I also feel strongly that when you create an article, you have a duty to at least try and eventually raise it to C-class or B-class level, if not further, but that is more a personal view. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was into doing DYKs for a while, but it was too predictable, that anything long enough would automatically qualify.

Many NRHP articles should stay short. Take Robert Lindemann House, which "is locally significant as the best preserved Queen Anne style property in the area", long owned by one family, now abandoned. If a reader is seriously interested in more details, they can consult the online NRHP nomination document linked to that one. Some editors, on the other hand, have stated that they believe every shred of info in an NRHP nom document should be put into an article, before it is allowable in mainspace. I think less is more. And readers everywhere else around the U.S. deserve some info. If an NRHP editor chooses to spend a week or whatever developing a too-long-for-the-topic B or C article, they're misspending their effort, honestly, I believe. --doncram 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wondering what my goals are? I'll tell you: I believe that every new NRHP article should give the reader enough context to identify the property, why it's significant, and what made the place historic. For example, let's say that someone was browsing Google Maps in Chisago County, Minnesota, and finds out that the Moody Barn is a historic building. They might click on the Wikipedia link and find that it's the last remaining round barn in the county, built in an era when farming was diversifying. That's the sort of thing that gets me interested in historic places, and the sort of interest that I want to encourage in readers. On the other hand, suppose I'm looking at a map of Brentwood, Tennessee, and I find there's a placemark for Joseph Elliston House. I might check it out (assuming I'm an end reader of Wikipedia, not an editor or an "insider"), and I find out that it may have been built in 1817 or 1855, depending. It has a central hall plan (which may or may not hold a staircase), and... what else? Is the house a notable piece of architecture? Who was Joseph Elliston? I guess I'd have to look for some more information on Joseph Elliston. Ah, never mind, I'm going to give up and find something else.

I switched to my Wikipedia editor hat and tried to find something about the Joseph Elliston House, and read through the 52-page MPS document, but I still couldn't find anything substantial. It shouldn't be my job to have to support the articles you create, though. If you create a bunch of thin stubs, then it just means that someone else has to go back and fix what you've created. It's like deferred maintenance. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not like that, IMO. The Elliston House article is a good start, and actually conveys a lot more than you give it credit. It shows the state of information available, not quite satisfying yet, certainly. It conveys to the next editor that maybe it is not so easy to find online references to improve it. (Heh, heh, not like some other articles in North Dakota where you have pointed out it would be easy to add more info from the NRHP document that I had linked. Which was true, but missed the point that the starter article did provide a good link to the further information.) The existence of this Elliston House article might enlist the interest of a local historical society, or anyone else actually holding relevant information, to improve it. Its existence already provides something to local readers, and vastly increases the chances that next year there will be a lot more there. --doncram 18:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot extra to add to this discussion but perhaps some context is useful. I dealt with doncram about a year ago with regards to disambiguation pages and NRHP pages. There are a number of discussions you can browse here. The NRHP project always seemed to be given carte blanche to create stubs for any of the NRHP sites so long as they met a very low threshold for stub notability, because the assumption was the underlying topic is notable. Or at least from the disambiguation page perspective it seemed like that. This is part of a wider debate about kitten-esque articles in general though. There's an awful lot of them that go on, but yet there's no consistent or quick way to deal with them. It's quicker for me to write a script to create them than it is for me to amalgamate them together, write an AfD about it, and then deal with the impending discussions. It was hard enough to even get a relatively softly written policy about it under the BOT approval group (see this and the subsequent outcome here and also here).

I'm not saying there's not value to creating these kinds of articles... and early in my wiki career I did some of this myself. I've since proded some of the worst of these, and expanded others to be useful articles. But the central problem is that we tend to split off into inclusions versus deletionist corners and nobody has any serious debate about this kind of specific issue. At least not debate that doesn't have the same usual suspects popping up with predictable opinions.

Perhaps a more broad based discussion of stub threshold notability, or at least making authors be thoughtful about their creations, is appropriate. But I have limited expectations that will actually happen. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What does "It [...] has other significance in c.1880." even mean? (example from John Pope House (Burwood, Tennessee)). Fram (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The National Register database has fields in it to indicate that a building has "significance" in one or more particular years. For example, the Floyd B. Olson House in Minneapolis has significant years of 1922 and 1936. The database doesn't indicate why 1936 was significant. There's another information source, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, which indicates a period of significance from 1922 through 1936. I'm checking out another book, Larry Millett's AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, which states that the house was built in 1922 and Floyd B. Olson lived there until he died of cancer in 1936. But, the database itself (which is where Doncram is getting this information) doesn't explain why 1936 is a year of significance. My assumption is that the earliest date for "year of significance" is when the structure was built, so that's what I've been putting in the infobox. It takes more research than just looking in the database to determine other years of significance of a property. In fact, one of my frustrations is that Doncram is generating articles based only on the database, without consulting other research materials. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That Olson was created by Elkman in 2008. From what you say here, plus informed understanding of how the NRIS database works, it appears the "built=1922" assertion in the article is incorrect. Rather, the house was likely built earlier but is significant for its association during 1922-1936 with notable person Floyd B. Olson. If i were Elkman, I would rant on and on about how terrible it is that an erroneous assertion has been out there in Wikipedia since 2008. --doncram 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, it appears it is correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I also checked out the Hennepin County Property Information System. 1914 49th St. W. is listed as being built in 1922. It's also listed as lot 28 in the Harriet Heights Minneapolis addition, with a market value of $646,000. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, good. I thought Elkman was confessing to having relied upon imprecise information in a mainspace article, as the article then and now shows no other source for the built=1922 interpretation of NRIS, but I stand corrected. Or Elkman lucked out in this case that assuming the NRIS info meant built turns out to be the case (usually a pretty good bet). I thought the info he was providing here suggested a different reason why NRIS included a 1922 date, and the one other source he mentioned here could have been echoing that, but it sounds like the facts are it was built in 1922. Thanks. --doncram 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(reply before Elkman's separate reply inserted above) I'll explain. Please don't complain about the explanation being long. The statement reflects the fact that the National Register's NRIS database gives two dates of significance for the place, c.1806 and c.1880. This reflects National Register staff doing data entry from the approved NRHP nomination form for the property, soon after approval. They entered the address and basic facts about the property, including significant dates. The NRIS database provides for data entry of up to 4 date fields, plus a corresponding number of "circa" qualifier fields. For an antebellum mansion built in Greek Revival style during 1830-1835, and then greatly remodelled into Colonial Revival style in 1925, that would get entered as three significant dates: 1830, 1835, 1925. In a small percentage of articles, the first date in the series is something different, like the date of founding of a cemetery on the property of a church that was built later.

My system's /draft for the John Pope House, which you can see at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts#John Pope House (Burwood, Tennessee) used the NRIS database to report both c. 1806 and c. 1880 in the "built=" field of the infobox, including with the "circa" qualifier, although the dates are not 100% sure to be dates of building. And it includes /draft text clarifying that the dates are "significant" dates, not necessarily built dates, i.e. "It was built or has other significance in C 1806 and C 1880.<ref name=nris/>" For an editor using the /draft system, that obviously provides a prompt to try to find more specific information. For comparison, Elkman's system will simply report the earlier date, with no qualifier, as "built=1806", giving no hint to an editor that the date might not actually be a built date, and providing no prompt.

In the mainspace article that I created from the /draft, I used additional information from a source that I found, to state more precisely that "The original part of the house was built of logs in c.1806." I am pretty sure that the c.1880 date is in fact the date that the house was remodelled from being a "single pen" of logs into being a full, respectable, "Hall-parlor plan" house. I strongly believe that will be borne out in the NRHP nomination document, if/when someone chooses to collect that from the National Register or when the National Register makes the Tennessee documents available online (which it has done for OK, MS, ND, DE, CT, AK, and some other states and territories). What I left in the article was "It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in c.1880.", sourced to NRIS, which is an educated, accurate statement interpreting the NRIS database information. It properly begs the question, to a local potential editor, of what specifically happened in 1880. Which is fine and good.

You say that "It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in c.1880" is "fine and good." I contend that it's original research. All you know is that the date appears in a cryptic entry in a database, and you have guessed at what it might possibly mean. That's original research. --Orlady (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note this is better for the Wikipedia than an overly confident statement with no ambiguity based on the more minimalist article draft system provided by Elkman, and no other sources. It is far better for Williamson County readers to get to know something about the property, rather than nothing. Elkman can say that he prefers for more information to be provided upfront, which no one can argue with, more to a certain degree is certainly better. But I don't understand Elkman's preference that no information be provided, where some good information is available but not enough to answer all questions. I strongly believe that the amount of info provided in the John Pope House article is pretty darn good, way better than nothing at all. I also don't understand why Elkman prefers to give editors less information to start with than I have proven can be feasibly provided in a /draft system, based on the same NRIS database.

About this John Pope House article, I have already done a probably decent job of looking for available information online, both in the Williamson County MRA document that I cite in the article, and in the Google book cited, and otherwise, and I am pretty sure the 1880 question is not immediately resolvable without actually getting the NRHP nomination document (I'd be very happy to be proven wrong, if someone finds a source online right now). I myself have collected the free NRHP documents for several other Williamson County, Tennessee NRHPs, but I am not so interested in this one, so I don't plan to request it. Resolving the 1880 question can wait for any other Wikipedia NRHP editor to get interested, or perhaps for one of the local historical societies to get interested, or for the National Register to get around to posting the Tennessee documents (quite likely within the next couple years).

This was a serious reply to Fram's question. I hope it is helpful also in showing more how I am thinking, that providing a pretty good starter article is valuable. --doncram 13:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I get that this is what you are trying to convey, but the sentence does't make any sense as it stands. "The John Pope House has other significance in c.1880." is meaningless and incorrect. What you are trying to express is something like "Something significant wrt the John Pope House, perhaps remodelling, an extension, ..., happened in 1880." I am aware that I am not a native English speaker, and that my texts are far from error-free, but I can't imagine that "It has significance in or about ca. 18XX", which you used in many, many articles, would be considered a correct sentence by native English speakers. "It was built or has other significance in c. 1830, c. 1850, and c. 1907" (Mordecai Puryear House, which you revised today): why not change your template to something like "Significant years in the history of the property were ..." or something similar? Expressing ambiguity can be done in a meaningful, correct way and shouldn't be done in some extremely grating format instead. Fram (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, I will be happy to try that language in my next batch of /drafts. That is the kind of actually helpful suggestion that I have actually been seeking from NRHP editors. I will be reviewing this and other discussions in the process of reprogramming for the next batch, and will necessarily dismiss all the shrill, simplistic complaints that are not about trying to actually help editors. I am sure that others will complain about this language too, but I believe it is better, and I will be happy to blame you for the wording. :) We might call for Elkman to modify his system to provide something better than the incomplete "built = 1806" that appears in his draft article generator, too. To see what his system suggests, go to http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php and enter "Pope, John" and "TN" and then hit "Submit". That provides a cut-and-paste-ready draft article which is better than my /draft in one respect, in that it includes coordinates data. (Elkman is using one version of a National Register coordinates database which I can't find easily in the National Register's systems, and which Elkman has declined to answer about sharing with me. I and Elkman both should use a different National Register database that provides better quality coordinates than that version. I am working at bringing that into my /drafts system). Elkman's draft is worse than my /draft for the same house in that it provides no actual drafted text prompting editors to try to figure out the meaning of the 1806 and 1880 dates, and in some other respects. Depending on the particulars of the NRHP place, my system can provide considerably better information. --doncram 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I never meant for my infobox generator to generate draft articles. I intended for it to generate the code that goes into {{Infobox NRHP}}, as well as the categories that can easily be surmised from the architectural style data and some of the historic functions listed in there. In fact, every infobox generated through my tool contains the text, "The infobox is NOT enough for a standalone article. You need to enter some more information about where the property is located, its history, and why this property is notable. In other words, don't use this infobox generator to create one-sentence stubs." If there's a need to add more fields to the infobox or to provide a minimal summary of other information in order to prepare a draft article, I haven't received any major requests for changes from anyone except you. And, I'm wondering if your comments about my infobox generator are your way of deflecting conversation away from criticism of your editing behavior. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Elkman, your disregard for minor requests (such as a multiple-times repeated request for you to remove an inconvenient line-break before the NRIS reference), and general respect for you and what your system does provide, holds off other requests from NRHP editors. I and other NRHP editors do respect what you provide, "on your own dime" as I have put it many times previously. NRHP editors politely ask one another at their Talk pages not to bother you with requests. If you were amenable to requests, on the other hand, you would receive them. In particular, I would be very glad to work with you to improve your generator in substantial ways, such as building in intelligent linking or not to builders and architect articles, and building in usage of the better, available coordinates database. And, as Dudemanfellabra agreed in the past AN discussion, probably the biggest specific help you could provide would be to build in a draft inline reference to the NRHP nomination document for NRHPs in the many states and District of Columbia where that is available online already.

About deflecting, I am kinda seeing this now as a pretty good strategy, maybe, to point out contradictions in what one major critic says, sure. It is maybe worthwhile to educate others at wp:AN who get concerned from time to time, but it is probably better for Wikipedia as a community to shut down these episodes here more quickly. (striking, as I didn't really mean that or say that right).

Are you suggesting you might be amenable to requests if you received them? That is great news, if the case. --doncram 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be amenable to requests like this if you're going to bring them up on an administrators' noticeboard, where I'm presumably in trouble for even being a participant in this discussion? I've got plenty of other things to do in "real life", in my spare time. And if you're going to ask me, under duress, to make updates to the infobox generator as part of an administrative action, that's hardly enough to motivate me to do the extra work. I've got enough projects going on in my real life to keep me busy. I might be amenable to NRHP requests if I had the time to do them. But, since you keep bringing up my conduct over and over and over again, I'm going to open a separate subsection below to ask the other involved admins (and uninvolved admins) exactly what the hell I'm doing wrong around here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I think you're creating a false dichotomy between "overly confident statement with no ambiguity" and your style of phrasing. The third alternative is to simply say nothing at all about, say, the John Pope House in c.1880 until we, as authors, have a less ambiguous idea of what it was. Consider the extreme of the logical tautology: "Leonard Coreman was or was not German." This statement is a completely true fact about Leonard, but it's absolutely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, because even though it's true, it fails to usefully inform the reader. Now consider a less extreme case: "In c.1850, Alfred Sjogren either won the Battle of Mukden, planted a basil patch, or became ill from a surfeit of ice cream." Even if this statement is completely true and verifiable, I think the vast majority of us would agree that it's not appropriate for a biographical article; while in theory it informs the reader about Alfred, in practice it's likely to leave them more confused than they were before about what Alfred's been up to. I think these "Something happened to the building in year..." statements are of the same stamp; either we can say more or less definitively what event made that year important for the building, or we should leave it out until we have the information that explains it. As Wittgenstein would have it, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." (Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.) The theory that we should leave these things in the article to "provide a prompt" for or "enlist the interest" of some hypothetical eventualist future editor is a bit like leaving your defunct 1973 Dodge Dart on the lawn in the hopes that someone will eventually show up with its missing piston rings. Yes, it may happen occasionally, but in the meantime, everyone who drives by has to gaze at the rusting hulk on the lawn. Choess (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Choess, I appreciate what you are saying and will take it into account, before drafting a new batch of /draft articles. I have indeed listened to and acted on other feedback I have gotten already.

Not to take away from what you say, but I am not sure if you missed that the /draft in non-mainspace, which had several ambiguities, was not what I wrote into mainspace, which was this first draft by me of John Pope House article. That had exactly one inexact statement, that "It was built or has other significance in c.1806 and c.1880." Prior to this AN discussion, if i am reading times correctly, I edited it up to this version, with "The original part of the house was built of logs in c.1806.[3] It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in c.1880.[1]" It then included good wikilinks to architecture articles i created, and good categories, and additional interesting info in the article. I don't think either version was a rusting hulk. Then, during this discussion i edited it to implement Fram's wording suggestion. Station1 has since edited it to remove that. I think the article is now somewhat worse for not mentioning the c.1880 date at all. --doncram 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Don, could you explain why you include the phrase "...or has other significance..."? That strikes me as being exactly the sort of uninformative wishy-washy statement that everyone is complaining about. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fram asked that above, within this #goals section, and I replied and then Fram eventually suggested different wording, which Station1 now removes from the article. Please read the above and ask a further question. --doncram 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "Another significant date in the history of the property is c.1880" because it gave no clue as to what happened around 1880, nor, to the best of my knowledge, is there anything in that sentence's citation (which apparentlty requires downloading an executable file to access). Station1 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with getting rid of these sentences alltogether, my concern was that if it was included, it should at least be correct English. "The building has significance in 1880, 1895 and 1920" is just nonsense, "significant events in the history of the building happened in 1880, 1895 and 1920" is easily understandable. It is, however, rather vague, so not much is lost by not including it. Fram (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Elkman's conduct, inability to provide information in the generator, etc.

Since Doncram is making issues of my infobox generator, my participation in WP:NRHP, my conduct in general, and anything else, I'd like to know exactly what I'm doing wrong around here. Go ahead, let's discuss my behavior, not Doncram's. Tell me exactly where I've screwed up. And, if there's an admin sanction involved here, go ahead and make some proposals. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've very much screwed up by stating your opinions here and elsewhere, but I don't understand your interest in criticizing the existence of starter articles on historic places in the United States far away from your own area. You've repeatedly stated that you wish for a certain standard in NRHP articles, including that it should include a decent explanation of the historic significance of a site. But, if the significance of a site is not readily identified (usually because the NRHP nomination document is not readily available), why do you oppose that other factual information be made available? What is the harm? And, don't you think that having some information is more likely to lead to local editors developing information, or do you really believe that having no information is more likely to lead to more information? I really don't understand your perspective.

Also, you are the main provider by far of stub articles on NRHP-listed places, which are used by many editors who are either starting a stub article using just the NRIS information you serve up, or they are adding more information from other sources. Given that your generator could provide more drafted information, comparable to what my /drafts provide (such as drafted inline references to the NRHP nomination documents where those are available), are you willing to provide more? Note, I won't say it is easy to provide more, because I think it is a pain to go back and reprogram anything, from my own experience. And to provide a decently worded English language sentence to communicate the number of contributing and non-contributing buildings, sites, structures, etc., is not simple (I developed a fairly decent version of that sentence only in my later /drafts). But, don't you think that providing more, is more likely to lead to articles having more? Or do you sincerely believe that having less, and including a big warning sentence that needs to be deleted, leads to articles getting more? How about including "find sources" searches set up, in the drafted Talk pages, as I have been doing, for the main name and any alternative names of the NRHP-listed place? --doncram 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I'm willing to scrub the whole idea altogether. I'm tempted to remove the infobox generator completely just so you will stop bitching about it. I'm really tired of having to waste my time responding to your repeated complaints that my infobox generator (which is designed to populate the fields in {{Infobox NRHP}}, in case you forgot) isn't giving you enough content. I also had to interrupt my workday in the middle of the afternoon to reply to one of your complaints. You aren't even using my infobox generator, so why are you complaining about it? I suppose if you really felt the need, you could go back to your own generator or your own database query tools, look up the number of contributing buildings/structures/objects/whatever, and plug those numbers into someone else's articles.

Maybe some of the admins on this admin noticeboard can tell me whether I should just throw in the towel, get rid of the infobox generator, stop writing NRHP articles in my own state (where I have plenty of reference material handy), and let someone else do this. I'd like to get the opinions of other admins here, since, after all, this is an admin noticeboard. --These two paragraphs were written, typed, and/or have other significance by Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do your best to keep maintaining it and making it available — I use it all the time, as it's far superior to anything else, and I've never figured out how you get some types of information from the database. I've used it in two ways: (1) Infoboxes for new or greatly-expanded articles such as Epsilon II Archaeological Site, and (2) Basic information for description pages for photos of NR-listed sites that I upload to Commons. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Every previous time that Elkman has threatened to withdraw his off-wikipedia website, one or more NRHP editors has likewise asserted how helpful his site is, and asked him not to withdraw. I have generally been respectful and repeatedly expressed my appreciation about what he provides. However, the negativity that Elkman repeatedly brings to discussions at wp:AN and wt:NRHP is a drag, IMHO. Personally, I have respected his wishes about Minnesota NRHP-listed places. I have asked him above what is his concern about faraway places and he has not replied. Also, I have made suggestions for his NRHP article generation system (he says it is not one, but I don't understand the hairsplitting on that point), which he has sometimes accepted and sometimes not. He has not generally been receptive to suggestions; a main one that he has declined to address is whether he could incorporate a draft inline reference to the NRHP nomination document and its photos document, in new articles. I have asked him to share whatever database of coordinates he has, and he has declined to answer. I have asked him other questions, such as about his use of wp:MPS data and about incorporating better information about MPS studies, and he has declined to answer. There's potential now to improve what his system provides about architects/builders/engineers for about 10,000 out of 85,000 NRHP-listed places, but upfront I am not hopeful he will.

At some point, the benefits of his voluntary participation may not be worth the costs. It would not be the end of the world to accept Elkman's offer to withdraw. I can provide some partial substitute for what Elkman's site provides, and would make more effort to do so if he did withdraw. Several other better programmers have downloaded and used the NRIS database (including Anome, including some German wikipedia programmer who has recently generated disambiguation pages using it, including NrhpBot's programmer years ago), and someone else could provide the equivalent or better to what Elkman provides. In fact one factor in my choosing to program my system as far as I have, has been out of sympathy for Elkman, who seemed to want to get out of the business. Elkman notably has not updated his system to use the NRIS database that has been available since June 2010. His system serves up data only through March, 2009. There are complications in the 2010 version which necessitate some extra programming, in contrast to previous updates, and I myself have used the 2010 version only in some reports, not yet used it in generating /draft articles for any article drive.

I don't want him to withdraw and am not here asking him to do so. But, if Elkman is so personally bothered by regular development of NRHP articles in Wikipedia, and by many people using his article generator system in ways that he disapproves of, I wonder if it would be better for him to just withdraw it. In his repeated threats or offers, is he asking for affirmation or is he actually asking for permission to withdraw?

Elkman asked me at my Talk page for me to comment about his system and his behaviors in this section, rather than anywhere else right now. I don't suppose me commenting this way is going to improve the chances he will actually cooperate, programming-wise, to improve his and my complementary systems, which is what I would most like. But currently I think he is not likely to cooperate anyhow. Or, Elkman, would you in fact be willing to consider some suggestions for your generator, and to share some information to help my complementary one? --doncram 21:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll let other admins weigh in on whether I should still be contributing my INFOBOX generator (not ARTICLE generator, since articles contain more than infoboxes -- or do they?) I'll also let other admins weigh in on whether my contributions at WT:NRHP and WP:AN are a drag. As far as the 2010 database is concerned, they changed large parts of the schema of that database. I've done most of the work on writing new PHP code to do new queries by city, county, and architect, as well as generating the new infoboxes, and I've been experimenting with it for some of the new articles I've done. But, since my conduct has come into question here, and since my support of the query tools is an issue, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to bring the tools into general availability. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You asked me to comment specifically here, so I am not sure if you are now suggesting you only want to hear others / administrators comments, not mine. If you wish to disregard my suggestions because they are from me, that's unfortunate because I am probably the most informed person about the good and the imperfections in your system. It's inefficient to ask administrators not familiar with NRIS to comment, if that is what you are doing.

Anyhow, great to hear you've done some more programming work. If I and other NRHP editors prepared a good list of architects/builders/engineers, comparable to the wp:MPS list about MPS/MRA documents, would you be willing to consider using that to improve what your generator serves up? It could use the (implemented or pending) new NRHP infobox field for builder=, instead of the one for architect=, where we now know, or could soon know, that a given person was primarily a covered bridge builder or whatever. And it could be smart about wikilinking the names, where we know this is an article for the person. And it could correct known typos in NRIS that I have tabulated where I know that an architect/builder/engineer name is spelled wrong and/or should pipelink to a specific differently named article. I would do the same in my complementary system, addressing one complaint about accuracy/ambiguity in NRHP draft articles. --doncram 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking Elkman to improve his generator so you don't have to do any real work. Good articles are not written by bots. Instead of relying on Elkman, you could do some actual research on these people... looking for sources beyond what is available in the NRIS database. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that somebody (and I'm not referring to Elkman) has a massive chip on his shoulder that even causes him to try to prevent productive discussion of these topics. --Orlady (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Though I am new to it, I can see that this issue has been kicking around for a while with little to no progress. It seems that people are jumping to the "solution" without first gaining a consensus on the base action. Clearly, some people don't like what doncram is doing and others don't see a problem. Additionally, there is a lot of disagreement on what should be done about it. It seems a lot of people objected to the Archive 223 proposal and object to the above proposal (myself included), but agree that the behavior should be discouraged (myself included), creating more confusion and more off-topic arguing. I propose that we first reach a consensus on whether or not the practice is undesirable, then work on a solution (if one is needed). It seems that we can get a lot of the arguing out of the way if we first reach a consensus on whether or not the action is a problem. (A support vote indicates that you believe doncram's actions to be sufficiently disruptive as to necessitate some sort of action.)

• Support I find his pattern of "stub" creation to be disruptive because it typically derives its information solely from NRIS database fields and presents it in such a manner that renders the article unusable. Stubs can be very valuable and should be used to stimulate further editing and expansion. However, I believe doncram's style discourages further editing because it is so difficult to make sense of the information and/or find a jumping-off point. An example of this is his newly created article Rubush & Hunter. I created this redlink recently with the intent of eventually creating an, at minimum, Start-class article on the firm and hoping that in the meantime someone would come along with some additional info or a good starting point. However, the article that doncram created accomplishes little more than clicking "What links here?" Any attempt to create a decent article on the subject would require blanking the article as it fails to offer any useful information in a usable format. PhantomPlugger (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the stray bits of text like "coord_parameters region:US_type:landmark | locmapin Indiana | built 1927 | architect Rubush and Hunter ; William P. Jungelaus Company, Inc. | ..." and other copy/paste remnants make the article look more like rubbish than Rubush. (And don't forget to complain about my "rubbish" smart remark in the section immediately above.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Those were stray bits, yes, now incorporated/removed. Note the Under Construction tag on the article; it really was under construction.

I'm sorry, PhantomPlugger, I would have been glad not to start the Rubush & Hunter article 2 days ago if I had any idea it was on your or anyone else's radar screen to start it. I don't know what redlink list you are speaking of. I created it off a different list of redlinks, namely of architects and builders and engineers associated with many NRHP places. As you might or might not have gathered, the usage of NRIS information by Elkman to assert that these persons are architects is objected to by me, and the usage by me to state they are architects or builders or engineers, is objected to by some others. It seems best to me to figure out what these people are, so that articles on the NRHP places can state accurate information immediately, and this is best done by beginning to develop articles about them. Any builder or architect with more than 10 NRHP places listed for their architecture is pretty surely Wikipedia notable. I guess it is good we agree that there should be an article for the topic. I am happy for you to develop the article in any reasonable way. By DYKCheck, it shows as a 280 character stub (the list is not included for DYK-eligibility), so if garnering DYK is your concern you should have no trouble, you'd only have to develop the minimum 1500 character DYK threshold, to achieve DYK eligibilty under its 5X expansion option instead of as a brand new article, if you're not ready to develop it right now.

I don't think you have to say that blanking the article is necessary to improve it. If you wish to create a different list or table of the works of this firm, by all means go ahead, anyhow. But aren't the individually notable places which I listed out, worth mentioning in the article? I should think you should at least check whatever different list you have, to compare its completeness vs. this starter list of works based on NRIS information. --doncram 23:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PhantomPlugger, with the removal of the stray bits, do you have any objection to the article in this current version? I don't understand what you mean about it being "difficult to make sense of the information and/or find a jumping-off point"? Couldn't it be easily developed by expanding the lede text, like was done by me and others for Alfredo S.G. Taylor, another architect article that i created today, and which garnered newly uploaded photos and moved from this early version to this current version today? --doncram 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about DYK or anything like that and your familiarity (well beyond my own) with the database can certainly be useful. I hope to expand the article well beyond 1500 characters if someone else doesn't beat me to it, but even so, my primary goal is expanding the information on Wikipedia in a certain sector that I find to be important.

The current version is certainly better, but the only piece of information in that article that didn't exist on Wikipedia before that article was created is the first names of the partners. If one were to type Rubush & Hunter into the search box before the article existed, one would get a list of their works, with links to those articles. The only difference now is that the list is in article form instead of in search results form. I'm not opposed to you creating stubs, in fact, I would have appreciated a good-quality stub on Rubush & Hunter as it would have helped me organize the general outline of the article. When stubs like this are created, at best, they add nothing to Wikipedia; at worst, they confuse, obscure and discourage.

I hope you don't see me (or anyone else for that matter) as just another lemming pile-on because I do think you have the capability to contribute positively. I just think we should set a good example to avoid WP:FAIL. PhantomPlugger (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate what you are saying. But the Rubush & Hunter article provides more than you say, it includes what is likely to be a nearly complete list of works of the firm that are NRHP-listed and hence already known to be individually notable (15 in number) and it details them out, including 6 redlinks. You could not search for and find the firms' association with those non-article places in Wikipedia before. For an interested editor, i.e. you, it suggests that you can probably start articles on those (you may use tools and tips given at wp:NRHPhelp). The Rubush & Hunter article provides a place that the existing and future NRHP and other articles on their works can now explicitly link to. For a reader using "What links here" to navigate, it already provides means for reader to navigate among the existing 9 articles on their works. It clarifies that these are architects, not builders or engineers, which Elkman's NRHP article generator or my system can use to suggest more precise and accurate draft infoboxes/articles, and clarifies that the 9 articles are not likely to include incorrect infobox assertions (as Elkman's generator would have assumed correctly that the firm was an architect). Of course it will be better if you improve it. But I think Wikipedia is better for having the article now, rather than not having it, don't you? --doncram 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support, of course. The Rubush&Hunter article isn't even particularly bad, when compared with the universe of potential examples. The list I compiled at User:Orlady/List includes many gems like Valley Falls Cotton Mill Site, created 6 months ago (current version) -- "is a property" (what kind? who knows?), "The property is also known as Site No. 146-04" (what does that signify? who knows? anyway, who cares? -- surely it's not encyclopedic information), "was built or has other significance in 1849" (since we don't even know for sure if it's a building, I guess it's not surprising that we have no clue what happened in 1849), "when listed the property included one contributing structure and one contributing site" (the only salient information here is that whatever it is, there is only one of it). If it were any other contributor, I would move that page out of article space with a suggestion that the contributor keep it in user space until there was enough there to justify an article. (I've tried that with Doncram, but it only leads to endless wikidrama.) --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) While we're on the subject of content that shouldn't be added to article space, let's not forget the one-sentence paragraphs in the bodies of articles that describe database codes in ALL CAPS, such as "Its listing status is DR, which means DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION." When newbies generate that kind of thing, it usually is corrected with a gentle level-one warning message, but when an experienced user like Doncram creates that sort of thing -- and leaves it untouched for weeks and months -- it conveys the message that Wikipedia is utterly uninterested in quality. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  As Orlady fully well knows, that Valley Falls Cotton Mill Site article was created in an article drive for the 49 NRHPs in Tolland County, CT, supported by a batch of /drafts here which included drafted inline references to NRHP nomination documents. That one is alone, or among few, of NRHPs in that county for which it turns out the NRHP nomination document which would answer all those questions, is not available online. In the other articles, there is some further development using the NRHP nom document. In at least one improved (not started) during that drive, Orlady actually helped. In the larger context, I and others think it makes sense to have a starter article at the Valley Falls article's level, which some term a "sub-stub", rather than having no article at all. To anyone else, please do review the articles of that county. I think it is obvious that readers are better served by having these articles than not having them. --doncram 22:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't "fully well know" what you were doing in creating that stub, as (your beliefs to the contrary) I don't follow you around. As it happens, with minimal research I have learned that the Valley Falls mill site is a small part of a large public park that is extensively documented (including the history of the mill) online. I would not be surprised if the stub you created will deter local residents from developing an article about the park, as a newbie likely would find it daunting to try to force content about the park into the current sub-stub article about a small part of the park.
  As for Mansfield Training School and Hospital, I don't think you should point to your involvement there with pride. The article was created as a stub, with good content and sources, by another user. In February 2010 you visited the page, adding an NRHP infobox and some text about the NRIS database entry, complete with one of your "fill-in-the-blank" reference citations (including "date=, 19", "author=____", and "Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___"). Ten months after that, you came back to fix some of the problems with your edits and add some more of those non-informational sentences that you use to describe NRIS database entries ("It was built or has other significance in 1917" and "The listing is described in its NRHP nomination document."). Largely because you had shoehorned those sentences in between other parts of an article that had actual content about the actual history of the establishment, when I stumbled upon the article, I saw it as an article in serious need of editing attention. I confess I kind of enjoyed the research I did to expand the article and sort out the disconnected statements I found there, but I consider that my expansion of the article was more in spite of you than because of you. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, that is a bald-faced lie, that you don't follow me around. Evidence of hundreds of cases where you edited shortly after I first edited at an article can be shown. If I compiled a list of say 200 clear cases of you following me around in the last 2 years, would you agree to stop following me around for a future 2 years, with some severe penalty if you do? In the last AN discussion, you said that you do! Anyhow, you lie! Liar liar liar liar liar!!!!!!!!! I am just astonished at that. --doncram 03:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, looking at a few of the Tolland County ones, I see there do remain examples of the accurately ambiguous statements, but these are easily cleared up as here I amend the Mansfield Center Cemetery article by use of the fully developed inline references to the NRHP documents. In the last AN discussion, editor Polaron offered to visit the Connecticut NRHP articles and develop them out further from their linked NRHP documents. I repeat, that the Tolland articles are better to have than not. It happens many of them can be easily improved using the good sourcing already developed for them. --doncram 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's nice to know that you thought the Mansfield Center Cemetery article was "easily cleaned up," since your "It was founded or has other significance in 1693" sentence remained in the article for 5-1/2 months after you put it there. I gagged, however, when I saw that you had "cleaned it up" by inserting a very short direct quotation from the National Register nomination form. After seeing that, I took the time to edit the article with some information from the source (not quoted, but in my own words). It is unfortunately true that most of the meaningless verbiage you have inserted into article space could be relatively easily cleaned up. Similarly, the dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners could be "relatively easily cleaned up," but the world is not full of people who want to devote themselves to selflessly cleaning up after other people's dogs. Similarly, when meaningless verbiage is added bot-style to hundreds (if not thousands) of pages in article space, there is no army of selfless volunteers waiting around for the opportunity to research the topics and replace that verbiage with worthwhile prose. I would prefer to delete it and insist that it not be recreated in article space. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  What part of wp:civility do you understand? That's obviously offensive, and your edit summary in this edit was also offensive to me. I think you are completely wrong, if you think that is plagiarism or copyvio or "obnoxious" in any way. It is an unusual situation, where the cemetery is not clearly identified as having been founded that year; the best way I saw to explain the significant date was to include the short quote, which very nicely resolved the implicit question. --doncram 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose In the statement above, I don't know what is meant by "this issue". I think in this discussion and others, there are many issues, which some would identify as basic questions about Wikipedia values, or about concerns about editor Elkman's article generator, or about many other matters. In the label of this new subsection, it seems to suggest PhantomHugger sees a consensus. I'm sorry what is the asserted consensus here? I think this is suggested as a vote, which could lead to a consensus? I don't agree that the above statement is a new consensus. --doncram 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Something has to be done here. The entire situation is a mess and consensus is as valid as policy as any of those which Doncram has used to support his position in past debates. I may be wrong, but promised change in how things will be done always has the appearance of being some time in the future. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not interested in devoting the time it would take (reading archives, etc.) to make a well-reasoned !vote regarding this matter (should this not be a WP:RFC, however?), nor do I wish to spark a tl;dr debate about our past interactions, but let me just add that I find Doncram's incomplete, sometimes incorrect, and vaguely worded NRHP stubs aggravating, especially those that could be improved with less than 10 minutes of online research, and am glad to see that it's not just me who has that opinion. I've learned to preserve my low blood pressure by discovering it's easier to just avoid/unwatchlist/ignore most of these stubs for a suitable interval, while acknowledging that although the work is imperfect and ends up making a lot of work for other people, people like Doncram do get a lot of work done that might not otherwise. This is not an endorsement of his approach, just the way I choose to handle it. I'm not optimistic things will change. YMMV. Valfontis (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This matter has gone on too long. There's a good reason that NrhpBot was stopped after doing just a small portion of Ohio — that bot did basically what Doncram is doing, mining the database to create substubs such as Richard H. Mitchell House, except that it presented the statements factually without all the "It might..." statements. And guess what — the large majority of its stubs have never been improved, and I'm responsible for most of the ones that have been. Given the history of these articles, there's no reason to believe that people will improve Doncram's stubs either. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  I did not create that Richard H. Mitchell House article and never edited it. I am not responsible for what the NrhpBot did years ago; I would have objected to its running back then as it could have done better. I have so far created /draft batches of articles, not in mainspace, only for a few counties, none in Ohio, and only in counties where NRHP nomination forms or a good MPS/MRA document was available on-line. I have created scattered articles in Ohio relating to List of Masonic buildings or other list-articles that I deemed worth completing out, or for reasons of stopping contention about disambiguation pages. In Ohio, I also probably developed NRHP list-tables and I may have created multiply-sourced articles for NRHPs that are on List of NHLs in OH. I'm not likely to create more than an occasional Ohio NRHP article because the NRHP nomination documents are not generally available on-line, and also because you Nyttend (and I think some others) are informed and working on NRHP articles in the state. I don't think there's a general problem with articles I have created or will create in Ohio. Does this address your concern? --doncram 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think you might have missed the point of this comment. I won't speak for Nyttend, but my understanding is that he is making an analogy. Just like NrhpBot created poor stubs by simply taking bits of info out of a data base, so are you. And because NrhpBot was creating poor stubs, it was stopped. And because very few of NrhpBot's stubs have been improved after creation by anyone other than Nyttend, it's likely most of yours will remain as you create them for a very long time. Nyttend did not say or imply that you had anything to do with NrhpBot nor that you created Richard H. Mitchell House, nor does this have anything to do with Ohio per se. The first two sentences, especially, of your reply make it appear as if you are either purposely creating a red herring or simply do not comprehend the objections to some of your work. I wouldn't mention this if this was an isolated case, but in my experience these types of diversionary responses are very much a pattern. Station1 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. My first two sentences are deliberate, to head off misunderstanding of other readers like in the last wp:AN discussion where a British editor complained about something else completely unrelated to me, and one or more others incorrectly thought that i was responsible. These analogies are a bit dangerous. I think it is probably good also to address Nyttend's possible concern about Ohio articles, like Valfontis has concern about Oregon ones. I asked Nyttend to clarify if that addressed his concern or not, that is not avoiding his comment at all. I actually would appreciate if editors would be honest about what they are concerned about, like for whom. If you've got some intention to start architect articles in your area, and you're afraid you might not get first author "credit", or if you are honestly trying to build up NRHP articles in your area and you just want to do it your way. P.S. Actually I don't know what happened to NrhpBot and am not sure it was "stopped" by any discussion or action anywhere, maybe just the programmer lost interest. The programmer did not reply to my inquiry when I came upon its work later. Nyttend and/or Station1, do you actually know what happened, can you point to some past discussion? --doncram 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, I don't know what happened to NrhpBot, but since we all agree "it could have done better", it doesn't really matter. This seems like another red herring, intentional or not, whose scent I'd rather not follow. But I must say I really doubt any editor on this page is not being honest about their concerns, or would be satisfied if you left just 'their' state alone. Station1 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Doncram should not be creating stubs where he can't answer basic questions about the information he puts in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Different editors are speaking of different things. I can answer basic questions about any information I put into any article. I am pretty scrupulous about ensuring every statement I make is sourced. There may be cases where I am using informed judgment to interprete a source in a way that is not obvious to another reader of the same source. I would be very happy to be questioned and to answer why I did what I did in any such case. Here, SarekOfVulcan is referring to, I think, what he proposed in the last AN discussion, where he wished to ban specific accurately ambiguous phrases, such as a sourced statement that a person was an architect and/or builder. Again, SarekOfVulcan would seem to prefer a confidently stated inaccurate statement, like Elkman's generator provides, that a person is an architect when that is not true. Again there are many thousands of articles with Elkman-generated infoboxes asserting that persons are architects when that has not been verified, and many of those also contain text statements echoing the infobox assertion. I think SarekOfVulcan has also said he does not mean that, that he would prefer nothing be said. I just happen to disagree, that if you have a sourced factual statement to make which is not as precise as one might wish, you can still just say it, and that provides a good implicit request to readers with expertise to refine the statement. That's a subjective preference of mine vs. his. Anyhow, there's some momentum now I hope to improve the quality of information available about the builder vs. architect question, in part by my having recently figured out what is the status for about 100 of the most prolific of these persons (by starting articles for them and developing information about them). And there was a further discussion at wt:NRHP which my articles since have taken account of (SarekOfVulcan, please note I have actually not used a couple phrases you objected to there). And I agreed to something in the last AN discussion which I still do agree to. --doncram 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  I swear, if you mention my name and your quibble about the "architect" versus "builder" versus "engineer" business, I am going to blow a fucking gasket. Would you like for me to go back to each and every one of those articles generated by the infobox generator and put in a bunch of weasel words, saying, "This person may be a builder, architect, engineer, or someone whose name got written in the wrong line of the form?" Would you like those articles deleted entirely? You say you're "making an implicit request to readers with expertise to refine the statement". I interpret that as saying, "Here's the most minimal article I can get away with on the topic. I'm not going to read any sources or do any research because that's someone else's job." You're putting a huge deferred maintenance burden out there, and that's a whole lot worse than someone using my infobox generator to say that someone was an architect when in fact someone was a builder. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Elkman, indeed I do think it would be reasonable to go back to every article having the architect= assertion, and call those into question. I suggested we might have to use a bot to do so, at Template talk:Infobox NRHP#Built information, and follow that by a long cleanup campaign to fix them. I am not particularly blaming you, because you served up what you did in good faith, but you facilitated the introduction of a lot of unverified/sometimes inaccurate information into Wikipedia. Note, the private website www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, while it has other errors of interpretation of NRIS, gets this right, correctly labelling persons "architect, builder, or engineer". Indeed it causes a lot of what you term "deferred maintenance" now. You don't yourself have to go back and fix all the articles; it can be done by others in a slow cleanup drive. But it would be nice if you would cooperate in improving your generator to help prevent extension of that particular problem, which indeed you are partially responsible for, IMO. And it would be nice if you would not repeatedly blow a gasket whenever you consider a new article that is not as complete as you would like. --doncram 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  As much as I'd like to tell you off in the sort of language I think you deserve right now, I'm going to spare it, because I'd only get warnings for breaching civility. Also, it would look bad in the Request for Arbitration that will no doubt be submitted soon. You are alone in assuming that I'm the only person introducing unverified or inaccurate information into Wikipedia. Nobody else has made that allegation. In fact, nobody other than yourself has used my name in this discussion, other than Nyttend saying he's using my infobox generator and finds it useful. To address the particular situation: You and I both know that the "architect" field in the National Register database can refer to either the architect, the builder, or the engineer. It is NOT POSSIBLE to extract any information from the database that isn't there. You can't classify someone as only an architect, or only a builder, or only an engineer, and then assume that's the way to route that information in the infobox and the article. Take the Peavey–Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator, for example. The National Register database lists "Haglin,Charles F." and "Peavy,Frank H." (sic) as the architect, builder, and/or engineer. Do you personally know what Frank H. Peavey's occupation was? The NHL summary says that he owned a grain company (Peavey, which later merged into ConAgra Foods.) It doesn't sound to me like he spent a lifetime designing, building, or engineering structures -- he just wanted to try a cylindrical concrete grain elevator. Now, how about Charles F. Haglin? You could assume, from the NHL description, that he was an architect by trade. But, from other sources I've read (like this), he and his firm were chiefly builders, not architects or engineers. His firm built Minneapolis City Hall, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, and many other buildings in Minneapolis. Let's also consider Rand Tower, which lists "Holabird & Root" and "Haglin,C.F., & Sons" in the architect/builder/engineer field. It turns out that Holabird and Root were the architects, at least according to Larry Millett's book AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. Apparently, C.F. Haglin and Sons were the builders. Given that example -- and I'm sure there are others -- how do you possibly expect that I could apply any sort of a database script or a classification system to determine that someone is an architect, a builder, or an engineer, and to be able to say that with 100% truth for every article that someone uses my infobox generator to create? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  I believe you are angry and have been angry for years; i don't see why you should be, really. I was thinking we could build a table of architects/builders/engineers like the wp:MPS one that I joined into building, and which I believe you used to improve your generator (to include proper links to MPS documents). Elkman, did you or did you not use the wp:MPS table in that way, or did you find your info somewhere else? I've asked before and you have never deigned to answer; it's a bit frustrating trying to collaborate with you. About 90% or more of the time, a person in that NRIS field is an architect. About 8,000 - 10,000 NRHPs are associated with the 907 persons having 5 or more hits in the 2010 NRIS database; with recent work we are well on our way to knowing whether each of those are usually a covered bridge builder or a stone mason or a construction firm, unlikely also to be architect of an NRHP-listed place. This would permit better, not perfect, guesses than your 90% accurate guess is. It would permit 8-10,000 wikilinks to be set up. Another option would be to put nothing into an architect= field, but rather put some text note that the person (hopefully with wikilink to an article on the person) is an architect or builder or engineer, and ask the editor to verify. Some discussion at template talk:infobox nrhp and/or at wt:NRHP could probably build out some better options, enlist others, if you'd actually be willing to discuss. --doncram 02:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know what the hell your problem is. People talk about your stubs, and then you deflect the question by saying I don't know the difference between a builder and an architect. Someone mentions your fill-in-the-blank approach, like, "date=, 19", "author=____", and "Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___", and you go completely berserk and assert that the person has no right to be complaining about you because she's been following you around all over the place. Well, guess what? Other people can also read your fill-in-the-blank-later approach. You've been operating for two or three years now with this approach: every time someone suggests that you should change your style, you absolutely refuse to cooperate. I honestly don't think you're going to change your behavior without a Request for Arbitration. I'm getting more and more ready to file one, except that would take many, many hours of my time. I'd rather be doing something more productive and personally rewarding than drawing up an RFAR. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Still going on -- see here where he lists Robinson as "an architect, builder, or engineer of NRHP-listed St. Joseph Park and Parkway System".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

With a quick 30 second google search, I find that a more appropriate term for Robinson's involvement in that park and parkway system would be "designer"... which Doncram could have easily discovered had he actually looked for sources beyond Elkman's bot and the NRHP database. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I searched too, and I'm not even sure if "designer" applies -- looked more like he wrote the plan, and someone else designed the system building on his report. Changed the article per the listing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! --doncram 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Suppot. Stop the madness...TCO (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support This has gone on long enough. Consensus got reached at WikiProject NRHP on how to deal with articles in the scope of the WikiProject and Doncram don't appear to follow to it. Doncram is certainly capable of writing a non-stub article with minimal research (like the other veteran NRHP contributors do in most articles). As Elkman pointed out, we can have a bot write generic stubs. That's not our goal. I don't dislike Doncram. Royalbroil 04:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my input HERE, I do not agree that doncram's practice is undesirable, nor do I agree his actions are a problem. No, they are not sufficiently disruptive as to necessitate any sort of action. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Another question regarding consensus on article quality

As long as this is being turned into an RFC on editing style, one practice that Doncram has embraced to deflect criticism over his articles is the use of lengthy quotations to populate articles. These are not quotations from authorities on a topic, statements of opinion, or quotations used to convey the flavor of a source, but verbatim replication of objective statements from sources. For example (reference citations omitted for reasons of space):

• From Andrew Crockett House

It's nomination included:

"The Andrew Crockett House is a notable example of an ante-bellum central passage plan frame residence with Greek Revival detailing. The house is also notab1e through its association with early settler Andrew Crockett. Crockett received a 640 acre land grant from North Carolina and was one of the earliest settlers in the Brentwood area. His log residence which forms the nucleus of the house is the oldest structure in this section of the county."

According to a 1988 study of Williamson County historical resources:

"Also receiving a 640 acre grant for Revolutionary War services was Andrew Crockett. Crockett settled southeast of Brentwood and constructed a log residence by 1799. This residence was later enlarged ca. 1850 but the original log pen of the Crockett House remains (WM-86). His son, Samuel Crockett later began the construction of a two-story brick residence he completed ca. 1808 and named 'Forge Seat' (WM-82). In addition to the house Crockett also constructed a log building containing a forge where he made iron implements and specialized in rifle making. Crockett's guns were in great demand and Andrew Jackson purchased several on his way to New Orleans. The log building containing the forge still stands adjacent to Forge Seat."

• From Sherwood Green House:

According to a 1988 study:

"Sherwood Green settled east of Nolensville in the early 1800s and constructed a two-story log residence (WM-194). Green was a surveyor and he accepted land as payment for his services. By the 1820s Green owned over one thousand acres in this section of the county. Numerous log residences were also built in the valleys west and south of Nolensville. The most notable of these which remain are the Lamb-Stephens House (WM-1066), John Winstead House (WM-108) and Abram Glenn House (WM-204). These residences were all originally single pen log residences... that were later expanded."

• From George A. Berlinghof: They designed "many important structures in Lincoln and established a position of prominence. Among the buildings designed by Berlinghof and Davis were the Lincoln High School, Bancroft School, the Security Mutual Building, and Miller and Paine. They also designed a large number of schools and courthouses in Nebraska."

Note: The examples given above are just examples, not intended to be an exhaustive list of articles where I consider the use of quotations to be excessive. Other examples exist, including Fargo City Detention Hospital, Mordecai Puryear House, Moolah Temple, Northwood Bridge, John W. Ross (Iowa architect), and Charles L. Thompson. --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I consider this practice to be inappropriate, as excessive quotation of copyrighted text. IMO, it's contrary to the spirit, if not also the letter, of WP:Plagiarism and it is certainly contrary to much of the advice in the essay Wikipedia:Quotations. If my interpretation is consistent with the community's interpretation regarding the use of quotations, Doncram needs to be informed that his use of quotations is inappropriate and will not be sanctioned. (Suffice it to say that he will not give me the time of day, much less credit any interpretation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines that I might offer.)

Please comment below. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree (as proposer) with this interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines on use of quotations. The examples given are excessive use of quotations from copyrighted material. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  If you think those were copyright violations, then your quote here, without citation, is a further copyright violation plus wp:plagiarism, because you did not give credit to the original authors. --doncram 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. There's no good reason to have such large quotations from documents simply to keep the article from being absurdly short, especially since the presence of the nomination form means that Doncram has plenty of information about the place. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  The nomination forms are not available for most places in Tennessee; there is not plenty of information available for these. Two of the four quotes above are from the Williamson County MRA document, which I believe was written under contract for the Tennessee Historical Association using state or federal money. The document is published by the U.S. National Park Service. It may be in the public domain, in which case copying the whole darn document in full would be fully acceptable. They are longish quotes, but I don't know if they are too long for copyright purposes. Supposing the copyright is believed held by the Tennessee Historical Society, i give pretty negligible chance to the idea that the copyright holder objects to the usage in these articles. This doesn't seem to be a matter for wp:AN though. --doncram 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The issue at hand is your copying significant amounts of text from nomination forms when you have them, either online or in articles such as The Wilson, which you told me you requested from the NPS by mail. Do we need to quote from the forms in order to understand their subjects? No: you could easily rewrite the original text and have it come out equally well. For that reason, and because objections or lack thereof from copyright holders isn't really the determining factor, this is an improper use of copyrighted material, and thus an issue worthy of administrative action. I would be inclined to block for copyright violations if I weren't obviously involved. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    About Orlady's accusation that these sourced, explicit quotations represent wp:plagiarism, that is absolutely 100% false and shows a complete lack of understanding by Orlady of what plagiarism is, and/or reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation. In the context of a long pattern of her seeking fault on any random matter that she can contrive regarding me, this is yet another, adding to my perception of her activity as wp:wikihounding. It is an insult, I think perhaps technically qualifying as a personal attack, for her to make that accusation here. --doncram 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    Hey, Nyttend, I take copyright and plagiarism issues very seriously, and sincerely do not want others to get any impression that I do not. About The Wilson, this is the first mention of any concern about copyright. You apparently now object to this edit in March 2010 by me adding one sentence from its nom form. That was in response to Orlady having nominated the article for deletion, which you and I opposed, and in response to her immediately preceding edits in that article. Then and in several recent Williamson County, Tennessee articles, honestly I think I have used explicit quotations emphatically, more than I would otherwise, specifically to head off further potential interaction with Orlady. Orlady is a Tennessee-focused editor and follower of my edits who is likely to scrutinize and raise issues about Tennessee NRHP articles, about the notability of those articles. My only involvement ever with wikipedia copyvio noticeboards has been to raise issues and to help in addressing mistaken claims that all NRHP nomination documents are public domain. Since you and editor Fram, far above, have just now expressed some concern, I would be happy to reconsider these examples and what is actual policy or best practice. I will myself seek copyright-focused editors' views at an appropriate noticeboard. --doncram 13:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    P.S. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 June 2. --doncram 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that Doncram has been using quotations excessively to pad out stubs that he doesn't have sufficient information to write otherwise.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. This is an issue the editor in discussion has that we can address without making the larger policy discussion the issue. Quotes fall under NFC, and their use here is clearly not minimal. -- ۩ Mask 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Copyrighted text can be used to some extent, but filling a significant part of an article with non-free text is clearly excessive. Jafeluv (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree as well. I think brief quotes are acceptable, particularly why the NRHP or another organization found it significant enough to list. These long quotes can be rewritten in original thought. If the source is public domain, it should be attributed as such in the article as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Context

Some numbers for context and to give an idea of the likely, or potential, scale of this:

• From National Register of Historic Places: "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually. The remainder are contributing resources within historic districts. Each year approximately 30,000 properties are added to the National Register as part of districts or by individual listings."
• From National Historic Landmark: "2,442 or so current [National Historic Landmark]s".
• From National Historic Sites (United States): "There are currently 90 National Historic Sites".

If you look at the closest equivalent in the UK, you have Grade I listed buildings in West Midlands (as one example of a list). There are "over 6000 Grade I listed buildings in England". But you don't see people trying to generate stub farms for those buildings (though there are more when you include Grade II* and II - around half a million). Anyway, my point here is that given the numbers involved, something probably does need to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a drive concluding on July 4, 2008, to create articles for any missing National Historic Landmarks and to include at least a good reference to a corresponding National Park Service webpage for each one. We did a great job, I think. I am sure there are articles for all the National Historic Sites already. There are about 30,000 articles for the 85,000 NRHPs. It's my general understanding that U.S. NRHPs are equivalent to Grade II* or higher English listed buildings. For each individually listed NRHP, there is a generally good nomination document, which is a reliable source written by architectural historians and equivalents, including numerous references. U.S. contributing buildings don't have reliable sources like that, generally, and there's no interest in creating articles for them (which i think i was told may be equivalent to Grade II buildings). There's really no controversy about whether NRHP places are notable.

All the NRHPs have had articles created in Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, almost all of Connecticut and New York, all of Detroit and its surrounding county, and in many other areas. I think there are no general problems, no general complaints from readers in those areas. I think readers in those areas are pleased to be able to learn a bit about the NRHP-listed places in their areas. --doncram 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you've been creating substubs for so many places when you have plenty of information. It's bad enough that we have substubs for much of New England and southwestern Ohio, but when we have the documents online, you should do better. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to the running of a User:NrhpBot(?) years ago which generated stub articles in Ohio, at a standard below what Elkman's or my /drafts provide for. I don't agree that it's "bad enough" to have articles for these areas. But, I do agree that where NRHP nomination documents are available on-line, they should be included upfront in new articles. I do that. Elkman's article generator does not. --doncram 03:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike your pages, the bot didn't add meaningless fluff such as "built or had other significance". When are you going to learn that Elkman does not provide drafts? More importantly, when are you going to learn that repeated AN threads just might mean that there's a problem with your actions? Your pages provide virtually nothing of significance to the reader: if you want to help readers and build an encyclopedia, stop creating these pages and instead produce fewer-but-better pages such as the Maryland articles you cite. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nyttend, I am really taken aback by wikipedia administrator Orlady's outright lie, above, that she does not follow me. I do believe that the cumulative effect of her as one consistently hateful commentator in multiple forums does build up to contribute to a negative situation here, and contributes significantly to there being several successive AN-type discussions. Many followers at wp:AN do tend to believe that where there is smoke there is fire, whether or not various views are contradictory or not, whether or not a major negative voice is outright lying here and repeatedly elsewhere. Some commenters here, at least Sitush for one, only know me from having followed Orlady's previous attacks.

You ask about "my pages". I don't know what you are referring to. Which pages do you think that I "own" and also that do not contribute to Wikipedia? I have created a lot of articles in concentrated drives in counties in New York, in Virginia, in Connecticut, in North Dakota, in California. I have created a lot of list-articles, and developed articles in those topic areas. Relatively recently, I have developed about 100 architect/builder/engineer articles, of the most prolific NRHP-associated persons. I have created many pages which solve particular problems, about disambiguation-focused editors or other situations. Many, many have been further developed by me and by many other editors. Which would you wish removed from Wikipedia? I have not heard anything here about the notability of any topics that I have correctly identified as important. --doncram 05:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Some commenters here, at least Sitush for one, only know me from having followed Orlady's previous attacks." - Doncram, that is just your perception. For example, I see Sarek's page & others. I do in fact look at some of your articles, and fixed one that was just dreadful IMO (but over which you then sought to assert ownership by reverting in the face of the work of three other editors). Also, I did not pile on with the initial proposal above, and still haev not even though I saw it within minutes of its being posted. So, your point is? - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at this myself. The combination of apparent sincerely and unselfaware obliviousness - e.g. the LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!!! stuff up above, the inability to draft an article before creating it, as if there was some kind of time limit - intrigues me. It reminds me of the issue with Playboy Playmates, from a couple of months ago. In brief, until recently there were articles on every Playboy Playmate, which generally consisted of "X was Playmate of the Month for January 1975. Her centrefold was photographed by Y" plus some vital statistics. They were subsequently folded into e.g. List of Playboy Playmates of the 1970s, which will at some point be folded into List of Playboy Playmates. By which time the magazine will be as relevant to modern audiences as the Pall Mall Gazette; and then List of Playboy Playmates will be reduced to "each month the magazine featured a nude centrefold" in the main article. I digress.

This situation is even worse, though; the articles have less information and are in fact actively user-hostile. After stumbling on one accidentally I assumed it was part of a machine-generated project; one of many robotic initiatives no doubt sanctioned by a higher power, accorded the same holy air as the articles on North American primary schools. Articles created by scripts that will only ever be edited by scripts. They will - hopefully sooner rather than later - be redirected to List of Historical Buildings in Michigan and so forth, and reduced to a photograph, a name, and a reference to a directory of listings. A handful will merit more than a paragraph.

And so, ultimately, Don, if your goal is to create something of lasting worth that you can be proud of, you're wasting your time on this. This "article drive" you talk about will be a complete waste of time. If your goal isn't to create something of lasting worth then you're just one of the many process-orientated editors that infest Wikipedia as they do the real world. Except that if your goal is to bump up your edit count, you're also going about it the wrong way. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To Ashley Pomeroy, I am sorry that you get the impression you state. I am indeed reeling about Orlady's lie in this forum about her following me or not, in conjunction with her opening new issues regarding articles, and where I have already provided multiple links further above to her Talk page archives about her following me to multiple articles. And I am reeling about her suggestion of plagiarism "in spirit" for use of longish explicit quotations in several articles. I don't know how to talk to such a person. About articles I have created, I absolutely do wish and strive to create articles of worth and I absolutely do not want them to be "user hostile". --doncram 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, you should know by now that calling other editors liars, despite the veracity of their statements, is a violation of WP:No personal attacks. Please stop. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lying itself is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. If an editor is lying, and especially if that is part of a pattern of behavior, however, I think it has to be noted, and it cannot be ignored. I understand that back-and-forth accusations of various things, like Orlady suggesting that I have been plagiarizing (which she suggests, above, and which is false), and me calling her behavior lying (which I believe is the simplest interpretation of her statements here and in other cases), is not productive. Honestly i don't know how to handle this situation properly. But it cannot be right to rule out statements that another editor is lying, when they do seem to be lying. Lying has to be a worse sin than noting that lying is going on. --doncram 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Doncram over a year ago, "I believe if I told you what day of week it was you would claim that I was lying." --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In last month's version of this debate, Orlady said "I figure I pretty much "have to" look at your recent work in order to see if your recent editing is consistent with the promises that Dudemanfellabra has asked you to make in order to resolve this discussion. I don't "have to" edit the pages I've looked at, but sometimes I see things I can improve, and I can't resist the urge to do so." In this month's version she said "I don't "fully well know" what you were doing in creating that stub, as (your beliefs to the contrary) I don't follow you around." I believe this contradiction is the lie Doncram is referring to. They certainly are not statements that are consistent with each other. Lvklock (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, as long as you're throwing around accusations of lying, I might note that according to Wikipedia policy, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That last clause seems to pretty well describe Orlady's recent activity with regards to you, and describing it as "Wikihounding" might also be considered an untruth.

But none of this addresses the real problem, which would still be here if Orlady were dragged away by the Lie Police tomorrow. The long threads about your conduct that keep popping up on admin noticeboards are not occurring because everyone reads Orlady's prose and says "Wow! Doncram is awful!" They are occurring because people read the stubs that you write and say "You know, this isn't really suitable for article space". And every time this blows up onto the admin noticeboards, a few more previously uninvolved people concur. At some point, you are going to have to make a fundamental shift in your editing patterns (rather than a little tweaking around the edges); I proposed trying to outline our collective goals for writing these articles in part because I thought it would give you a clearer sense of where your philosophy diverges from the community's.

Ultimately, all of us need to respect consensus. Most experienced Wikipedians can probably think of at least one thing they'd do things differently from the way almost everyone else does it. That's perfectly OK. What's not OK is refusing to acknowledge and work with the consensus, even if we don't personally agree with it; that's disruption. You've been cut a lot of slack as far as formal sanctions, in part because most contributors here have a principled reluctance to sanction someone who's contributing content in good, if misguided, faith. But you need a better answer to the question "Why are so many people hostile to the articles I've created?" than "Because Orlady lies about me!" because people's patience is going to run pretty thin soon. Choess (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To respond to above — by "your pages", I mean the ones of the type you produce, which Choess also accurately calls "the stubs you write". They're obviously "yours" in the sense that nobody else writes them the way you do. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that Orlady lies, it's also that she makes up charges repeatedly on random new topics and repeats them, until someone else might reasonably become concerned. She badgers. She has accused me of being a Republican, of being a plagiarist, of being racist and/or racially insensitive, among other things. She has criticized my focus on disambiguation and other thankless efforts. She has come up with innovative ways to insult and denigrate me. She challenges anything and everything, including being so petty as to actually argue with me whether I am working on an article that I have just edited and confirm that I am working on (about one such discussion, another observing editor termed commented that "of all the angry bitter venom-filled arguments I've seen on talk pages, this one is just so petty and color-of-the-bikeshed, it disgusts me."). The repetition of false, simplistic, and overstated negative charges is a cumulative drag on me and editors of various forums (such as the Talk page of WikiProject NRHP) to which she posts. It seems to me that she is determined to find any kind of fault, and perhaps to drive me from Wikipedia, and that she engages in sadistic and/or hounding and/or otherwise negative behaviors because she enjoys it or otherwise serves her personal needs in some way. As has been agreed by many editors in many discussions, including in her RFA which I and a good number of others opposed, she can be sarcastic and snarky. I feel sorry for any editor that she focusses upon. It does not seem to me to serve Wikipedia, for her to follow me (which she denies, above, absurdly). As Orlady notes above and as I also state above, at this point I do not give credence to her remarks. In my view she has cried wolf about false issues, and lied, and otherwise contributed negatively too many times. In every case there would be a positive alternative which an editor intending to be constructive could pursue instead. In my view, over the years she has striven harder to find new criticisms and to find new ways to insult and to cause trouble. She is fully aware that I have repeatedly requested her not to post to my Talk page and, when she disregards that, I delete what she posts there.

There are indeed editors who have noticed pages that I started and had concerns, independent of poisoning by Orlady. I'll comment about some examples in one or more subsections below. --doncram 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)ou

You know, Doncram, there are shorter ways to say "Oh, please block me now"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, when I read your comment above "despite the veracity of their statements", I read it as meaning you objected to calling lying what it is, whatever the truth status of given statement. I could agree that in a civil community, naming a bad behavior can be unhelpful and maybe should generally be avoided. I could have a discussion about how to deal with stuff with that better. I have had discussions with others, about the Christian meaning of "turning the other cheek", and otherwise dealing with bullying in wikipedia by Orlady and others. The Christian perspective is not, by the way, simply to allow bullying behavior to continue unopposed, unnamed. I am deeply concerned, and I don't say any of this lightly.

But, you actually mean to suggest you think Orlady does not follow my edits? If so, that is completely absurd. I offered, off-the-cuff, above to come up with 200 instances where it's clear Orlady followed me, if she would agree to stop. Although 200 is a huge number to document, she did not reply, and will likely not accept that offer, because...why? --doncram 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages and linked NRHP articles for example

Many editors have come across disambiguation pages which include NRHP entries and have had concerns; also, many have come across scattered NRHP articles scattered across the U.S. which I created to resolve or avoid contention by disambiguation-focused editors. I have created more than 2,000 disambiguation pages and I have developed developed a system of 3,688 articles in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles overall. I manage Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup which currently contains 0 article.

Orlady has repeatedly criticised me, absurdly, for having done "too much" disambiguation. This is wrong and reflects ignorance on Orlady's part, or just obfuscation/negativity in pandering to what less informed editors might be concerned about.

Years ago, there were regular AFDs about disambiguation pages amongst same-named NRHP places, which rallied NRHP editors to defend them. That's rare now, as new notes of concern by newly arriving editors are usually addressed quickly, mostly by my educating them about disambiguation policies and practices. I consulted disambiguation-focussed editors in this extended past discussion "What is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation" at WikiProject Disambiguation and other discussions. I took on the role of mediating between hard-line disambiguation editors who did not like NRHP redlinks, and hard-line NRHP editors who do not like short stub articles. The upshot then was a compromise that two, then later one, NRHP article must be created in at least stub form, for disambiguation editors to back off. I eventually achieved negotiation that no NRHP stub article need be created, so there are currently one or two hundred short NRHP dab pages of all redlinks. During a long time, anyhow, I started many short NRHP articles as needed to support disambiguation, and gradually adapted practice of explaining that in my initial edit summaries. This probably resulted in more than 500 scattered new short NRHP articles nation-wide. I informed local editors including Elkman who I knew were interested in developing them, when I created an article for that purpose.

I identified that the slow process of creating NRHP dab pages was itself a problem, allowing for continued arrivals of disambiguation-focused editors to become unnecessarily concerned, and allowing contentions to build up when editors in one state would create an article at an ambiguous basename, unaware there were other usages of the same name. Creating the missing dab pages would avoid article name conflicts and avoid contentions and article move discussions being needed in such situations. So, with announcement to disambiguation and NRHP editors, I drove to create all the needed disambiguation pages, and did so, working from this NRIS-derived checklist of NRHP name duplicates. During that time, Orlady opposed their being created, nonsensically IMO, and raised contention about the ones in progress in the Category:NRHP dabs needing cleanup, despite rapid progress on my part to finish them all, which I completed pretty promptly.

In my continued maintenance of the NRHP disambiguation pages, I am going through and checking all of them, and in some cases coming across new contention. I occasionally, pretty rarely, choose to create a new short NRHP article and/or other articles to settle or head off contention. For example, when an editor recently contended to eliminate the Midway Bridge disambiguation page by redirecting the name to the article for an extremely obscure, not-worldwide-important rural bridge in North Dakota, and by deleting mention of other Midway Bridges in the world, I tried adding MOSDAB-compliant entries with supporting bluelinks to List of bridges in the United States, and actually had to contend with the editor going to that list and removing the entries there and their supporting footnotes (which a bridges-focused editor restored). The issue was only finally settled it by my creating another Midway Bridge article. SarekOfVulcan watched that little contention -- and I think deleted one other Midway Bridge article which i started to try to settle the issue first but which turned out not to be as easily documented as the later one-- by the way, and might comment.

There have been many temporarily determined editors who have arrived and dismantled good disambiguation. Another example is a White House-focussed editor insisting upon removal of all redlinks at White House (disambiguation), addressed by my creating articles for the NRHP-listed ones.

I don't think anyone has ever given me a barnstar or otherwise appreciated all this work, but I am proud of it. I believe there is zero, zip, nada reason for wikipedia editors to be concerned about my development of disambiguation pages, and my tactical creation of short stub NRHP articles on occasion to defuse contention and preserve good structure. --doncram 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Incomplete, to be developed." That describes a lot of things you do around here, and the very reason why people are complaining about the kind of articles you write. Yet now you've managed to deflect this discussion into criticisms of my INFOBOX generator and complaints about Orlady following you around. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I completed what I was writing above. Please feel free to comment about disambiguation and related, tactical creation of short NRHP articles in this section. --doncram 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a lovely new technique -- pasting one of his database dumps onto a talk page and going "Hmmm, I wonder if any of these are in the article." Guess actually reading the article to answer that question is too much work for him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not about disambiguation. Weird on your part, S, to go out of your way to delete a posting from a Talk page. I restored it. It did tally up notable, NRHP-listed places not yet mentioned in the article. Seemed like one or two times owners of architect pages have objected to additions of differently formatted or ordered items; here I merely provided some info at the Talk page; your objecting to that, and your bragging about it here, seems petty, not lovely. --doncram 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All but one of the buildings mentioned in your list were already in the article. Besides that one, you mentioned a couple of historic districts -- but didn't identify which buildings in the district he actually worked on. So, not terribly helpful, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't realize that the checklist identified two other individual NRHP-listed places that provided prompt for Elkman to add them to the article. Currently there is one more un-added individual place yet to be added. And there remain 4 historic district items that apparently each include one or more contributing buildings designed by the architect. More specifics for each of those 4 can surely be found by an interested editor getting the corresponding NRHP nom docs for those districts. Seems the checklist was already very helpful. --doncram 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see those edits to the main page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oregon NRHPs for example

This to respond to Valfontis's specific concern about an Oregon NRHP article mentioned far above, and to comments by Choess and Nyttend in "Context" section. Oregon is different than any other state because it has the most active Wikipedia editor community. It has a highly productive Collaboration Of The Week (COTW) which I have participated in occasionally. It has multiple editors knowledgeable about NRHP information and sources and who occasionally develop NRHP articles. The state-wide list and at least one county NRHP list-article have been COTWs. What I know about Oregon-specific NRHP sources, and reflected in wp:NRHPhelp, is from them.

In 2009, I developed out the majority of Oregon's NRHP county list-articles (adding to Portland area ones already tableized), bringing them into table format and performing a painstaking reconciliation between competing sources of Oregon NRHP information. I may have then started some NRHP articles to capture complicated information. See really long Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#Developing and see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#Reconciliation of wikipedia tables vs. Oregon PDF, in which i worked cooperatively and painstakingly to address Oregon editor concerns and get the wikipedia coverage all corrected.

I have since occasionally created an NRHP article in Oregon, but would not start on any Oregon county-specific drive as there is no need. I created a couple articles in one county, one which I brought to DYK, hoping to encourage a local who was uploading pics of all the NRHPs in two counties (my nomination for other articles in those counties to be created shows on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Collaboration#the COTW nominations page). When engaging in drives on List of Masonic buildings and List of Elks buildings and some others, I created short articles for the Oregon ones. These drives achieved other things, such as development of the list-articles themselves and of new relevant categories about their architectural styles and other aspects.

I recently identified that two Oregon architects were among the top 200 NRHP architects/builders/engineers, and created articles for them. I notified Oregon editors by suggesting these two at the COTW nominations page. I am amazed just now to notice that Valfontis, without explanation, immediately deleted that suggestion!??! Aren't they valid, good COTW topics? Valfontis, could you please comment?

Another Oregon-specific issue is hyphenation vs. en-dashes or em-dashes in article titles. I don't care about the issue, but some Oregon editors do, and they edited all NRHP list-articles to use dashes, including in redlinks, which causes some overhead, explained at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#NRHPs with ndash in title. Related to the intersection of that issue and to disambiguation page cleanup at Jones House, I recently created short article Jones–Sherman House. I would be happy to notify Oregon editors if/when i ever created a new article there, but I have seen that Valfontis and others already do monitor Recent changes to WikiProject Oregon articles. Valfontis further developed that Jones–Sherman House article within 24 hours.

I think there is zero, zip, nada reason for Wikipedia editors to be concerned about my past and rare-but-occasional starting of NRHP-related articles in Oregon. --doncram 22:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is all tl;dr, and the topic at hand is Doncram's behavior, not mine. Doncram is not a member of WP:ORE, so I routinely delete his suggestions for WP:ORE COTW (which, incidentally, isn't as much of a going concern as it once was), and I'll note that it is not the place for notifying the project of new articles. The architect articles in question were on my watchlist as redlinks, and I was actually dismayed to see them appear on my watchlist as new articles when I saw who had created them. I, like several others in this discussion, would rather see no article on a topic rather than a bad article. Here's an example of Doncram's work on an existing article, with its "whoever may be editing here" in his edit summary. I occasionally do "data dumps" such as this for articles, but I think it's far better for our readers to do this sort of thing on the talk page, or on a personal subpage rather than clutter up mainspace. Here is a lengthy discussion, in which I recuse myself from the sausage making, which was indeed "painful to watch". (Under my former username, which starts with "K".) In a nutshell, the only reason for concern about Doncram editing Oregon-related articles besides the general problem being discussed (his editing style, which I agreed is problematic), is that I do not enjoy working with him and tend to stay away from the articles he edits. This is mostly my problem, but it's sad when a highly productive and accurate editor with excellent research skills who is rarely uncivil such as myself feels she needs to stay away from the project because we have an inability to deal with problematic but not-quite-disruptive editors who appear to lack collaboration/social skills. Valfontis (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for explaining to me who you are. I now can understand you were being deliberately rude, or politely dismissive, or something like that, unfathomable to me otherwise, about what I thought was a good suggestion of the new architect articles at the COTW.

I also did not understand your recent abrupt, immediate reversion at the Walter D. Pugh architect article, to which I believed i was contributing something substantial by adding new works. In my followup edits after yours, I did not take offense but rather just made small improvement to the article (wikilinking one and providing slightly better referencing) and soon acknowledged in my edit summary that in fact "all NRHP ones were already there"; my additions were not in fact substantial, I agree. I note, however, that the Wade Hampton Pipes article as i started it], one of two that I suggested for COTW, was very much equivalent to the Walter D. Pugh article before I visited there.

So what you're saying, I now interpret, is that in 2009 you didn't like my style in developing the NRHP list-articles in Oregon. It was indeed tedious doing the reconciliation between sources there, addressing your then-strong-preference for the Oregon state source which turned out to have many errors (as also did the nation-wide NRIS), and it was a bit unpleasant, but the development got done. I recall also that you also didn't like my application of disambiguation page MOSDAB guidelines in another discussion around that time, where I asked disambiguation-focused editors to consider an issue and the consensus was with me, as i recall. That's okay. I would hope that would eventually be water under the bridge.

At wp:ORE I don't see any alternative way to notify Oregon editors of new articles; please advise if wp:ORE would actually like to receive an announcement of new articles like the two architect ones. --doncram 05:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists

I admit I've only read a fraction of the very long thread above, but if the problem is that uninformative stubs are being created just to create a featured list, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to change the FL criteria, to either make redlinks acceptable, or else to require that all links in the list are "Start" class? Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that Doncram is motivated by the desire to create featured lists. As it happens, I think my first interaction with him (possibly when he formed the idea that I have some sort of personal vendetta against him) was over his nomination for featured list status of a National Register list article, back in August 2008. He didn't like the review, so he pretty much packed up and left. He did participate later (December 2008) in the review for another FL candidate that succeeded, but I have the impression that he was (and still is) deeply resentful the fact that another contributor made changes to that list to meet FL criteria. I expect that he will make a long statement here on the subject of FLs. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Doncram does not seem to be motivated by a desire to create featured lists... but he does seem to be motivated by a desire to create lists (and then rework them into sub-lists lists, and list-like dab pages, etc). As long as there is a minimal stub with just enough information to justify inclusion of the property in one of his lists (and to have the list entry blue-linked) his interest in researching the property further and improving the stub essentially dies. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Further to the notion that this is not about lists, much less featured lists: Many of Doncram's comments about the stubs, disambiguation pages, and list articles that he creates support the view that his principal goal is to have an article about every one of the tens of thousands of properties listed in the National Register. Related to this has been his strongly held position that historic districts on the Register should be documented in articles separate from the articles about the neighborhoods/communities associated with those districts. This position of Doncram's has resulted in lengthy contention and a few megabytes of discussion, and is illustrated by article pairs such as Wauregan Historic District and Wauregan, Connecticut, Hazardville Historic District and Hazardville, Connecticut, Wilder Village Historic District and Wilder, Vermont, and Peace Dale Historic District and Peace Dale, Rhode Island. --Orlady (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several mischaracterizations in that statement by Orlady, relating to outcomes of a long mediated process. Not true about the "principal goal...every one" characterization. Orlady was a huge factor in length of contention to which she refers. Add this to long list of misstatements by Orlady, seemingly towards causing/extending contention here, too. --doncram 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a #goals discussion further above. Back in 2008, i do recall that Orlady's insinuation into the New York State NHL list-article peer review and then FLC nomination was unpleasant and seemed to derail what I thought was a good nomination, but it wasn't the first interaction. I recall being appalled then that she extended use of nasty language that had really damaged good momentum in WikiProject NRHP, earlier, and I recall realizing that her involvement was likely to be an oppressive vendetta that I would likely never get away from. That certainly contributed to me not pursuing other list-article FL nominations, where I perceived that one determined opponent could have an undue negative effect. --doncram 15:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you are correct. I find that we had some NRHP Wikiproject interactions before that FL nomination. As I have told you repeatedly, you were convinced that I was engaged in a personal vendetta against you before I had noticed that I had interacted with you in multiple situations. This pretty well demonstrates what I mean when I say that.
As for that FL discussion, I thought that the list was an excellent candidate for FL, but there were some basic issues related to how the scope of the list was defined. I was expecting to have some back-and-forth discussion and collaboration that would lead to the list being acceptable for FL, as had happened with other FL nominations that I had commented on. Your interpretation of my comments was surprising to me at the time, but re-reading it now, I see now that it was in many ways consistent with other interactions over a "relationship" that has continued for almost 3 years. That is, you somewhat condescendingly informed me that the list article was practically perfect and that my failure to discern its perfection was a shortcoming in me. That interaction was far more civil than many of the interactions that have succeeded it, but the theme is the same: you are convinced that your work is practically perfect, and any flaws that others see in your work are due either to (1) others' inability to perceive your perfection or (2) bad things that other people have somehow forced you to do. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to have a relationship with you, Orlady, that's the problem. --doncram 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You will note that I surrounded the word with quotation marks. I would prefer that my interactions with other users focus on content and not on personalities, but you have persistently tried to personalize all interactions. Furthermore, your propensity to create drama around topics that I am predictably engaged with (such as the drama you created over Norris District, documented at Talk:Norris District) leads me to wonder whether you truly want to avoid me. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Really, I want you to stop following me. I think you should be ashamed of how you participated in that July 2009 discussion about Norris District; that is nothing to be proud. You have to be kidding to think that is an invitation now in 2011. I most emphatically tried to break the relationship with you in multiple requests during 2010, and the relationship has only gone downhill since. It is distressing to some others, and bad for Wikipedia in general for this to go on. It is tedious for me to respond to new misinformation you suggest in wp:AN proceedings and elsewhere. In general I feel experience shows that it works badly to allow you to suggest misinformation and not reply, so I feel I often have to answer. In this wp:AN discussion you have used offensive language about dog shit, you have accused me of plagiarism and copyvio, you have absurdly claimed not to follow me and have not responded to my calling that a bald-faced lie. You have not responded to my related offer that would end this relationship. You have been following me, not the other way around. --doncram 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Color me totally mystified as to why I should be ashamed of the discussion of Norris District. To summarize the situation, Norris is a small town up the road from where I live. I had contributed to the article Norris, Tennessee, which was and is heavily focused on the town's unique history as a planned community, which was recognized in 1975 (well before the town had reached 50 years of age) by historic district designation. You showed up and created a separate stub article about the historic district (based solely on the NRIS database entry), then informed me that you had done so and that you fully expected me to dispute the need for a separate article. Your principal reason for asserting the need for a separate article was the correct observation that the reported area of the historic district (given in the article as 40,000 acres) greatly exceeded the area of the town (given in the article as 6.9 square miles). As you predicted, I did object to the creation of the new stub, saying: "Please refrain from starting articles about topics you don't actually know anything about (and don't have sources for) just because you can (and because it's an opportunity to get under the skin of other Wikipedians who know and care about those topics and will have to divert their attention from productive activity in order to engage in arguments with you). I see your actions related to Norris, Tennessee and Norris District purely as attempts to create wikidrama." Active (and contentious) discussion ensued, focused in large part on the fact that the 40,000-acre number didn't accord with anything else that was documented (or known to us locals) about the Norris historic district. As I recall, after a couple of days, you came to the discovery that nationalregisterhistoricplaces.com, which was the immediate source of the acreage value, was misreporting all historic district acreages -- all values were too large by a factor of 10. When that was resolved, it was clarified that the historic district area was only 4,000 acres, which pretty nearly matches the area of the town. Consistent with your usual modus operandi, you didn't trust the various published reliable sources (such as books) that were cited in the article, as you only seem to trust National Register nomination forms, so it took another month before you allowed the discussion to be closed -- with your Norris District stub being converted to a redirect. I have absolutely no shame about my participation in that discussion. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram is probably going to blame me for the acreage in the infoboxes being off by a factor of 10. And, actually, that was an error on my part, since I didn't notice the note in the database schema saying that the published number was multiplied by 10. (It's probably because someone didn't want to program a floating-point number in the database many years ago, when they really just wanted one decimal place.) I fixed that error as soon as I was aware of it, and I regret that it happened, but I'm just giving the rest of you guys advance warning of the next shot to be fired in this volley. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that both Doncram and Orlady are active members of the same WikiProject, I don't think we can say that either of them is "following" the other. It is only natural that they would frequently cross paths in editing the same articles. That said, given that Doncram's edits are so often problematic, I think it would actually be appropriate if Orlady (and other members of the NRHP project) did follow him around... someone has to clean up after him. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's 100% observable that Orlady follows me around, has done so for years, there should be no doubt about that. Other NRHP editors privately or publicly agree; it can clearly be documented. Why does Orlady not answer my question about if 200 clear instances are documented. E.g. following can be seen in instances of me editing for the first time in a new article on any subject, and Orlady editing immediately afterwards. There is no suggestion of the reverse and that can easily be objectively shown. Blueboar, I am afraid you are unquestioningly being duped by Orlady's lie that she does not follow me; that is an absurd lie. The extent of following is extreme, that is an incontrovertible fact.

I do welcome feedback on my edits from others' follow-on edits, whether they are following me or otherwise arriving at articles, and I actively ask for feedback from time to time in various explicit ways. I completely buy into how Wikipedia can work properly in providing feedback implicitly and explicitly to editors. I can get mildly frustrated at some following edits that seem tendentious to me, for some bursts of attention from some following editors, but overall I accept and value them. My purpose is in fact to see to development of Wikipedia on topics of interest to me.

What I object is to the personally-toned, hatefully-motivated, oppressive, negative, snarky wikihounding that Orlady pursues (I can support every one of those adjectives with diffs in a forum that would resolve this.) She has provided helpful improvements and useful implicit or explicit feedback to me at times. She seems to me to be hatefully seeking out new criticism, and is often 100% wrong to my knowledge. Others are welcome to follow my edits from time to time; she should not be allowed to continue this, IMO. There has to be a point where a bullying editor's malicious and intellectually dishonest behavior has consequences; there has to be a point where a victim of bullying can get relief. I am asking for relief. Since I have now stated this request to her and otherwise publicly several times, it just gets worse. It seems to me Orlady tries harder and harder to come up with new criticisms to prove the value of her following and criticizing me. She invests considerable time into coming up with creative new ways to insult, denigrate, use administrative powers, etc., all dancing around the margin of obvious blockable/bannable behavior on her part. She can't hide the long-running pattern though. She's stated her dislike; others can objectively discern the hatred. There's direct and collateral damage from all this going on. It destroys good momentum; it drives away active and potential editors; there is no good purpose served by her behavior. --doncram 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So it's all someone else's fault, and never your own ... sorry, I don't buy it. In case you haven'tt noticed... Orlady isn't the only one complaining about your editing here. And this isn't the first time you have been the topic of complaints. You say you welcome feedback... unfortunately, my own experience with you is that you actually highly resent feedback... at least when it is critical. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What is posted here are complaints, yes, and yes there have been complaints before, about different matters. I also have many rewarding interactions with new and experienced editors elsewhere. I have been extremely patient and polite with many editors newly coming into contact and having concerns of various kinds. Including I believe I was with you Blueboar and other Masonic-interested editors, for quite a while at beginning of a long phase of AFDs and ANI and RSN and other proceedings you were a big part of, during a long period in which you and others extremely opposed there being disambiguation, list-articles, and individual articles on Wikipedia-notable historic places associated with Masonry. It took a long time to work through that, and now I perceive you happily contributing to further development of the list-articles and many individual articles. I was exasperated at your stubbornness at times during that; you no doubt perceived me as being stubborn too. But while that went on for a long time, it did not run for many years.

Whatever, I am not seeing a lot of point of discussing much here, so i am going to try to wind down my commenting here. Thanks. --doncram 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram's personal attacks

Regardless of the outcomes of the discussion items here, Doncram's personal attacks on me and Elkman during this discussion warrant some sort of sanction.

In the course of this discussion, Doncram has made a number of very negative allegations about me. I also have made a number of comments about Doncram and his work, but I' have generally refrained from responding to his accusations against me. There are several reasons for my reticence: I've become very accustomed to his throwing this stuff in my direction, I hope that my actual record speaks for itself, and I would like to be able to subscribe the principle that on the Internet it is wisest to ignore trolls. However, early this evening I went through a little exercise of copying down the various words and phrases that he and I have used in this discussion to characterize one other and/or one another's work. I was somewhat random but fairly inclusive in what I copied down -- in particular, I included some statements I had made (notably the one about droppings from dogs whose owners don't clean up after them) that were not specifically used to describe Doncram, but that he interpreted that way. When I finished the list, I was horrified at the results, which are compiled at User:Orlady/words. The best way to summarize the unsubstantiated statements that Doncram has made here about me is to borrow some of the less offensive words and phrases he has used to describe me: "pure nastiness" and "reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation."

I hereby declare myself "over" my practice of sitting back and tolerating this stuff, but I don't have any very good ideas on what measures would be effective in curtailing this behavior by this particular user. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start enforcing WP:NPA and imposing a condition of "no more claims of lies or other personal attacks, or you get blocked"? Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I admit that he has at times been a bit out of line with his comments but the comments directed at him have not been very nice either so I can't blame him for not sitting there and just taking it. Personally I don't see anything wrong with creating a stub of an article, I realize others do have a problem with it. But we are not going to fix the problem by arguing about one user when he is not the only one doing it. If the community decides that an article can no longer be created as a stub (I doubt that will ever happen) then fine. But as long as we allow stubs to be created then really the arguments presented at the beginning of this dicussion have no merit. --Kumioko (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, the issue being discussed is not the fact that Doncram creates stubs (I think most of us would agree that there is nothing wrong with doing that). The issue is how he creates his stubs... and especially the uninformative, whishy-washy material that he insists on sticking into his stubs. Saying things like: "Another significant date in the building was 1920" (with no indication as to why 1920 was a significant date) is simply uninformative and isn't acceptable. Saying things like: "Joe Blow was either an architect, a builder, or had some other significance" (without bothering to do even a quick google search to find out what Blow's significance actually was) is uninformative and unacceptable. Add on the fact that he quickly gets defensive and argumentative (to the point of edit-warring in articles and ignoring consensus on talk pages) when his uninformative information is challenged... and we have a chronic problem that needs some sort of admin action.

Doncram is a very prolific editor... and much of his material is a great benefit to Wikipedia... but he does not take criticism at all well. He is quick to adopt a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude when others challenge material he has added, and he also has a bad habit of "attacking the critic"... trying to turn any complaint about his behavior and editing into a discussion about everyone else's behavior. That's why his name keeps being raised here on ANI. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[EC] I think you may have misconstrued the thrust of the posts that began this discussion, Kumioko (easy to do when there are so many words to wade through). This is not about stubs, per se. The objection is to production -- indeed mass-production -- of stubs that are rough drafts, possibly created before there was enough information to create a solid stub, so that they contain deliberately vague or speculative statements ("is or was a property", "has other significance in 1800 and 1822", "designed and/or built by"), or explicit blanks to be filled later (such as reference citations with the date "19__"). I am aware of no other user who does this.
I will freely agree that some things have been said to Doncram that were "not very nice," but I see a huge difference between my statements about "noncontent," "rough-draft articles," deliberate vagueness, "excessive quotation of copyrighted text", "doing things his way", "deeply resentful," and "persistently tried to personalize all interactions", etc., and Doncram's assertions that I am a "liar," "sadistic," "hatefully-motivated," "malicious and intellectually dishonest", "consistently hateful," "obviously offensive," contributing "vast, poisonous negativity," etc. Furthermore, it was hardly a "threat," but rather a reminder of reality, when I posted on his talk page to say "After all of the recent travail related to your newly created articles containing 'could be this, could be that' statements, I'm surprised to see that you have resumed creating that sort of content in article space. .... I can't imagine that anyone (least of all you) wants to go through further wikidrama about this sort of thing, but I predict that more wikidrama will ensue if you do not curtail your practice of putting this kind of vague content into article space." --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The quotes Orlady provides from Doncram are what I'm talking about, plus Doncram's willingness to characterise others' words (e.g. "your objecting to that, and your bragging about it here, seems petty, not lovely" up above) — neither of these are acceptable under WP:NPA, and if I were to have come across them for the first time in normal text (i.e. neither an involved administrator nor with the comment-maker being under discussion at a noticeboard), I'd be inclined to issue a uw-npa4im warning and to block upon any future violations. I second Elkman's comment above about an RFAR, since I'm getting to the point of wondering if anything short of that will work, but I'm a grad student who doesn't generally have time for that kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)

This discussion has gone on for 1-1/2 weeks. There were !votes on 3 specific items. I hope that an uninvolved administrator will determine what consensus was reached (if any) on each of the specific items. Two of the three items related to acceptability of certain forms of content created by Doncram. If the consensus is that some or all of those forms of content are unacceptable, then we may need additional discussion on what measures are appropriate in dealing with that sort of content in article space.

Currently, Doncram is blocked for three weeks and SarekOfVulcan is blocked for a short time for edit warring over a couple of articles in which Doncram had included lists created in an automated fashion from the NRIS database (example). One reason why contention over Doncram's stubs has persisted as long as it has is that other editors' efforts to address perceived problems with those stubs have had a tendency to lead to edit wars. That needs to change, IMO. It is a bit awkward to address this in Doncram's "absence," but if there is found to be consensus that certain kinds of content are unacceptable in user space, I propose the following:

Proposed enforcement. Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Orlady's solution. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, sounds like a good idea. Sounds like you're proposing this as kind of a Gdansk vote situation? Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking in terms of precedents, but that Gdansk vote situation is a relevant precedent. :-) --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - might work and although more work for the community its a lesser restriction on the user than other possibilities. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone sum up what has been "defined in this discussion as unacceptable"? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been "defined as unacceptable" yet, as we need an uninvolved administrator to make that determination. This is anticipatory. However, there are two !votes regarding content that appear (to me) to be pointing to consensus on content: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Consensus and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another question regarding consensus on article quality. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess from reading this thread, & looking at a few sample stubs Doncram created, is that the "unacceptable" material is that the stubs provide little or no information to the reader. This material includes -- but is not limited to -- language like "It was built or has other significance in" (insert one or more years here), "It served historically as a ___" (underscored blank), & an inventory of contributing buildings, contributing structures, non-contributing buildings, and non-contributing structures. (Honestly, I have no idea why some of this is included; these words convey no information to me.) Reading a couple of the examples, my honest opinion is that they would be better stubs if this language were removed. But if removing this language results in a stub an editor believes is not worth keeping, & decides it should be speedily deleted, that is understandable. And if the group discussing this matter believes I got it right, then I'll let you all decide I'm "an uninvolved administrator" & use my guess as the basis for the directive. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't decide if you've gotten it "right" or not, that's the point of the "uninvolved admin". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yebbut, it takes a consensus to make any decision right. Or in other words, I may be, in objective terms, 100% correct, but if no one thinks I'm right, then I might as well be wrong. Or have kept my mouth shut. (As a further caveat, I suspect that I may have missed an important point or two in this discussion.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the number of venues this discussion has spread over, and the number of times we've had it, I wouldn't be surprised. Feel free to ask for clarification on anything that doesn't make sense -- I can probably find you a diff for where it's been discussed before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was a point implied in this thread, which I am reluctant to mention because I am an admitted inclusionist, & this point would give a tool to deletionists to further their crusade against stubs. However having thought about it overnight, I feel it should be mentioned. That point is simple: buildings are not ipso facto notable, unlike population centers or species -- two topics where devoted content creators experience resistance, if not outright hostility to their work, yet are notable. Even the designation of being listed on the National Register of Historic Places itself is not proof of notability: many of these buildings are listed primarily as a tax break to the owner or a developer. Yet the reason why a building is so listed can be proof of notability; in other words, there is a story why the building was listed. And Doncram's stubs usually fail to provide any information about this story.

(Now deletion is not the only solution for this problem. The material in these stubs could be amalgamated into a list article, so it can be kept in Wikipedia until someone is able to research & provide that story. Just a thought before someone starts shovelling these into the jaws of WP:AfD.)

So, to summarize, I find there are three points in this discussion which define the concerns numerous people have with Doncram's stubs: (1) lack of material that would be meaningful to a user; (2) language which only confuses the reader (I cited some examples above); & (3) the unspoken assumption that unless a building has a rationale for its notability, even if it is listed in the NRHL it is not notable. That's all I have to say on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to see clear closure on the !votes under the headings "Proposal", "Consensus", and "Another question regarding consensus on article quality," as well this section (above). For example, if another user finds a Doncram-created article whose text consists entirely of "Podunk Block is or was a building in Podunk, Anystate, that was was built or has some other significance in 1891, c. 1902, and 1937 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984," I would like to know whether that user is (a) engaged in justifiable defense of the Wiki or (b) at risk of being sanctioned for edit-warring if they move the page out of article space or redirect the page to an existing list-article. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncram NHRP stubs again

Would an uninvolved admin please close the Doncram NHRP stubs threads that are occupying the majority of this noticeboard? Discussion seems to have stalled, and I'm definitely involved. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a few issues there that had support (like the overuse of quotes from copyrighted sources), but considering that Doncram is now blocked for a few weeks for edit warring, it may be best to close the above thread and to start an RfC if the same or similar problems continue after his return. Fram (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So Doncram can escape sanctions from this discussion simply by getting himself blocked? We've tried RFC and everything else short of arbitration; there's no good reason for nothing to result from this extended discussion, unless of course the closing admin believes that no consensus has arisen. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think for a minute that Doncram got himself blocked for three weeks solely in order to evade sanctions, but I agree with Nyttend that this discussion should not be allowed to fizzle over a technicality. The block is not irrelevant to this discussion, since the edit-warring that he was blocked for was over whether the kind of content that is the focus of this discussion can be placed in article space. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think that he'll come back in three weeks having learned his lesson, and that maybe he'll calm down and start developing articles a little more. Then again, I'd like to win the Minnesota State Lottery. In reality, I'm pretty sure he's going to come back in three weeks arguing over the same things as before, creating the same thin stubs as before, pasting the same unformatted gunk into articles as before, and accusing me of lying, withholding information, and not knowing the difference between architects, builders, and engineers. (I'm still rather annoyed about being accused of lying about the build date of the Floyd B. Olson House.) I'm sure he didn't get himself blocked in an attempt to evade sanctions, but his block is a result of the same edit-warring and ownership of articles that got himself into trouble in the first place. The behavior problems are already covered by Wikipedia policy. The whole issue of what makes an acceptable NRHP stub, however, is still open. I don't know if that section really needs to be discussed on an admin noticeboard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Elkman makes some excellent points, but I disagree regarding the last two sentences. What makes an acceptable NRHP stub should be no different from what makes an acceptable Wikipedia stub on any topic. To a significant extent, the contention over Doncram's edits flows from the notion of NRHP exceptionalism and the corollary notion that the NRHP WikiProject can make its own rules that supersede other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's extinguish the theory that the NRHP is somehow holy and unique -- and entitled to have its own rules. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC) PS - I've posted a proposed path forward above at Where do we go from here? --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying that every NHRP-listed building is notable -- which I think is and should be the case -- and saying that there is sufficient information available about every NHRP-listed building to support an article about it. Being notable is necessary, but it's not sufficient, notability has to go hand-in-hand with access to enough information to make up an article. Anything less than that should be in a list, perhaps one in which every list entry can contain all that is known about the building. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Orlady's first sentence — sorry for being unclear in my words, but I don't believe that Doncram got himself blocked to avoid sanctions here. You're right in implying that such an idea would be absurd. To reply to the last comment: there's a reason that there are just 2 redlinks at National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Ohio and 2 at National Register of Historic Places listings in Darke County, Ohio, out of 30 and 25 entries respectively: I can't find much information about the four sites that don't have their own articles. Moreover, there are several round barns on northwestern Ohio lists, including one in Allen County; I'm planning eventually to write an article on the group, since I've requested all the information that the National Park Service will provide, and it's still not enough to have a decent article. My article will be about the group of barns, including a list of them, but putting much of its discussion into the barns as a group. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken - I faced a similar problem with ST Empire Darby. The tug meets WP:SHIPS criteria of 100 tons / 100 ft long, and a stand-alone article would be justified - but I was unable to find sufficient material to substantially expand on what was already in the relevant list. Therefore I decided not to create the article. Such a course of action will not prevent future creation should further sources come to light (e.g book sources) that will enable a decent article to be written. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken and Mjroots make a couple interesting points here. There are plenty of places where there isn't a lot of information available to start an article, or at least not a very good one. Even though a subject's listing on the National Register pretty much infers a subject is notable, that doesn't mean there's enough information to start an article. I've pretty much avoided starting any articles on NRHP topics unless there's source material other than the National Register database. Maybe we at WP:NRHP should start filling in the summary descriptions on all those state and county lists, as a bare minimum starting point to provide context to the reader, and then work on building the individual articles if enough information on each structure becomes available. Or, we could do as Nyttend suggests, and write articles on places as a group when there's not enough information on the individual structures. For example, in Crow Wing County, there are five metal water towers listed on the National Register, built at a time when towns were flush with cash from mining revenue. (Pardon the pun of "flush".) The five are all listed on the same Multiple Property Submission. Instead of creating five watered-down articles about the separate water towers, I created one article, Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks. It's not exactly a flood of information, but an article on the five water towers as a group actually seems to indicate the history behind these improvements better than just five individual articles would do. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I would agree that the NRHP WikiProject needs to re-examine what makes for an acceptable stand-alone article, and set some "minimum information" standards for what needs to go into their stubs. This is being discussed at the WikiProject talk page, and a consensus is (slowly) growing. That isn't an issue for ANI, however. What is an issue for Admins is the conduct and behavior of specific members of the project (in this case, Doncram). The issues facing the Admins are ... Should Doncram's edits and interactions with fellow editors be classified as disruptive? and, if so, how do we correct the disruption? Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that a discussion about NRHP-Project standards wouldn't normally be AN or ANI subject matter, but since it came here as a behavioral issue and arose naturally from the discussion, the Project should take note of the input from people who might not normally participate in discussions held there. In general, Projects can become pretty insular and opinions from outside the fold can be helpful.

As for Doncram's behavior, as a completely uninvolved outsider, it appears to me that Doncram's behavior is indeed problematic, but it does not (generally) rise to the level that an admin is likely to do anything about it directly, beyond what's already been done. The imposition of a community sanction on Doncram to not create sub-stubs seems justified to me, but if there is a consensus to do so it's only a weak one, and it's been my experience that admins are reluctant to certify an editing sanction under those conditions that they'll have to enforce. I don't, therefore, see much value in continuing to push the point here. Instead, participants might want to focus on getting the NRHP Project to institute a "no sub-stub" standard, and see if Doncram, when he returns from his block, is willing to follow it. If he does not, and edits against project consensus. that adds weight to the complaints about his behavior.

Just my take on things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Having just read most of the Doncram discussion page, I feel I must put in my two cents. Years ago I used to be involved with WP:NRHP but eventually I just gave it up. WHy? Because of Doncram. Here he was creating one sentence articles, but would write what seemed like dissertations telling me what I should and should not do in articles, and went out of his way to try to prevent several of my articles from reaching DYK approval. When I left WP:NHRP his actions were such that I thought he was the coordinator if the group because of how he acted. (I'm sure Gatoclass if he wanted to could testify to a lot of this). I think this block was a long time in coming. As for stubby articles, if you can't write 500 characters on it, it shouldn't be an article, and many NRHP buildings would be better if they were just in a single historic district article instead of a bunch of one or two sentence articles of their own. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with most of what User:Lvklock had to say about doncram at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Comment on Straw Polls, "decisions" and consensus. I am a fan of doncram's work, and also a fan of Elkman and Orlady's work by the way. Back in 2008 and 2009, I spent a lot of time on articles relating to WikiProject National Register of Historic Places -- creating 100 or more articles on California historic sites. I worked closely with doncram on many of those articles, received valuable input and advice from him, and even took a trek with him to the Pico Canyon Oilfield as a joint effort on that one. I have found him to be a bright, hard-working Wikipedian who is devoted to this project and to ensuring accuracy of its content. I have not been active in the project in the last couple years, and on occasion I've considered re-engaging. But having kept this talk page on my watchlist, I've noted the sharp criticisms of doncram and have been much chagrined by it. I can see that doncram may become defensive and combative at times, but from what I've seen, he has always appeared to be driven by improving the project. Anyone who has come under the firestorm of criticism heaped on doncram might well react similarly. In reviewing his work (e.g., Baird Law Office, Prudence Crandall House, Doris, Sachs Covered Bridge, Charles M. Robinson, Locust Grove, Carter Hall, List of octagon houses), I'm a bit puzzled by the volume of criticism and absence of praise given to his work. I hope he will return to the project and continue to be an active contributor. When he does, perhaps giving him space to do his thing would prove mutually beneficial to all. Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, take Charles M. Robinson, for example. When he created it, he put a list of works by Charles Robinson in the article, without checking to be sure that all of them were the Charles Robinson he was writing the article on. An hour later, he deleted 3 items by a Wisconsin-based Robinson. Two days later, I found another one that wasn't by the Robinson in question, and removed it. When I found that there was still at least one invalid item on the list, I removed the whole thing, copied it to talk, and struck out the invalid item. Doncram restored it three times without removing the item which was clearly marked on the talk page and without sourcing the items any better than to the NRIS database. Now, cbl, you've done an amazing job expanding that article, and my hat's off to you -- but very little of the article Doncram started seems to remain at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

*pings again for uninvolved admin to close and summarize*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*pings again for uninvolved admin to close and summarize*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Summation and Close Statement

Stub articles have a place in Wikipedia as a starting point for involved editors. They are not intended to be created by an editor who then immediately moves on to other articles. Given current limitations on the automated technology, please follow the advice given by other editors with regard to copyright and article quality, and limit number of stub articles to a manageable level for human editors to review.

Automated stub articles will be created with 'batch numbers' in the article text indicating which group they were created.

Stub articles older than one month that another editor finds lacking in encyclopedic merit that have not been touched or improved since their creation may be speedy deleted. If a substantial portion of a batch is found to be lacking, the entire batch may be speedy deleted.

In addition, please follow guidelines derived from consensus at WikiProject NRHP.

The end. -- Avanu (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Substantial parts of this are in conflict with WP:STUB and WP:DELETION. That's why we've been asking for an uninvolved ADMIN to summarize and close this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was an effort. That's why I wrote 'proposed'. Apparently this editor has caused somewhat of a fuss, so time for unusual or interesting solutions maybe. Good luck though. -- Avanu (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are four sections above in which !votes were provided, specifically "Proposal", "Consensus", "Another question regarding consensus on article quality," and "Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)". It would be particularly helpful to us involved editors if a closing administrator could determine the results of those four discussions/!votes. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested redirect: Anneli Jäätteenmäki's cabinet

Hi, could someone of you admins please redirect the page Anneli Jäätteenmäki's Cabinet to Anneli Jäätteenmäki's cabinet. Rationale provided on the talk page. -- Frous (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)