Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 2 June 2011

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

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 Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing for instance, the proposal is

"Misplaced Pages should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Misplaced Pages'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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for closing Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts. Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Misplaced Pages:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing remain open. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 4 May 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 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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: 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: 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages. 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", ) 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 —  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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 —  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 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 —  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 —  15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • You want something done about Damiens? Well I did something ΔT 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 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages cannot police itself, others will step in and demand action eventually. If that happens Wikipedians lose control over Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages". 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? One hardly needs to adopt Damiens' style in order to prevent Wikipedians from loosing control over Misplaced Pages. --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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion/examples clarifies WP:REVDEL a bit: create Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria/examples to help illustrate what is agreed to meet or fail the criteria. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches would be a good place to start from in putting that together. Rd232 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wait Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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 (Misplaced Pages: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 , 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.
          
          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 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)

User:Δ editing restrictions on NFCC

I've just blocked User:Δ for a week for violating the Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 —  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 —  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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 —  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 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 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 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)

• 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 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 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 —  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. Rd232 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 —  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 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?) 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, which I created. Rd232 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 —  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)

• 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

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 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. Franamax (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. Rd232 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
    1. 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)
    2. Delta removes said images in line with NFC policy, generally with a terse edit summary.
    3. Editor re-adds images for some reason
    4. Delta again removes said images, again with a terse message
    5. HEre, the cycle may be a slow edit war, but the editor and Delta go back and forth between revisions
    6. Editor finally cries out, often insultingly, on Delta's talk page.
    7. 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is simply wrong. The law does not know or care whether the Misplaced Pages 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Non-free_content_enforcement#Require_prior_discussion_attempt_for_cases_with_subjective_element. Rd232 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages even exists.", which just shows me how most of you who have chosen to spend your on-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 💕" 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)
• @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)

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 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

copied on behalf of Δ - Kingpin (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)

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 Misplaced Pages.

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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages for en-wp specific input and work? --Errant 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Need help NOW!

Administrators, sorry to interrupt, but something is seriously wrong here. Twinkle appears to be fucked and I have a problem with User:70.62.185.149. However; {{IPsock|By78|confirmed|evidence=]}} I need help in blocking this. Please check Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Doncram NHRP stubs

Last month, we had a very long discussion regarding the NRHP stubs created by User:Doncram: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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."

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2011 June 2. --doncram 14:14, 2 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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Unregistered bot

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

Why are you linking this here? Prodego 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

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)

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)

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)

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 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 23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wanted: Uninvolved admin to close straw poll

The straw poll at Misplaced Pages 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 04:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Requesting salting of a page?

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)

AWE (Academic Writing in English)

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards