Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive707

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Awaiting assistance[edit]

Awaiting assistance with an above discussion: Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion. Chesdovi (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Chesdovi has also raised this at DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, and on request there I have temp-undeleted the category so that the RFC on its talk page can be read. This should be discussed either there or here but not both. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been accused of editing against Jews[edit]

I think everything worthwhile has been said. No admin action is required. Please go back to your regular scheduled program. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tinton5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of editing against Jews. When asked if he was being serious he replied "very serious". Now that I know I am being accused of something bordering or crossing the line of anti-semitism I feel it entirely appropriate to have administrative intervention as to this incident. Disclosure I am an ordained rabbi and ritually observant Jew. Basket of Puppies 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi or not, you're clearly not editing against Jews. Ludicrous personal attack from Tinton. ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - To treasurytag: I doubt basket is a rabbi. On the internet, anyone could make up such stories. If he was a rabbi, he would consider having good faith himself, and to be civil. He just made a personal attack to me, after I made an apology. What, apologies don't mean anything anymore? I think he meant to link apology, instead.Tinton5 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a variety of issues going on here. Tinton has made remarks that are in violation of both WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA as long as having a bit of WP:CONSPIRACY thrown in. There are however legitimate concerns about Basket's actions that are at issue here that seem to be causing frustration with him. Tinton's response is only the most extreme such response. Basket is nominating within a very short time period, a large number of articles about different synagogues. He has used a combination of both AfD and A7 nominations. Unfortunately, as I tried to explain to Basket on his talk page, there are only a small number of editors who have the time and resources to clean up and find sources for synagogue articles]. I tried to ask him to slow down his nomination rate or to at least Google search for news articles about the synanogues before nominating, and he apparently decided that this constituted "harassment". At this point, it is probably most helpful if everyone involved just try to chill out a bit. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if I happen to make any extreme remarks towards BasketofPuppies and the entire Jewish community, The whole thing should just calm down and instead of going up each other's throats, lets work as a team and it should not matter, Jewish or not, I feel rotten and a jerk. It was all stress related, and I apologize. I know better. Tinton5 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if I happen to make any extreme remarks Please see Non-apology apology. Basket of Puppies 18:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the first part of Tinton's apology was inartfully worded, but the end of his sentence makes it fairly clear that he is sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That page deals with politics. We are discussing religion. Hello? Tinton5 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Did anyone notice Basket just made a personal attack towards me? He somewhat mimicked what I just said, then linked a page about a non apology apology. Tinton5 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He didn't mimic, he quoted. Major difference. And I would suggest you follow and read his link to the non-apology apology page... GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The start of the apology-statement written for future accidental acts. That doesn't cover the pre-existing intentional/explicit attacks. "I'm sorry if my foot sticks out" after intentionally tripping someone. You should also read WP:NOTTHEM--someone not accepting something you say to that person is not an attack, it's a statement of how the target is interpretting your statement. That is a reasonable way to prompt you to restate so your meaning is clear (for example, per other's comment that it was poorly worded vs the later part of it). DMacks (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think you want to go here as it lacks any real credibility and needlessly restirs the waters.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And I might add that these comments make my conclusion that you are genuinely sorry less persuasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, enough apologizing. Lets get back on track to discuss why we are really here. Tinton5 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What sect is Basket? Clergy#Judaism. Some sects dislike others and perhaps the mass nominations are related to opposing sects. The nominations just look like harmless little Jewish church/temples/worshiping places to me. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYK: 4Chan came by...[edit]

DENY - Kingpin13 (talk)

...on Pygmy peoples. Article is temporarily protected. No further administrative action needed (haha), but I thought y'all should know--is someone keeping an archive? Drmies (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalising for teh lulz! GiantSnowman 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
They regularly raid articles and users' talk pages on the order of a couple a day. WP:RBI (and protect the target). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Would it be appropriate to revdel the majority of that as is seems to consist of racist epithets? Can't remember if that sort of idiocy meets requirements or not. Heiro 19:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Good point. But it's not a BLP. I am inclined to revdel racist, homophobic, misogynist, etc. kinds of vandalism and I am not opposed, but some editors here draw different lines. I am open to suggestions. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm harassed by User:Ion_G_Nemes[edit]

Hi, I'm harassed on my talk page [1], [2], [3] by User:Ion_G_Nemes. He left me a notification about something that happened months ago, he accuses me of being uncivil and there's no reason to call me that for a burst that I had half of year ago, why reopen that wound? To me that's a sign of WP:HOUND. He doesn't stop pestering me on my talk page although I told him he's not welcome there [4] and [5] I don't know him, haven't even edited something together with him as far as I know and have no desire to debate my behavior from 6 months ago with him. Can anybody take him off my back? Is there something on Wikipedia as a restraining order? I think I need one against this user. Again, I don't mind notifications as long as 1. are not repeated, and 2. are not about events that happened months ago. Also, accusing me of incivility for something I did months ago is bordering WP:PA. Thanks. man with one red shoe 14:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of posting the required notice of this discussion on Ion G Nemes' Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure how to use the template. man with one red shoe 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing Ion G Nemes' Talk page, I see that the user removed three warning templates left by other users, and examining the Contribution history, those warnings seem to have been appropriate and timely. Given that WP:DELETE says removal of such templates is adequate indication that the user has read them, it tends to bring their motivation in leaving messages regarding "inappropriate language" on others' Talk pages into question. The remainder of the Contribution history appears positive and productive, so my own 2p is that Ion should be advised against warning on months-old acts by other editors, per WP:VANDAL. IMO, there's not enough back-and-forth or vitriol to warrant an interaction ban, although it would likely be best if the two involved editors voluntarily stayed clear of each other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha, Alan, you beat me to it. I just left a message on the user's talk page saying pretty much the same thing. Whatever the content of the red shoe's edits or summaries, such repeated complaining is harassment. My note includes the words "final warning". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies for understanding, I think this is the perfect outcome from my point of view. man with one red shoe 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing. I was going to say, now wash your potty mouth, but if this is all there is (and if that is read in the proper context) then there's not much to wash. Let's hope the editor will leave you alone; if not, feel free to drop me or anyone else a line. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that you try re-reading the entries you characterized as 'repeated complaining'. I only warned him about his repeated use of obscenities once. The further entries are all replies to his contention that no one has the right to warn him about his use of foul and abusive language. The one example of his use of foul and abusive language I cited is specifically defined as a form of vandalism per WP:VANDAL, but I see no mention on that page (which Alan the roving ambassador cited as prohibiting warning about vandalism in the past which has not yet recieved a warning) of any policy against warning an editor about vandalism in the past which has not yet recieved a warning. The editor in question does in fact have a long history of using foul and abusive language in the past. Numerous examples of this were deleted from the record by User:Binksternet exactly as I said they were(from the Coanda 1910 discussion page, I belive they would be in the first archive had User:Binksternet not removed them). Various other examples exist, some on his talk page. Of course, I will continue to warn him whenever I see instances of foul and abusive language which have not recieved a warning (as per WP:VANDAL), and if he responds to these warnings by asserting that I have no right to warn him about his foul and abusive language, I will reply that I do have that right, and that I will continue to exercise that right when I see further instances of same. If he replies to such a statement by asserting that I have no right to reply to his assertion that I had no right to warn him in the first place, then I will point out, as I did when he recently made that assertion, that I have the right to respond to that communication as well. Since you two are presumably well versed in Wikipedia practice perhaps you could tell me if responding rudely to a simple warning and insisting that the individual who made that warning has no right to post such a warning on your talk page is considered an acceptable practice. If so, then I will leave a message on User:DRMIES talk page telling him that I forbid him from posting warnings on my talk page because I have no wish to talk to him. In fact, perhaps it would be best if I just post a blanket warning that no one may post on my talk page. If I do so, I assume you two will be more than willing to admonish anyone who posts a warning on my page, and then has the temerity to assert that he had a right to do so when I tell him he didn't and order him not to post on my talk page in future.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If somebody would warn you on your talk page about something you did 10 months ago, and would not stop posting to your talk page after you repeatedly told him he's not welcome there, then I will be the first one to advocate a restraining order against that user. Also, are you a sock of User:Romaniantruths? I repeatedly told that user that he's not welcome on my page, if you created a sock (which in itself is not against Wikipedia's policies) to troll me again, knowing very well that you are not welcome on my talk page, then I think you should be banned or at least receive a very severe warning about sock-puppeteering and harassing people. man with one red shoe 05:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitic pov pushing?[edit]

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

  • "At the moment, it seems to be a collection of liberal European Americans (Amy D'orio) and whiney control-freak Jews ("Teaching Tolerance" being a SPLC front). The latter organisation in particular moan about everything and anything they think they can make money from."[6]
  • Added thisd into an article lede "is a neologism invented by American Jewish sociologist" [7]
  • Identical to last edit, different subject and article [8]
  • Same story [9]
  • And a check of their other edits seems to be to add LGBT categories to articles about rapists and pedophiles.

They were blocked on 21 June [10], but the first edit I listed was just at 23:26, 22, June 2011 so they seem to be right back at it. Should I take this here, or is there a better venue for this? Heiro 02:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring by Δ over NFCC issues[edit]

Clearly nothing is going to come of this. Issues regarding the image have been resolved, Tamino was blocked, and there's no consensus for a block or ban on Delta. Keeping this open is just poking it with a stick. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This is a separate incident from above, and I'm going to start by quoting the WP:3RR exemption for NFCC:

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Bolding belongs to the article. Not my emphasis, but it is the emphasis of this report. This means that the removal of the content should be unquestionable. There should be no reasonable question over whether the image is okay to be in the article. Unfortunately I have to seriously question this series of edits, which resulted in a brand new user getting blocked over a dispute with Delta: Tamimo (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg and immediately added his FUR [11], and then [12] went ahead and added it to the article. This is very commendable. He is a new user, and made very few edits, but he knew enough to make his FUR before adding it to the article. Great, except within 2 minutes, Δ removes the image. What could possibly be wrong? Well, you may have to go back and look very closely to see the mistake he made, because the edit summary is not very helpful. Over the next hour and 46 minutes, delta removed the image 6 times

All with the same edit summary, none with any further explanation. Even after the user posted a question to his talk page [13], Delta did not really offer any further help, [14]. He made an assumption that the user did not read the edit summary. However, the user did add a FUR rationale, this poor new user was understandably confused and frustrated. For those who didn't notice it, this article is for a TV drama, there was also a movie of the same name, Raja_Ki_Aayegi_Baraat. The user had simply forgotten to add (TV series) to the FUR. The image isn't even in use on the movie page. Why would it be? it wasn't intended for there. It only took me a few seconds after pulling up the image to realize what the error was, but a new user may not have noticed his typo, especially when met with repetitive and unhelpful edit summaries.

Unfortunately the user made a minor personal attack on Delta's page, for which he was warned, and then after having edited no further, he was blocked out of the blue. That probably needs a review of its own. I have asked the blocking admin for an explanation to this but he hasn't responded yet.

The issue here is "unquestionable". I think this removal was very questionable. It was a trivial thing to see the mistake that a brand new user had made (he'd made a couple edits prior but really only began editing today), and this would have been a very minor fix, and didn't warrant 6 reverts of a new user, with static unchanging edit summaries. For those who will undoubtedly say "There is no way Delta could have known the intended use", the FUR clearly states Logo image of Indian drama-serial This is clearly not intended for use in the movie article, and the image itself isn't present in the movie article. I see no evidence the user has ever edited the movie article, and a quick note of the diffs above will see it was added to the drama article very quickly after the FUR was added, making it all the clearer where it belonged. The FUR further goes on to say Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial making it all the clearer what the intended use was.

All in, this seems to be the same behaviour that generated countless ANI threads on Betacommand when this was all getting started. His inappropriate handling of NFCC issues, especially in relation to new users. As such I propose the following:

  • Delta be blocked until such a time that he can demonstrate he knows the difference between questionable and unquestionable removals, typos resulting in missing FUR are not unquestionable removals.
  • As was previously suggested by didn't gain consensus, he be placed on 1RR for all NFCC related editing

The image itself has been fixed, but we run the risk of losing a potentially good new editor, one who knows enough to add a FUR, because of this.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose as a transparent end-run attempt at an indef block. You say he is to be blocked from editing until he can demonstrate that he knows how to edit properly. I don't suppose you'd accept a nicely written essay? If not, how exactly is he supposed to demonstrate anything? This nonsense is getting tiring. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, typically users are blocked until its clear the disruption will not continue. Disruptive editing with new users was a problem 3 years ago, and it's still a problem now. There is no evidence a week or a month long block would fix the problem anymore than the time passing during the last 3 years has. If he can clearly state that he's aware of what a questionable removal and non-questionable removal are and that he'll only repeatedly remove unquestionable ones, than that will suffice. Nowhere did I ask for an essay.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Clear attempt to hound him. If you wish to report edit warring, take it to AN3. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    This issue goes well beyond a simple 3RR violation, his interaction with users over NFCC, especially new users is a years old issue that hasn't resolved itself.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
As you will see in my comments below, another thing to consider besides 3RR is his cookie-cutter, context-ignoring editing style Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Δ should not be deleting images because there is a minor error in a FUR. In cases such as this, the better approach would be to fix the minor error in the FUR, and drop a friendly note on the uploader's talk page explaining their error and why the exact article title must be used. A similar situation exists where an article has been moved, but the FUR has not been updated. Again, the better solution is to fix the problem rather than deleting the image. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Exactly my point. This is what moves this beyond "unquestionable".--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Incidentally, I have deleted the image under WP:CSD#F7, for yet another reason: it had a blatantly false fair-use tag and FUR (it was declared as a logo, which it clearly wasn't.) If anybody wants to fix that, feel free to undelete. I couldn't, because I don't know what it is and why and how it is supposed to be representative of the series. Fut.Perf. 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Most likely it was a title screen with the logo on it, as I recall it appeared to be a screenshot with text on it, and a source was given, but I can't verify that now because you've deleted it, which also disturbs the diffs presented above. Why don't you restore it so that it can be fixed?--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning (FYI, there currently is fair use rationale now). He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots. Though Delta may be right on paper, his methods are clearly violation of policy. If I was an admin, I would support harsh disciplinary action against Delta Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment WP:BRD is an essay, whereas WP:NFCC is policy. Removing files that don't meet the NFCC policy is permitted, even if they are inserted multiple times. Alpha Quadrant talk 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) The ND logo is free use, the UCLA logo is not. It would have been better to have removed them both, to be fair to both teams. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. The fact that Delta didn't indicates the lack of contextualizing his edits. There is now rationale for use of the UCLA logo in that article, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)`
NFCC is policy, and Delta was technically enforcing it, but the very first thing I noticed as well was bot-like behaviour. Six reverts to one article, all with the exact same edit summary, and exactly zero attempts to engage an apparently new editor to help them correct their ways. It strikes me that a human would figure out, sometime long before the sixth identical revert, that it might be time to change message or tactic. NFCC usage and enforcement is a giant clusterfuck at the best of times. No attempt whatsoever was made to guide the editor on how to correct their ways. That is the truly disappointing, and completely typical, aspect of Delta's behaviour. Also, looking at his log from today, 14 edits in one minute, all with identical edit summaries, on a very wide range of topics. Frankly, I question whether this is Delta himself making these edits, or a bot. Resolute 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could get a bot for this, however Ive been working on regexes to remove files for years and have had limited success, right now I have a process that works most of the time, but can break a page in about 5% of removals and until I get that figured out there is a snowballs chance in hell of me using a bot for this. However if you take a look at the JS tools that I have provided you will see a simi automated example of the removal script, with a smart edit summary tool. So yes its fairly easy to do large numbers of removals especially if you are working off a list of files that are used across multiple pages without rationales. So please stop the veiled attacks on my character and if you have questions about my actions, or how Im doing them you know where my talk page is. ΔT The only constant 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Delta has technically violated the 3 revert rule, however, he was doing so to enforce the NFCC policy. To me it seems like this proposal is just another attempt to indef Delta. Enough is enough. Alpha Quadrant talk 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    3RR only makes an exception for unquestionable removals. This was not an unquestionable removal. Nowhere did I suggest he be indefinitely blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    It's unquestionable: the image lacked a proper rationale required by NFCC and the Foundation for its use there. Easily-fixable, that's a different story...--MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    It's not remotely unquestionable. The error was very easy to see, and Delta had plenty of opportunity over 6 reverts to notice the error and either fix it or bring it to the user's attention. Not once did Delta specifically state "There is no FUR pointing at this article". that probably would have given the uploader the kick he needed to notice the typo on the name. He just repeatedly stated over and over there wasn't a valid FUR linking to the big article on it, but never once stated the specific issue on this page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again, we're back at editors using Delta to complain about the strict enforcement of NFCC. Now, I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right, but as far as current policy and NFCC goes, there is nothing wrong with >3RR on removing images that lack fair use rationales. If you don't like that, get consensus to change WP:3RR to change that. Or NFCC.
But now lets get back to the problem here. Under the consideration of the community restrictions, has Delta done anything wrong in this specific instance? No. Reverting with the same , correct edit summary (including the link to the right policy) and responding to the user to point him to the right place is all part of this. Yes, NFCC policy is not easy, but that's why there's plenty of places to ask questions. At worst, [15] this comment is slightly biting the newbies, but I've seen other established editors do far worse without repercussion.
What I do go back to is my suggestion from the last time Delta was here: that he should not be exceeding 1 or 2RR without attempting to engage in discussion on an appropriate talk page (the uploading using, the article in question, or the like). Delta's lack of reaching out first to explain the issue seems to be the biggest point of contention, because if he doesn't do it first, the resulting discussion may get argumentative from the POV of the uploader or user ("But this image is fair use!"-type arguments), and Delta gets stuck in a corner in how to respond politely.
Now, I know this is going to come up, but I am sure someone is going to suggest that Delta must fix any "simple" obvious errors in rationales before deleting them. While it may seem a fair requirement, at the end of the day, unless those simple errors are explicitly listed, this will be gamed against Delta to drive him from the project. ("Well, of course you should have know this was the logo for My Baseball Hometown Team instead of for My Basketball Hometown Team"). The burden, as stated many times over, is on the uploader or those wanting to retain the image to ensure NFCC is met. Even if you define simple cases, like disambig errors, someone will find a way to make a Delta change a huge violation of he restrictions.
Thus, the complaints on this specific issue cannot be dealt with, and one can only consider actions that force Delta to engage in conversation while fixing non-free problems as best he can. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if Delta meets any serious opposition to his removal, he needs to stop and take a serious look at what he's deleting. We might excuse him a single mistake of going through and missing a typo like the one we saw above, but after a couple reverts, he needs to start having a discussion, or thoroughly having a look at the image in question to see where the confusion may be. If he's going to get tied up with an article for over an hour and a half he could take a few minutes to look at the image more thoroughly. It's one thing if there is no FUR at all, it's another when there is a simple mix-up like this. There is a noticeboard for a reason and he either needs to handle this situations or send them off for someone else to have a more thorough and helpful look at them. To make it easier for him, I would accept him being allowed to run a script or something that would automatically kick articles to the noticeboard if he's been reverted twice on them, with the understanding that he walks way from those articles after they're passed on.--Crossmr (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've struck the block request, regardless of tamimo's discovered status, there was still clearly extensive edit warring over NFCC issues, that don't seem to be clearly exempted by 3RR, and which at least another editor agrees with, and likely more if this discussion is allowed to run its course. Can we use this as a talking point to get somewhere?--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Unblock of User:Tamimo[edit]

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

This appears to be the edit for which Tamimo (talk · contribs) was blocked. IMHO, the warning issued by Gfoley4 was more than sufficient. Tamimo made no further personal attacks after the warning was issued, and the only other interaction with Δ was to ask again why he keeps deleting the image. I feel that the block was not justified, and therefore should be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked the admin here [16] about it, but have yet to receive a reply.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I reported the user to AIV and Icairns decided to impose the temp block. Newbie or not, "dont u dare mess with me" is not an appropriate comment to make. Delta could have maybe explained the situation better to the newbie. "I don't understand" would have been a fair comment from the newbie. "dont u dare mess with me" is not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
So you reported a new user to AIV without first issuing a warning? You're aware that AIV complaints are typically not acted on unless there is a clear indication of warnings issued and ignored? #2 on the AIV instructions The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop., in fact it seems your report [17], came a full 7 minutes before the brand new user was issued a single warning [18]. Maybe this entire situation needs a far deeper look.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw "dont mess with me" as a threat of violence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
For which the editor was (harshly?) warned at lvl 4. The block came without further continuation of the behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There can be no compromise where threats of violence are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Threats of violence need some legitimate component to them. There is no indication that this user had any personal knowledge of Delta, or that he was actually planning to attack him physically. There isn't even a physical component to the threat. For all you know, he may have meant "Don't mess with me or I'll report you". keep in mind it was only his first day of editing. There isn't even the remotest hint that there is a threat of violence here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw it differently, and still do. A user making a comment like that is up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Him "being up to no good" is a far cry from someone saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kick your ass", both of which are a far cry from "Don't mess with me". That's a terrible assumption of bad faith, that has zero basis in reality, and we don't even have a history on which to base it. If this was some long term user who'd had a history of physically threatening users who made this kind of comment, I guess. But a brand new guy on this first day of editing? Not even close.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see you prove that his threat of violence was baseless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
First you need to prove there was a threat of violence. Please indicate where he said he would take any physical action, oh and again on AIV obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only, I don't see where the user did either of things.--Crossmr (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Where I come from, "Don't you dare mess with me" is a threat of violence. P.S. The guy's block has now expired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that this user comes from "where you come from"?--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where he comes from, nor does it matter. Err on the side of caution. When someone makes what could be a threat of violence, they have to be dealt with. So, have you fixed that image's rationale yet? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see this as a threat of violence. What if he meant something along the lines of "Don't you dare mess with me, or I'll file an ANI report"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*Ummmmm .... he hasn't even requested an unblock yet. Maybe wait and see what he says?Ched :  ?  07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (STALE: block expired) — Ched :  ?  07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block has now expired. Tamimo was dealt with by means of a warning, as this was a first offence, that should have been sufficient. Δ could have done much to alleviate the situation than he did. By taking a step back and looking at the slightly wider picture, instead of robotically following the rules strictly to the letter, he could avoid many of these situations from arising. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes he could have, and that was the outcome of his arbcom case and community sanctions. That was supposed to be the entire point, but here we are, and he's still doing it. As the argument was made above, Delta was technically correct in that no FUR pointed at the article, but that is only due to a typo which makes the removal questionable, he was right on the basis of the FUR, but he was wrong in regards to 3RR and edit warring, and of course it happened over his favorite subject.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamimo, et al.[edit]

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

These may all be the same guy, using a Nevada-based ISP. Note that his previous registered user ID was indef'd for copyright violations and personal attacks. Imagine that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Might want to file an SPI, so someone with Checkuser can see if there are any other IPs or accounts he has been editing from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Nah, let's just leave the poor, misunderstood, abused newbie alone, as Crossmr thinks we should assume good faith. P.S. Here's one thing he said that got him blocked.[19]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to your original report, as you had no idea about this when you made it. You still haven't proved that he made any kind of threat of violence and in fact have only strengthened the fact that there wasn't one. His personal attacks are trivial at best, and in fact your sarcasm is stronger than his attack. As far as you were concerned you were reporting some new editor to an inappropriate noticeboard for an imagined attack based on your own personal bias. It's become quite evident that this is likely an immature user who probably needs mentoring, but as often the case in NFCC issues, appears to have been brow-beaten by more experienced users. Look at his talk page. He got absolutely slammed with notices. Something that wasn't supposed to be happening anymore, this is exactly one of the problems that was identified with betacommand and his bot.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
My having turned him in was based on experience and what admins have advised me offline on numerous occasions. Meanwhile, Ched pointed out that the guy made no attempt at an unblock request, which seemed a bit curious, so I investigated a little bit. If you think the guy can be mentored, feel free to volunteer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This is different. Socking to avoid a block is something which should be investigated if there is credible evidence that it has taken place. Tamimomari was blocked on 4 June, Tamimo did not edit before 6 June. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the dynamic IP ranges, he might be hard to stop. If you start following the chain of the IP's, they go back a few months, with additional 71's turning up. I remain convinced that he only created the registered users in order to upload pictures. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • hmmm ... the closer ya look .... just sayin., — Ched :  ?  08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Image needs restored[edit]

Image has been restored so that errors can be fixed

Future perfect deleted the image, but it appears he's now gone offline. As he noted there was a missing license, I'd like to fix it, but I didn't save the image. So if someone could go ahead and restore the image so that I could fix the license, I'll do so. From what I recall, it looks like a title image similar to File:Friends_titles.jpg so I'll check the source and update it appropriately.--Crossmr (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted under F7. There's no mega rush here. Having seen the image, It could be described as a screenshot of a title sequence rather than a logo. Given that the uploader is a new editor, we can expect mistakes to be made, as seen above. This may be another mistake. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that above, but he said people were free to restore it if they wanted to fix it, I want to fix it, but he hasn't restored it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Google cached it [20] this page contains the same image, and it's clearly a title screen (which contains a logo), the same as the friends logo.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That looks like the one I saw yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not showing in FPAS's deletion log. If you can show me where he said that, then I'll undelete the image for you to fix it. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's right here [21] in his deletion log
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free use policy: obviously false tag (not a logo))
and he said right here he didn't object to people restoring it to fix it [22].--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
So we have one admin who blocked the guy for making a threat, and another admin who deleted the image on the grounds that the guy violated the fair use rules. Looks like a growing conspiracy! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like FPAS beat me to the undeletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've updated it with the additional license and added the word "titlescreen" to the description.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You also need to add it to the appropriate article, or the orphaned-fair-use bot will tag it for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Follow up[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No administrative action is needed at this time. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah..not sure who this person is that closed it, but the immediate matter was neither dealt with, nor does tamimo being a sock end up being relevant to the issue. It wasn't known when Delta was making the reverts, and if tamimo hadn't been a sock, there is no evidence that Delta wouldn't have done the exact same thing. Even Massem seems to agree that Delta should be limited to 1 or 2RR on NFCC issues, this discussion was certainly still on-going--Crossmr (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • My position is this: based on the last Delta thread, I can't see us reasonably putting a 1RR or 2RR limit on Delta without being too specific on the types of edits that are, but that doesn't address the core issue in that the past incivility and the like that came from Delta generally arose from him not communicating the issues of NFCC. That is, my belief is that a reasonable community restriction that would help improve the core issue is to require Delta on a contested NFCC matter to explain on an appropriate talk page what the issue is before engaging in either a second or third revert. It doesn't matter if this is a templated message or what, but as long as he is explaining his actions away from his own talk page, that's the head start that is needed. That's above any other matters and assumes he is following NFCC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    The issue is in separating genuine disputes from people who might try to abuse it. How about this - Delta should only feel free to continually revert NFCC issues on images where NO FUR appears at all, not just for that article but for any article. Beyond that he should limit himself to a single revert, and then kick it off to the noticeboard for others to handle. This gives him an opportunity to make his case and if it doesn't hold, then he can let others handle it and avoid conflict. This way if there is confusion over the FUR, like in the case above where it was a simple typo, it can be handled without mass reverts on the part of Delta. As I said, I'd support allowing him an automated process to kick off pages which he meets opposition to make it easier and faster for him to handle these without adding a big burden to his work and letting others who may handle the situation better or more thoroughly do so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    He's not abusing NFCC. Unless someone wants to propose that change at WT:NFCC or at WT:3RR, Delta's following the letter of the law and within the bounds of the community restrictions. What I surmise others want is that Delta be a bit more human in his edits - and that means at minimum discussion resulting after his first remove is reverted prior/as he completes the second revert, and not just via edit summary notice. Pretty much every situation that appears where Delta is heading down the incivility track is due to lack of personable communication with the person that is reverting him. I would be a bit cautious on the next possible step, preventing Delta from exceeding 3RR on NFCC matters, but as you say, the infrequency of these cases usually means that if Delta lets someone else know about the issue that person can step in to take over to deal with the persistent user that's engaging in the EW.--MASEM (t) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    That's debatable as some users do think he's abusing NFCC. In this case I feel he was, and I wasn't the only one. As I've mentioned before, you either get to choose the letter of the law, or you don't. If you want to live by the letter of the law, do you know how many violations of his community sanctions he's committed these days? Even if it's policy, he really shouldn't edit warring anyway. That gets him into a bad situation. Even if he is right, if he's edit warring with some new user, we could end up chasing away a user who is just confused. He's done it in the past, as users have basically said they left because of the way he acted. So even if he is following the letter of the law, it's how he follows it that causes issues, and now that I've thought about it more, he really should be at 1RR on all NFCC for the sake of his interactions with others. He can remove an image twice, and if there is still opposition, kick it off rather than risk creating a bad situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get all this straight. Delta scares me with talk of blocking me in User talk:Chaswmsday#WDTN and User talk:Chaswmsday#June_2011, based on what I later find is just his/her own Essay: WP:Fair use overuse, assuming Delta=Betacommand=Durin. And the Essay seems to misquote WP:NFCC items 3a and 8. But if I dare revert Delta's edits to keep the images in question from being orphaned and then speedily deleted, I could be charged with edit warring, but that any of Delta's subsequent reverts of my reverts would not be counted against him/her, even though there would be no huge consequence to keeping the images intact while the dispute is pending. And just how/when is the dispute resolved? When a few users who have a certain bias in their minds get their way on an issue that allegedly was settled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Use of images in articles? And that can be justified both by argument and by a reasonable interpretation of 3a and 8? When I leave in frustration? Urgh. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • First, Delta's using standard template warning messages for over-use of images and 3RR, so I would not talke it as "scaring" you to avoid a block - they're boiler plate messages that behavior like this is discouraged. Secondly, no, Delta (who is Betacommand) is not Durin. That essay was written a few years ago so the exactly language of NFCC#3a and 8 may have changed, but the intent has not - we strive to minimize non-free images and only use them where they aid in comprehension of the article. Delta's removals and reverts of that are in line with established practice that loading a number of decorative images into an article is never appropriate, the idea that some may be readded after considering how each meets NFCC. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:WDTN. First, if the essay is out of date, it should be edited. Second, what is the definition of "decorative"? Third, how would images of the same type greater in number than some arbitrary number per article (say, 2) ever meet NFCC? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The definition of 'decorative' are things that can easily be replaced with text, or items that severely limit the readers comprehension of the topic when no free replacement would be possible. Without critical commentary for why the old logos are notable in their own right and have sources providing citations on aspects of the logo itself (not just being used for identification like the current logo) then it falls under decorative. -- ۩ Mask 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deletionists typically hate things that make an article easier for the average viewer to comprehend, such as illustrations and lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is that people do not read the notices/edit summaries that I leave. Unless I start using extremely large red blinking text Im not sure how else to get them to read the notices that I leave. When I make an edit I clearly state the reasons why. 95% of the time users just stick there fingers in their ears and ignore what Im trying to tell them, and they just blindly revert to their version, not bothering to even consider the reason for my edit. I have provided several useful scripts for working with/checking non-free files and their rationales. see:

Im doing just about as much as I can except saying fuck WP:NFCC, lets use as much as we want ΔT The only constant 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the standard "explanation" doesn't make sense to newbies. I know at one time it didn't make sense to me, either, and I had to ask whoever it was (not Beta/Delta), and probably more than once, just what that standard warning is supposed to mean in plain English. What it means is, "You're using it in article that's not listed in the picture's fair use rationale." In this case, the user Tamimo (now indef'd as a sock of Tamimomari) didn't ask the right questions, hence he and Delta were talking past each other. Then Tamimo issued a threat (continuing the bad behavior he had shown as Tamimomari toward another editor), which escalated. Whoever brought this here led us to the serendipitous discovery of sockpuppetry. But this problem could arise again, and I think the solution is a more-clearly-worded explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Bugs, as I have said, I am always open to suggestions/modifications of the notices I leave. However very few people step up and lend a hand fixing that. Ive seen two people step up and lend a hand, Hammersoft and Xeno User_talk:Δ#Maryland_State_Colonization_Society, and in both cases I have adapted my notices/edit summaries to try and make things clearer. ΔT The only constant 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on Delta, you've had move lives than a thousand cats. You've been talked to countless times and it's done essentially no good because you're a AN/ANI regular still after years of the same behavior. Just think that if all the user and admin effort that's gone into attempting to deal with you had instead been put into actually improving articles....and even more so if we didn't need AN/ANI/Arbcom/etc. It's a mind boggling thought.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That is because people just complain, say "it should be done better" but never actually put their money where their mouths are. Hammersoft and Xeno are part of the solution, instead of just complaining, Ive made multiple suggestions including a file/use discussion similar to FFD but for individual uses rather than the whole file (cases where a file is being over used but FFD has zero chance of deletion) Take a look at my edits and compare them with policy, Every single one of my rationale missing removals is exactly within policy. I also have one of the highest mainspace percents with relation to my contributions. Most people who follow these notice boards have anywhere from 10-40% of their edits to articles, very very rarely will you see one with 60%. I on the other hand spend most of my time working on articles and have over an 80% mainspace I typically spend most of my time working in the article space and avoiding the drama boards. If we deleted AN/ANI I bet we would loose a lot of people here just for the drama. I however focus on what actually matters, articles. you are only at about a 45% mainspace ΔT The only constant 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, that's because some poeple, you in this case, refuse to learn how work truly productively in a collaborative environment. You avoid drama boards? ROTFL. Delete AN/ANI, yea, you'd be one we loose because you you thrive on it.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not the main issue, and in fact you've been told by users you accused of not reading them that they had. Your explanations are sometimes not that clear or helpful. Look at this case. This was a case of a typo. You took the time to revert the article 6 times, but not once did you look at the image and realize "oh there is a movie and a drama, this image obviously isn't being used on the movie page, and has the words 'identify the drama' in it". I know many people like to often say "I can't possibly know what the intended use is", but in this case, it was extremely obvious what the intended use was. The image was used in one article and had one FUR they just didn't match because of a naming typo. Had you fixed that obvious error, or even said to the user "The FUR doesn't point directly at this article" they may have noticed the error and we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It wasnt that simple taking a quick look I saw a film and what appears to be a tv show both using an image, I dont know if the tv show spun off the movie or vise a versa, I cant tell what the file is really, (Ive seen movie screenshots used in TV articles) so its not as clear as you claim it was. I took the safest route and just removed it. ΔT The only constant 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It was that simple. The description clearly said "Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial- ;Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat." The image was NEVER added to the movie article, and the movie article doesn't even mention the drama at all. The image was added to the drama article 2 minutes after being uploaded. It could not have been anymore obvious where this image really belonged especially after looking at it 6 times. The movie article clearly says it is from 1997, and the drama is from 2008, the movie obviously did not spin off from the drama. The file was clearly described (missing a single word does not make it as unclear as you'd like to claim) and had you followed the source you'd have clearly seen that the page is about the TV show and the image is being used to identify that.--Crossmr (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a very productive discussion at this point. I think what would be helpful is if we drafted a "Common FUR problems" document that our NFCC workers like Δ could link to that would offer tips to users whose images have been removed from articles. Would you be willing to help me put such a document together? 28bytes (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right"--that's an understatement. In my 6 weeks of editing, I've seen more AN/ANI threads about Δ (why can't he pick a name that appears on a standard keyboard?)/Betacommand than anyone else. From reading these and backlinks, it's obvious this person has a years long history of problematic behavior; behavior that obviously isn't going to change and centers on two things: atrocious behavior and non-free images. Why does wiki continue to endure such behavior? It seems self defeating to me. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just my view: I like 28bytes' suggestion on something being drafted up in laymen's terms that's easy to understand. There are folks here (including me) who have been here for years that have trouble wrapping their head around our legal issues. WP:NFCC, WP:PLAG, WP:COPY etc. I understand the wording in places like that is by necessity very legalistic, and each time I read through them I get a bit more out of them ... but I digress. Just from my experiences ... Delta is passionate about these things, and they are extremely important. I know Delta may not be a "chit-chatty" "how's the wife and kids" kinda guy, but he knows this technical stuff inside and out. I've never seen him fail to steer a person in the right direction if asked about a computer, programming, technical, or wiki kind of question. He's given me some very sound advice on several occasions (although I doubt he'd remember). All I'm saying is that maybe it's time to give him a bit of room, and a little bit of help; instead of the constant "why can't you be nice" let's poke the bear and see if he'll growl stuff. Let's not forget that he's done some great stuff here, give credit where it's due.

I do understand the hard feelings from days gone by, but it sure seems to me that he's been doing his damnedest to comply with the community. Honestly, do you think he'd still be here if he didn't honestly care about what's best for the 'pedia? ... OK .. I'm done running my mouth now ... have a great weekend all. — Ched :  ?  05:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ched hits the nail on the head here. Delta is very knowledgible and skilled, especially in the technical areas and in NFCC issues. However, he is not very good at communicating with people who are less knowledgable in these areas (read: just about everyone else) and invariably this leads to conflict. The trouble is that the image policy is complex, especially for new users, and Delta expects all other users to be as fully versed in the policy as himself, and he has (to my observation) shown no interest in educating users in the policy, if they can't figure it out he seems to have little patience with them. At some point dealing with Delta's interaction styles we all begin to feel like King Cnut facing down the tides: No matter how much we want him to be more accomodating towards users who do not understand NFCC policy, he's just not going to. We'd have a better chance of getting the tides to stop comming in. I don't know exactly what this means or how we should proceed. On the one hand, he does needed work. On the other hand, the manner in which he does this work causes much consternation, and has for many years. I guess I am saying, I want Delta to continue to do his work, but I want him to be better about working inexperienced users through the minefield that NFCC policy is; helping users who are using the wrong template, or misspelling things, or whatever do it right. Most users want to do it the right way, and are willing to learn, and I just want Delta to take more interest in teaching them. Ah, well, the tide is coming in again. Pardon me while I tell it to stop... --Jayron32 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, and that's the entire point of this. He didn't get it before, the community finally got fed up and kicked him out..he was let back in under heavy protest, and heavy restrictions, and he still doesn't get it. I'm seeing absolutely nothing different about his behaviour now than I saw 3-4 years ago. From the unhelpful and repetitive reverts of a confused user (sock or not is irrelevant, there is no evidence anyone involved knew that at the time), to these kinds of statements directed at users he's in dispute with [23], to ignoring the community by violating his sanctions both by starting large projects without first proposing them, to blowing through his edit restriction so many times I gave up counting, and having 3 blocks stick, and one questionable one reversed that some people supported. That's all happened in the last 5 weeks or so. As a member of the community, it just boggles my mind. As a community I think we need to draw a bright line and say: He gets it and we all forget about it and move on, or he doesn't get it and we all forget about it, and he moves on. I don't see any other way we can move forward. Users have, in the past, left the project because of him, because of the way he conducts himself with what he does. The conduct has seemingly not changed, as such I can only worry that we'll again lose users because of that conduct.--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Since you declined to respond to my offer above to help draft a document that would help these confused users you speak of, I'm forced to assume you're more interesting in bashing Δ than in solving the problem with confused users. As such, I'm closing this thread. If a new incident arises that needs administrative action, feel free to open one. And if you should decide to reconsider working on a guide for helping users identify and fix FUR problems, you know where to find me. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Follow up 2[edit]

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

Despite that lovely assumption of bad faith, I wrote that on the way out, and didn't see your small comment tucked away in the middle, the problem is in fact not confused new users. Do they need help? Yes. Should we make a document clearer for them? absolutely. But all we're doing is treating symptoms. We're not taking care of the problem. I am not bashing Delta. I was clearly outlining how I viewed the situation, and the giant issue I'm seeing here. The problem is clearly, and has been for 3-4 years, Delta. Other users seem to handle NFCC without generating the problems he does. When it comes down to these situations, it takes two users. The person adding the image, and the person removing it. And as Delta has said, there is only one constant. Throughout all this time, and all those users, we can't try and shift the blame to them. They are new users and we expect them to make errors. It's how we respond to them as a community that is important and the way he responds isn't. As for actually writing the document, am I good choice to do so? Probably not. I'm hardly the expert others are at NFCC, and you'd be far better off getting someone who regularly deals with NFCC stuff and is known for interacting well with users to help you write something, but I do think the document is needed. The last time I took part in an NFCC discussion was probably years ago, heck the last time I even uploaded an NFCC image was over a year ago.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes' suspicions echoed mine, as you continued to defend that user despite its own behavior, and it looked like your agenda was to gripe about Delta. The right response to Delta's standard-form FUR edit summary should have been, "What does this mean? I don't understand", and NOT "dont u dare mess with me". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Crossmr has also posted on my talk page, so I have replied there. Short version: no, Δ isn't a particularly good coach for new users struggling with FURs and NFCC, and hammering that point home doesn't really help anything. What would help is a simple troubleshooting guide, which Ched and I will work on this week. Everyone with experience or interest in this area is invited to join us. 28bytes (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be excellent. Just point us to the right link. While you're at it, someday, something in plain English about how to upload a free photo would be good. It seems like every time I go to upload a photo I've taken, several layers of complexity have been added. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Will do; as soon as there's a link, I'll make sure it gets advertised. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It goes beyond being a bad coach. Users have stated that they have either curbed their editing or stopped editing because of the interactions they've had with Delta. That is a huge problem for the project, and goes well beyond simply creating a "NFCC for dummies" guide. Is that needed? Yes. But it doesn't solve the actual problem. Delta knows that he has the issues. He's known for years. Yet we still see him getting into the same situations. No one has a gun to his head forcing him to handle NFCC issues. At any point he can walk away, and there are times when he should. If he's been reverted a couple of times, he needs to kick it off to a noticeboard and let someone else handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Why are we still debating over this when the original account in question that Crossmr tried to defend is blocked indef for socking? It sounds like a kangaroo court to me. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it being a sock is irrelevant to the actual issue. There is no evidence Delta knew it was a sock. The account in question was making a trivial error in the FUR (the edits were otherwise fine and appropriate) and the issue is the unhelpful and blind reverting. This could have been any old new user. Let's not forget just shortly there after he got involved in an edit war on rd232's talk page that some admins thought he should have been blocked for (and one did block him before realizing there was a declined 3RR request already on it, but others had posted supporting it), and hardly an isolated case. While he's often right in the removal of the images, it's how he removes them, and sometimes when he's not right that causes issues, but he seems to treat them all the same. Let's take a look at the history of this talk page which also occurred at the same time: [24]. While the removal is mostly inline with policy, his final removal, where he just quotes policy, with no explanation [25], is not actually removing an image. There is no image on this page [26], so I don't see how a link to an image violates NFCC. It seems pretty clear that he wasn't even looking at the page and just saw his edit had been undone, so he responded in kind. While it's not a 3RR violation, he's edit warring without carefully checking his edits, because he removed no image from that page. He also reverted 6 times over at [27], which again may have been inline with policy, but he only used a helpful edit summary the first time. There is no evidence there the user is banned, and it's the exact same behaviour. While in this case we're not dealing with a FUR that has a typo (it was actually missing in at least some of the images) Delta handled the situation identically.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Crossmr, Actually if you take a look at the diffs you can see that the files where added back in (almost correct syntax), not using the standard [[:File: link but the actual media usage of [[File: so it is fairly easy to miss that the magic word __nogallery__ with a file would break it. I was using diffs and saw a [[File usage which normally represents a file being used and reverted. I am getting sick and tired of you assumptions of bad faith, and insults. And yes I suspected that Tamimo was a sock, because I still had Rang_Badalti_Odhani on my watchlist. Im tempted to start a request to have you topic banned from me due to your repeated hounding. The reason that I kick up so much dust while enforcing NFC is because most other NFC enforcers do as much as I do with regards to missing rationales/overuse. Just ask User:Beetstra most people do not listen and blindly re-add their files without fixing the problem, Beetstra has actually placed several blocks for this due to users not listening. ΔT The only constant 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Crossmr seems to be on a mission of some kind here. The editor Tamimo's being a sock most certainly is relevant to the overall picture. The thing is, though, Tamimo asked you why you kept deleting his image, and your explanation wouldn't necessarily make sense to a newbie - because, as I said earlier, the standard explanations are not plain English. They assume the user already knows what the jargon means. It's true the editor was a sock and acted like a junior-high-level jerk. But even so, he deserved a newbie-level (i.e. straightforward) explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
And that, right there, is the crux of the problem with delta. Which has been explained how many times now? @Δ: Dude, how many times does someone have to say what is substantially the same thing (or block you) before you start saying "humm, maybe the problem actually isn't with everyone else. Maybe I'm actually taking the wrong approach."? Despite protestations from your supporters, it's not wheter you're right or wrong, it's how you play the "game"!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
28bytes is working on some better explanations which will help alleviate the issue greatly. As for Crossmr's hounding of Delta, it is becoming farcical at this point. To the point above me, Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game. Aggregating sources and building articles out of them is the exact same skills (analysis of statements and context, critical thinking) that are required to read the policy links and come to some understanding of them. I would hazard a guess rage-quitting over Delta corresponds greatly with editors of temperment and attitude ill-suited to producing a reference work in a collaborative environment. In other words, if it wasn't this it would have been something else sooner or later. -- ۩ Mask 06:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You've gotta be kidding me. "Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a game"? If that's what you got out of my comment above, then you're an idiot AKMask. As for crossmr... he probably is hounding delta, but delta brings it on himself. You and his other advocates only make it worse because you're enabling his poor behavior. Anyway, none of this really matters to me, so... whatever. You guys deal with this, I'm done with it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Idiot (or moron, as you used in the edit summary) is far from the worst I've gotten on here. I'll chalk it up to you being upset consensus is not with your approach. -- ۩ Mask 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright Delta, I'll believe you. I know you're making edits that you believe will help the project, but you have to realize that the people who speak out against you are doing the same thing. Personally I'm quite disgusted when I see that a user has stopped editing or mostly quit because of interacting with you. can you please consider kicking off difficult users to someone else? To the noticeboard, to another user on the talk page, just anywhere else? Heck you know what, if someone reverts you more than twice on a page, put them on my page and I'll take care of it. Just anything to stop this relentless hammering of new users. The project won't get sued in the short time it takes for someone else to get on it. Go ahead and close this, some people have once again disagreed with the way you do things, some have supported it, and we're obviously not going to get anywhere, even though I thought we might earlier.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
And I will say that contrary to the allegations and assumptions of bad faith that have been made, I don't hound your edits. I do defend my point, and don't simply walk away because of a little opposition. I've only posted 2 topics 8 days apart on two separate incidents and in the case of the second, I first ran it by Jayron32 who suggested I post it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a 1-minute block People in this thread seem to think that WP:3RR says nothing about WP:NFCC other than it's ok to keep reverting past 3RR to remove it. In fact, it states: "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption" (emphasis mine). Δ needs to be less combative. While a 1-minute block wouldn't stop him from doing anything of significance, it would be logged and discourage edit wars in the future. Δ should get other editors involved instead of just getting into revert battles. — BQZip01 — talk 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    That wouldn't accomplish anything. His community ban didn't change his attitude, why would a one-minute block do so? Resolute 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    Sigh. Δ does such good work in other areas too. Why is it some people (Δ isn't the only one to be sanctioned in the past) become so obsessed with this particular area of Wikipedia? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    It's policy, and there's no figuring wikipedia policy. They allow any moron to edit, unregistered yet, while just about any website on God's Green Earth that allows user input requires registration; and meanwhile they have a much stricter fair use policy than the law requires. Although, as cases like the Tamimo affair suggest, maybe the one necessitates the other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    A 1 minute block will register a "foul" has been committed. Unless we note this, behavior that runs right up to the border of what is acceptable will continue to be swept under the rug/ignored. Sure, he does good work in other areas too, but that doesn't excuse his bad behavior. It sure can mitigate "punishment" (example: a court case in which a billionaire philanthropist kills someone accidentally in a bar, the courts are likely to rule more favorably in the punishment phase than a coke dealer on his 5th conviction for manslaughter...but both are still guilty and deserve to face rehabilitation). People continue to be opposed (not obsessed) to such behavior because it is the point of contention that causes the most trouble. He could largely walk away from ever editing a single image again and, instead, focus on improving core articles. Instead, he continues to address areas where he thinks there are problems and handles them in a hostile manner. Tothwolf, I'm not so interested in sanctions in the past (if there are any). I'm only interested in the sanctions he's under now. — BQZip01 — talk 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    Blocks are preventive, not punitive. 1-min block definitely falls into the realm of being punitive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    At the same time, as I tried to point out on your talk page, such "annotation blocks" appear to be controversial. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

DC connector[edit]

This section split from #Follow up 2. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I privately queried Δ about this removal of File:Powerpole.JPG from DC connector this last Thursday. It was clear that the FUR template had the article name wrong (DC Connector instead of DC connector, which has since apparently been corrected [28]) but when I pointed this out to Δ, he then began to argue that his removal was not due to the typo in the FUR, but instead that the image was replaceable and that it violated NFCC. I explained to him that this particular image would be next to impossible to replace given this type of connector, but I got nowhere and finally had to give up trying to discuss this with him. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Δ happens to be right. This is an article of electrical equipment that exists in the real world. It is not a statue or other artistic work. Therefore, any Wikipedia editor can photograph one of them and release it under a free license. Further, the image wasn't tied to the text in any way. It's completely replaceable. I'm sorry that you're wrong, but that doesn't constitute poor behavior on Δ's part. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you or another editor actually put your hands on one of these and photograph it? This sort of argument has come up before for other images and doesn't hold up when you can't actually obtain one of these to photograph. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For transparency, I'm noting here that I've undone this edit by Hammersoft which was made without an edit summary. If this image could be replaced by a free image I would be all for it, but when one cannot actually obtain the item to take a photograph, it is impossible to create a free photograph of the item. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that a current piece of equipment? If so, this is not like trying to get a free photo of the Unibomber. Couldn't someone just go to their local hardware store and take a picture of one? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's funny you say that because a very old painting of Kim Jong-il was deleted for that very reason. You know, because every wikipedian has a special forces team at their disposal to break into north Korea.--Crossmr (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, no. It is a proposed standard for DC power distribution in data centers. The connectors are highly specialised and are not readily available (meaning one can't just go out and buy one), otherwise we could create a free photograph of one. I would actually love to replace this image with a free photo too, the quality of this one is not that great. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I give up [29] I'm tired of this sort of bullshit. No, it isn't available, although the manufacturer would probably be happy to custom manufacture 100,000 pcs for you. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, here is a random though, email the company asking for a image released under a free license. Most companies would jump for the chance for some free advertising on wikipedia. But no, instead of taking a few minutes and attempting to get a free file lets just ignore the m:Mission and and use a non-free file. Or try emailing someone/group that installs these, or has one in their facility. With a little leg work getting free versions of files isn't that difficult. Yes no free version exists now, and if we dont attempt to get one, one will never exists.... ΔT The only constant 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I just spent a few minutes, drafted and sent an email to Anderson requesting a freely licensed file we can use. ΔT The only constant 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec)Gosh, so why then Δ couldn't you have done that in the first place? Is it just far easier to just remove the image [30] without any sort of notification to the uploader, or perhaps bite a newbie editor such as Webwat, as some others have done with templates on his talk page? (It would be nice if people would be nicer to new editors such as Webwat.)

    While most manufacturers are not going to be willing to license product photos under a free license (legal worries, concerns of competitors using their photos, concerns that people may think their designs are free, ...), you are certainly welcome to try. Here is a link to the section of their site for these style of connectors and there is a customer service link at the bottom of this page. Maybe you can obtain a photos of these custom connectors.

    As I explained to you previously Δ, you aren't going to find anyone "out in the field" with these connectors, period. The only people who might have them are either the original manufacturer (although they would likely be more than happy to manufacture and sell you a large order), or previously, one of the demonstration sites (which likely no longer exist given how long ago this was). As far as I'm aware, despite the standards, no one is using these connectors in production devices. See these links for more information: [31] [32] [33] [34] (this pdf file being the source of the photo in question) Note that these documents have been cited elsewhere, too. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • (ec)...and on that note, a much better version of the original photo can be found on LBL's site here which is linked from the FAQ here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To be blunt, it's not Delta's responsibility to do that. I have to say I'm quite impressed that he's going above and beyond the call, to model the way for future newbies (and old-bies, like me) on how to go about getting, or trying to get, a free image. Perhaps that kind of info could be included in the simplified instructions that 28bytes is developing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • True, and to be fair I wrote the above reply before Δ replied a second time here. I also just now noticed the note Webwat added to File talk:Powerpole.JPG. Others might find it worth reading. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. It indicates a willingness to work with us, and that's good. It also occurs to me that a willingness to work with Delta, instead of beating up on him all the time as some users do (and which I used to do also), would be more productive for all concerned. Let's hope all this discussion results in a good step forward for all of us. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • He also asked about the ".jpg" vs. ".JPG" stuff, which is one of the technical oddities about this site. The file could be renamed, although perhaps it would be better to see what result Delta gets from his e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If we do keep the file and rename it, it would be best replaced with this version anyway since it is higher quality and does not have the artifacts introduced from being included in a PDF and then extracted.

    Given the image was created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and is funded by the United States Department of Energy, I've been wondering about the copyright status of the image too. LBL publishes a copyright statement here, but it directs inquiries to the page owner.

    Because these are custom connectors, I'm still not sure that APP is going to be able to help us, but LBL might. This page has some contact information and this page gives a contact email for high resolution video. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Crossmr (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly posting to several different venues and talkpages trying to sanction Delta and attacking anyone who tries to close down the threads above, including: Fastily's talkpage, mine, FPS's, 28bytes's and Sven Manguard]'s, as well as the Edit-Warring noticeboard. Despite having two final warnings about his continuous hounding of Delta, from two administrators, he continues to post about Delta, rather than working on some useful articles. How many more warnings does he need before he stops? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta has taken steps to improve the fair-use message he was leaving. To me that shows a willingness to work with us. Crossmr needs to back off a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I 'backed off' a day and a half ago now. The last two discussions that were petering out had nothing to do with Delta at all really.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's see here:
  • Regarding your page, I was not the only one who thought it was a mistake for you to close it. Baseball bugs also said that he was going to open it again if I hadn't of
  • Regard fastily's page comment, I was seeking clarification on his why he made the decision he made, and I was not the only one. A group of admins later blocked Delta over that edit war, but then it was overturned because they didn't know there had been a declined 3RR on it.
  • Both Future Perfect's and Sven's talk pages are replies to comments on my talk page. I am allowed to reply to people who write on my talk page right? Both of these discussions are not even really about Delta, they are more about the discussion and their edits and my edits.
  • Future perfect's warning is nothing more than baseless personal attacks. Which he was asked to support with diffs and refused, and for which there is no basis to support his claim that I was either forum shopping, nor persistently badgering admins about how hard they sanctioned Delta [35]
  • As for the 3RR noticeboard, I posted my interpretation of policy and the situation surrounding it, one someone else had already basically stated. I didn't even address delta by name or ask for a specific action against delta. I was actually speaking to Mickmacknee's edits more than I was speaking to Delta's. I still don't see where I'm prohibited on commenting on an open thread.
  • and Beestra's warning? Well His warning is based on nothing more than his view that two people can't have a conversation about someone on a talk page without notifying them, otherwise it's uncivil. I asked him to cite the relevant policy that stated that, and I still haven't seen it.
  • and 28byte's and I's disagreement was based on a misunderstanding between us. One we've already drawn to a conclusion, he thought I'd ignored him, I thought his close sounded spiteful. If you note above he came back to the thread and we had no problem continuing our dialog.
  • Just for clarification where was it that you notified me about this? You know, as required by the page header above, since I'd already stated above that I was done with this discussion, and in fact stated that in a couple places (since you went to all of them and checked). it was only by chance that I caught this. just so we're clear here:
  • You disrupted a discussion by closing it, that another user agreed was inappropriate
  • You started a thread a day and a half after I clearly stated I was done and made no further comments about Delta here asking "when I'm going to stop"
  • You failed to notify me of this thread as required by the noticeboard
I guess I could turn around and ask you the same. Oh an my continuing to post [36] has nothing to do with Delta, and it's about Future perfect's unsubstantiated allegations. I recommended on your talk page that you should read things more thoroughly, I'll repeat it here. No where in that post was I complaining about delta, I was going over my edits to clarify them with FP.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Just so there is no further confusion, I consider this conversation about Delta done. I considered it done a day and a half ago (other meta conversations aside that weren't directly about Delta). While some others also have yet again taken issue with the way delta edits, it's clear once again we'll have no consensus. Hopefully Delta will improve his process and we won't ever have to have this conversation again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Crossmr, you reported ∆ to Rd232 for typing an all-caps edit summary - unlike typing 'fucking twat', typing in all caps can be a good faith mistake (forgetting to turn it off) - I agree, it was unlikely here, it turned out that it was not a case of forgetting to turn it off, etc. But still, there was a good faith explanation possible, which you simply ignored). You did not ask ∆, you just went to Rd232 and reported him for incivility (and also there you did not show that you considered it could have been just a plain mistake). To me, that show a lack of assuming good faith on ∆. Then you do go immediately to an admin, you do not notify ∆, you do not talk to ∆ about it. That is, just by common sense, uncivil. We do not have policies and guidelines for it, but if editors come complaining to me about another editor without talking with that editor first about the situation, I do say "did you ask the editor", "did you try to talk to the editor" - similarly, if someone reports an editor to AIV, and the editor did not get any warnings before, then the vandalism should be pretty grave otherwise it will simply be ignored (I hope).
We expect ∆ to be civil, ∆ has been very civil for thousands of edits, except for some (one?) case(s) where he was treated with continued incivility, rudeness etc. He was blocked for that, and ∆ did not complain, no-one complained that that was a improper block. Yet, ∆ is confronted on a daily basis with unnecessary incivility (like this remark about ∆, by you, to Rd232, what was the problem to first ask/remark to ∆ first, or to notify him, even if you were (or turned out to be) right, Crossmr? - especially since this was not a clear cut form of incivility, people do forget caps-lock sometimes ..). If we expect ∆ to be civil, then I also expect editors to be civil against ∆ - if ∆ is uncivil, well, he is under civility parole, he will run into an immediate block then. But I will, increasingly, be warning editors who are uncivil against ∆, I will ask them to take care, to try and assume good faith. And just as single cases of incivility by ∆ will result in immediate blocks of ∆, I will block (and have blocked) editors who are repeatedly incivil against ∆ (of course, after significant warning). You did not, by policy or guideline, have to notify ∆ that you were talking about him somewhere else, but that does not make such behaviour civil. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S., you've got my name spelled wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, to be clear, I made that comment based both on the fact that it was all caps, and the fact that he made that edit summary before he'd communicated to the user that he didn't want to receive talk back messages. I'll also point out that nowhere in the message did I ask for any specific action against Delta, nor at any time did I recommend he be blocked or banned during the discussion. As I've already said, Rd232 was seemingly handling all things Delta at that time, and I commented on it to make him aware of it. only after I discovered what I felt to be a further example of uncivil behaviour directed at the same user did I suggest a warning a most. If I wanted to make a formal complaint about him, I would have brought it to AN/I (which would have no doubt been drama inducing) and notified him as I did here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So that basically confirms that you ignored the fact that it could have been a good faith case of forgetting to turn off the caps lock .. ánd you think that talking about editors around their back is a form of civil interaction between editors, Crossmr. I am disappointed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Who was talking behind his back? As Delta stated, he has the talk page watchlisted. He was the first person to respond to the comment a very short time after I posted it. He'd posted to the page a mere hour and a half before I had and responded only 22 minutes after I did. The discussion was no mystery to him. For all the time you've spent insisting that you think I was somehow assuming bad faith for commenting on a sanctioned user without first talking to him, you might want to remember that in assuming good faith yourself you have to remember that I felt I was making edits that were for the best of the project, and as the policy states ..there is no corresponding policy requiring editors to act in good faith. Thus accusations of bad faith serve no purpose., and yet I've almost lost count of how many times you've said it. You are right though that this entire situation is rather disappointing. You might have a case to make if I'd made this comment in secret somewhere insisting repeatedly that he be blocked immediately, but that is not the case.--Crossmr (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that is a weak excuse, Crossmr. ∆ has the page watchlisted, so it is fine? No, it does not work like that. And it is actually ashaming that they were answering before being notified (I got such a remark because I was writing out a long remark after blocking someone - I did not notify the editor of the why of the block!). And so when it is not written down in policy or guideline, one can do whatever one wants? Crossmr, there is a lot not in guidelines and policies on Wikipedia but still it is not done. And note, I did not accuse you of bad faith, Crossmr - I just noticed your lack of assuming good faith (I mentioned '.. you would have been right to assume bad faith' - I did not say that you assumed bad faith).
But well, if I understand you well, you were just chit-chatting with Rd232 about an all-caps edit summary by ∆ for the best of the project. I am not sure how this exactly helps the project, I don't see how it in any form would improve an article, but maybe you can enlighten me on that (same goes for these endless discussions about all the massive, unrepairable damage that Delta is doing - editors could use their time better - e.g.:). Anyway, I think that it is better for the project if editors (you, perhaps?) started to help out ∆ with removing images which do not have a fair-use rationale, to talk to editors who blindly revert ∆ while his edit is right (or help them solve the perceived problem), to talk to editors who blatantly yell at ∆, throwing insults or incivility at him (or at others, for that matter, I get the same type of insults). Or maybe the very best - actually start writing all the missing rationales and make sure that all non-free images are following our WP:NFCC policy - if that all is solved, then you have solved the problem with ∆ - his work in NFCC would be redundant, he would not need to make all the edits he is making, he would not need to yell at editors that throw insults at him (not that ∆ should yell at them, but that also goes for the people yelling at ∆). Or if those editors don't feel like helping out ∆, there are other policies and guidelines which need enforcing (there is enough: remove some unreferenced material, superfluous external links, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't see how it would help the project? Now where is your good faith? Were you not here years ago when this started? Your account seems old enough. Do you not remember all the AN/I threads started on Betacommand about his civility and interactions with users? The reason why he's on civility patrol now? There is far more to helping the project than just improving articles. As I pointed out above, I don't want to see anymore users leave the project because of an interaction with Delta, and after finding the second comment, as I'd mentioned in that discussion, it was starting to look all too familiar. Yes, initially it was just a chit-chat. As I'd stated, rd232 had closed and started all the major discussions on Delta when I made that, so he seemed to be the go-to admin. It certainly wasn't a block request, I was leaving whatever action he felt was necessary or unnecessary up to him, but given that Delta is under sanctions for that kind of behaviour and that it was a major source of drama/problems in the past, I thought he should be aware of it. As for your suggestion, I already stated above, you're treating symptoms, not the problem. There is absolutely no need for him to yell at anyone, regardless of what they do and if you honestly think there is, I'd say our discussion is done.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Funny though, my impression (and probably a few more people as indicated here and this sub-section) felt that your recent activities revolve around using every opportunity related to NFC to lynch at Delta and try to get him blocked/banned/sanctioned/reprimanded. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Crossmr - I know that he is on civility parole and why. But my point is, that that is not a free ride to be uncivil to him. He has been civil for 25k edits with one exception. Yet, I can give you a string of diffs by editors who are uncivil to him (or to other editors who are doing exactly the same work as ∆). The diff about which you were chit-chatting with Rd232 would be a minor case of incivility (and it might even have been a case of 'forgetting to turn of the caps-lock' at the moment you started your chat), and I agree, ∆ should not have yelled. But you insist to keep him on a very, very short leash (and maybe you are right), but I am also keeping others who are uncivil on a leash now - ∆ is not allowed to snap at anyone, however uncivil they are against him, however I am allowed to snap at editors who are uncivil against me, or at ∆. It would have cost you nothing to show some basic respect and notify ∆, it would not have cost you anything to talk to ∆ - whether you are right or not, that does not matter.
And I do agree, there is no need for him to yell at anyone, but there is no need for anyone to yell at anyone, there is no need for anyone to be uncivil to anyone.
It looks all too familiar, indeed Crossmr. People are still excessively yelling at ∆, people are still treating him in an uncivil way, people are still not showing respect. And if people are leaving, it is because they feel the need to be excessively rude, uncivil towards Delta. You do not want to see anyone leave because of an interaction with Delta, I do not want to see anyone leave because of an interaction with someone else. I do not expect ∆ to snap (note that I may be even the person who blocks ∆ on such an occasion), but I also do not expect others to treat ∆ in that way.
Regarding "you're treating symptoms, not the problem.": diff - so I am a problem as well? No, Crossmr, I am treating the problem. ∆ is not the problem, Crossmr, the editors treating ∆ (or whoever) uncivil are. A bit of respect and a normal conversation goes a long way, also with ∆. Give it a try.
So no, I do not see how reporting that edit summary to Rd232 is helping the project, Crossmr. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Some eyes and advice needed please[edit]

I am not sure if there is another notice board to post this on so please move it if necessary. In fixing this nonsense edit [37] I came across these two editors Mskusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Synjruler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Both were created this month and the bulk of their edits are to each others user/talk pages. Other edits seem to be dubious at best or to be "taking the piss" out of Wikipedia. I apologize for dumping this on your doorstep but I am about to log off for the night and I think this might need some sort of action. I will be leaving the message informing both editors about this as soon as I am done here. As I say please feel free to move this to a more appropriate message board if needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I am not sure how they will see the ANI notce as their talk pages (as well as there userpages) contain a large batch of nonsense on them MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Recommend checkuser to see how many other accounts are being abused. Look like vandal socks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 Inconclusive – There is a match, but that is coming from a school, which leads me to believe that these are two separate people who are editing in tandem. –MuZemike 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I chose one article-space contrib at random, and it seemed to be entirely constructive in intent (adding two references to a poorly referenced article?), so unless there is a significant amount of actual vandalism going on, I'd suggest ignoring whatever strange behaviour they have towards each others' talkpages, in as much as it's not disruptive to the encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(non-admin opinion) If it hasn't already been done, a reminder of WP:NOTMYSPACE? umrguy42 13:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review[edit]

I noticed Giardiasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making a legal threat here and blocked them. Now they have requested review in an email which includes the words: I request that a different administrator takes a look and removes the defamation I've suffered on this Wiki page that you block me from in my attempt to defend the false defamation that you choose NOT to block, thereby aiding and abetting reckless defamation which means I can apply to the police to get your contact details to prosecute you in a civil court. I'd be grateful for any further opinions. --John (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion: Good block. As blatant a legal threat as I've seen. If he's got issues with article content, he can follow the rules to improve the content. One caveat: Is there any possibility that the article (whichever one it is) contains incorrect (i.e. potentially libelous) info about a living person? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The edits in the dif link above is signed one "Jane Francis". The editor seems to be referring to the article Milperra massacre, where someone (possibly the same Jane Francis) seems to have persistently trying to add something that looks like soapboxing, also here using another account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. Obvously a personal agenda of some kind, abusing wikipedia in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The original entry was here, nearly 2 years ago:[38]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This looks to be the background. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • pretty bright line, and you left info on "unblock" .. so good block. — Ched :  ?  09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Very good block, and how interesting that it's basically their only contribution. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Celeste6566 (talk · contribs)

This user appears to need administrative assistance. I'm not entirely sure what she is trying to say, but please see the following posts made by this user:

  • A request for an unblock when there was no block: [39]. This was followed by an administrator replying that she was never blocked to begin with: [40]
  • A complaint again about being "blocked from uploading": [41]
  • A fake unblock message indicating that she is unblocked from uploading: [42]. This was followed by my question to her about why she would post her own unblock message when she was never blocked to begin with: [43]
  • An accusation that I blocked her (I didn't and I'm not an admin) (A second reading indicates I misinterpreted what she was saying.), and a request for help: [44]

Not sure what's going on here, but can an admin look into it and maybe tell her what (if anything) is going on? Singularity42 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The user created a number of articles that were deleted and trying uploading a number of images that were deleted as well? Perhaps they thought they were blocked after so many attempts? Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the user has been blocked from Wikimedia Commons for "Uploading unfree files after warnings". See user's block log and user talk page at Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that didn't work out well. My attempt to get her some help resulted in her lack of understanding what was told to her and vandalizing my talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I would consider that last edit "vandalism", but rather a misguided attempt by a newcomer who may not know better. However, that is not to say that there still is a rather evident lack of understanding here, as clearly evidenced by the block on Commons. –MuZemike 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
n user writing a fake message to incorrectly inform someone that a page the user has nothing to do with is nominated for speedy deleted isn't minor vandalism? In the context of what was going on, I would think it could fairly be considered that, and a Level 1 or 2 caution is appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism is a purposeful attempt to damage wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why all the user's edits are being marked as minor, or is this some means of attempting to evade responsibility for disruption? –MuZemike 05:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a somewhat more detailed comment on his/her tal page. Having a delve into ther contribs, it looks like the vast number of minor edits are due to lots of little edits for tags and such. The user doesn't seem to use the preview button at all before saving the page. --Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal of Twinkle[edit]

Resolved: No. —DoRD (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

can you remove wizard191 ability to use twinkle? he uses it for edit warring and has been warned repeatedly. --Tck350 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the user. What conflict are you involved in with him?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any specific examples to provide? Searching through 40,000 edits to find the problem doesn't seem like fun. --OnoremDil 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like he's talking about this.

Interstingly enoguh, he never notified User:wizard191. Looks like he never even posted except for two other pages, one for this issue and the then the Village pump. Anyone hear quacking ? KoshVorlon     20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very loud quacking. In any case, the recent update to Twinkle did away with the ability to blacklist users. —DoRD (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as each other:

 IP blocked Also, due to abuse of talk page in the past, talk page has been revoked from all sock accounts. –MuZemike 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was one big honkin' WP:Boomerang. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No kidding. He almost hit the Flying Doctor! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has been bugging the RD for a long time (their questions weren't terrible but sometimes a bit juvenile or easy to answer and they would often ignore answers given) under many different identities more then listed here. At first they weren't usually banned just abandoned an identity after it started to wear out its welcome (they usually blank their talk page so some people may not have noticed they'd been warned before even ignoring the many identities). I think they were also causing a few problems outside the RD (removing content they didn't appear to agree with regardless of sources sometimes even saying unsourced in the edit summary despite sources while sometimes adding stuff without sources themselves). Ironically this is the first time I've ever seen them sign their post. Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, User:Wran has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his/her position on what details about the alleged assaul victim should be given in the article, culminating in a statement that I am "clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion". [45] A previous attempt to reason with Wren on his/her talk page resulted in contributors being described as "fascists". [46] It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at minumum a topic ban for Wren is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must include everything that is sourced or stand accused of 'tyranny' and 'censorship'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My review of User:Wran's talkpage is that they have been given policy based reasons why a persons name may not be included in another subjects article, and that they have not accepted those rationale's. My understanding is that one person citing policy correctly has the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when multiples are in agreement as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation - not that I am seeing anything resembling negotiation. I am going to issue the editor with a final warning to not add the name to the article, and not to make personal attacks on other contributors (I deem liar to be more of an attack on the integrity of a contributor than even "fascist"). Any repeat of this behaviour, and they get blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not call anyone a "liar"; rather I said that a particular demonstrable lie was "lying": when someome accuses an editor of violating consensus when it's a simple matter of fact that the consensus is in the accused's favour, that is clearly a lie.

Your second sentence is absurd as a person can't have the consensus of those opposing him and your use of the term multiples is not intelligible English. Presumably you meant something like: "one person citing policy correctly overrides the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when there is a consensus as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation." This however is absurd as the second clause contradicts the first. However either option would justify my actions as both others and myself cited policy correctly and pointed out clearly how those who disagreed with us were misapplying it; and ther is a clear consensus in my favour. Your remarks here and on my user page make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of the term "consensus': I suggest you read the wiki article "Consensus decision-making". Nor have I expressed personal individual insults to anyone, whereas my accuser has: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". Wran (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • From the look of it, Andy isn't the only person reverting your changes, but you are the only one putting them back. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
And here's another one: [47] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User: AndyTheGrump[edit]

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case User: AndyTheGrump has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his position on what details about the alleged assault victim should be given in the article. Previous attempts to reason with AndyTheGrump by various editors have not received any responses aside from false statements, mis-characterizations of wiki policies, and personal insults such as the following: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at the absolute minumum a topic ban for AndyTheGrump is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must delete everything he disagrees with no matter how well it is sourced. Wran (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't all of this be in the existing thread that Andy started about your conduct? [48] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I add that maybe Wran should read WP:PLAGIARISM too... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
And WP:Point and