| Revision as of 04:21, 4 August 2011 editΔ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers35,263 edits →NFC← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:29, 4 August 2011 edit undoAlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closedNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| # ] a listing of NFC used on BLPs (easy place to scan for replaceable NFC) | # ] a listing of NFC used on BLPs (easy place to scan for replaceable NFC) | ||
| ::All of these reports are located at ] and provide a timestamp for the last time they where updated ] 03:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | ::All of these reports are located at ] and provide a timestamp for the last time they where updated ] 03:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == ] closed == | |||
| An arbitration case regarding {{User|MickMacNee}} has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| #MickMacNee is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project. | |||
| #{{user|Δ}} is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:29, 4 August 2011
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
Something interesting
This might be able to go on your userpage. Heh. --Σ contribs 04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
NFC
Since you are probably one of the most knowledgeable editors regarding NFC, I guess you are the right person to ask. Is there a list of or maintenance category for articles containing non-free files non-compliant with WP:NFC#Policy? I am especially interested in articles with non-free files failing 8 and 10c. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale would be a good place to start. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- There's also this, but it's a text wall. Those are all 10c violations,. 6700+ of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lot. Is there a bot capable of running through this and removing non-compliant files? I guess Δ would not be allowed to run such a bot under his current restrictions, but it seems to me this would be a perfect example of a task for a bot. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know, because as shown by the extreme criticism that Δ has received, quite a few of these instances are because people simply don't know of the policy, or accidentally put the wrong article name/the article moved. Thus, a bot would only get reverted simpler, or have an influx of people yelling at it. I guess it could link to a disclaimer page as a subpage of the bot which states the answer to any and all arguments. But Δ has already done that as an edit notice when editing this talkpage, and I still don't think it helped much. Blake 22:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- As I see it, Resolution:Licensing policy is a policy coming directly from the foundation. Point 4 clearly says "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content". Furthermore point 5 says NFC without a valid rationale should be deleted. In my opinion the policies ruled out by the foundation should probably be given more weight than people yelling at those enforcing WP:NFC. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- You'd have thought that, but apparently "the community" thinks it's above the Foundation these days. And that goes right up to a number of ArbCom members. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Quite true. The rule of the game is create enough acrimony, and regardless of how much you are in error, if you can manage to get the focus of the acrimony to be someone other than you, you win and get your way. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- You'd have thought that, but apparently "the community" thinks it's above the Foundation these days. And that goes right up to a number of ArbCom members. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- As I see it, Resolution:Licensing policy is a policy coming directly from the foundation. Point 4 clearly says "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content". Furthermore point 5 says NFC without a valid rationale should be deleted. In my opinion the policies ruled out by the foundation should probably be given more weight than people yelling at those enforcing WP:NFC. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know, because as shown by the extreme criticism that Δ has received, quite a few of these instances are because people simply don't know of the policy, or accidentally put the wrong article name/the article moved. Thus, a bot would only get reverted simpler, or have an influx of people yelling at it. I guess it could link to a disclaimer page as a subpage of the bot which states the answer to any and all arguments. But Δ has already done that as an edit notice when editing this talkpage, and I still don't think it helped much. Blake 22:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lot. Is there a bot capable of running through this and removing non-compliant files? I guess Δ would not be allowed to run such a bot under his current restrictions, but it seems to me this would be a perfect example of a task for a bot. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please people, this editor is under restrictions on enforcement of this very topic. When you comment here, you are risking the possibility of running the editor afoul of those restrictions should he make an inadvertent comment that crosses the line. Please don't push it here. Is there not some other forum where you could seek to garner consensus? Franamax (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fran, ArbCom as zero power over what I do on the toolserver, I am not banned from discussions about NFC only that I cannot enforce it. If detailing my reports and helping users offends arbcom they can go kiss my friend ΔT 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting here to you detailing your toolserver outputs, I've very clearly and deliberately placed my comment above your detail. I'm raising a point to the other editors of your page that they should be careful in their rhetoric to not get yourself involved in it, such as commenting on an individual case. Speaking of which though, I have a vague recollection of you confirming certain facts about deleted edits in recent days - so I'll just ask you to review the toolserver policy on data disclosure. No accusation there, just a suggestion, which you probably have already done. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- As for data disclosure, all that I used the TS for was confirming at timestamp from the irc.wikimedia.org feed that I log (I use custom filters for a advanced real time watchlist(s)) and revision size. I could have just gone from my logs however I probably would have made an error in the time conversions. The data that I confirmed was fairly limited. Page X was tagged for deletion at Y. And User A edited page X at Z time. If you want to see a progression of CSD at any given period I keep a snapshot of it at tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD which has a new report added every 10 minutes. So if a page is tagged for deletion for more than a few minutes the odds are it will show up in a report. Listifying a category is well within the policies of the toolserver. Since that does not touch the archive table of the toolserver and is a current snapshot at the time of the report all data included in it is publicly available. So please don't patronize me, with suggestions to review policies. ΔT 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting here to you detailing your toolserver outputs, I've very clearly and deliberately placed my comment above your detail. I'm raising a point to the other editors of your page that they should be careful in their rhetoric to not get yourself involved in it, such as commenting on an individual case. Speaking of which though, I have a vague recollection of you confirming certain facts about deleted edits in recent days - so I'll just ask you to review the toolserver policy on data disclosure. No accusation there, just a suggestion, which you probably have already done. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fran, ArbCom as zero power over what I do on the toolserver, I am not banned from discussions about NFC only that I cannot enforce it. If detailing my reports and helping users offends arbcom they can go kiss my friend ΔT 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please people, this editor is under restrictions on enforcement of this very topic. When you comment here, you are risking the possibility of running the editor afoul of those restrictions should he make an inadvertent comment that crosses the line. Please don't push it here. Is there not some other forum where you could seek to garner consensus? Franamax (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I generate several reports daily:
- tools:~betacommand/nfcc/NFCC9.html which lists every non-free file used outside main space (WP:NFCC#9 violation)
- tools:~betacommand/nfcc/high_use_NFCC.html a listing of every file that is being used on more than 5 pages
- tools:~betacommand/nfcc/pages_with_excessive_nfcc.html a listing of all articles with at least 5 NFCC files
- Note that the green check marks are not approval for ratioanles, just that machine rationales are present for each usage. (this can often lead to a false negative)
- tools:~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.new a listing of every NFCC#10c violation that a bot can identify
- tools:~betacommand/nfcc/NFCC_BLP.html a listing of NFC used on BLPs (easy place to scan for replaceable NFC)
- All of these reports are located at tools:~betacommand/nfcc and provide a timestamp for the last time they where updated ΔT 03:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed
An arbitration case regarding MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- MickMacNee is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
- Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)